The big Frankies (isn't that a typicall Italian name..?) were designed and manufactured by a third party certainly not Rossi.
May be you should tell us, why this third party is not willing to do a new test!
[...]
The reactor bodies are useless without the fuel and the control box and the "special Rossi know how".
And "Frankie" isn't Italien, it is Italo-American for Francesco, IMHO 
Ha, I guess that's why we have one group of people saying white, while the other is saying black. Rossi has working LENR machines vs. Rossi is a hypnotist conman having had nothing for 10+ years. "Reasonable interpretations of the information on the docket" ? lol
As to the Doral customer, we've known for a while that Rossi's lawyer was the legal representant of the facade company. That changes nothing about whether or not Rossi's machines work.
And concerning the 1MW-cooking-alive-people-in-the-warehouse FUD, nobody ever pretended it wasn't ventilated out or endotherm'd in. Guess what, court docs provide no hard facts about whether 1MW was produced, and how it was dissipated, if it was produced.
Finally, once again, court docs provide no facts supporting the character assassination and FUD that's been liberally spread for 200+ pages. Neither do they provide hard facts supporting Rossi's machines delivering what he says they deliver.
Remember the case is not about the reality of LENR or of Rossi's claimed excess. It is about if the contracts were followed. The customer is important since Rossi initially claimed that the Doral work was for a 2 year contract to supply a real customer with heat and it was not initially called or agreed to be the GPT.
I view all the talk about the warehouse heat,endothermic events, pipes, meters, utility bills,...just a fall back legal position and for information needed for the counter suit. Since the defendant is assumed innocent until proven otherwise, Rossi will have to "run the table" - not likely. Rossi and/or IH may try to appeal or make other assaults but the bottom line is that Darden has deeper pockets than Rossi.
IHFB urged me to judge the report not by what it says, and not by any technical criteria. I should reject it because he thinks I.H. manipulated me. This makes no sense, because Rossi was the one who uploaded the report. How can I.H. manipulate me by having Rossi upload a report? How could they compel him to do this?
Have never urged such a thing, quite to the contrary. And I've never stated that IH manipulated you, although it is interesting that you drew that conclusion (and maybe there is something to it).
Did you understand what I wrote:
Maybe not, but I enjoyed jumping on my high horse for a few minutes.
For example, I disagree with IHFB on many things, but some of the evidence from the docket that he found about IH (that I missed) has changed my mind in some ways about IH's perspective about Dott. Rossi in the January 2015 timeframe.
BUT DON'T TELL HIM THAT I LEARNED SOMETHING FROM HIM, OR HE'LL BE (EVEN MORE) INSUFFERABLE.
Hi sig. 
That would be the January 2014 timeframe, remember? Darden's story from his depo suggested that he knew it was all a big scam as early as January 2014.
QuoteAs another example, I learned fairly recently that Dott. Rossi leased the entire warehouse at the Doral address and subleased a portion of it to JMP, and I have seen the sublease agreement describing that.
That is interesting information. Are you a semi-insider as well? Here I thought this whole time you were one of us lowly "outsiders."
In other words, I.H. is evil, therefore 0.0 bar is a-okay!
Even Murray has testified that water would be a gas whether it was 0 bar gauge, relative, or absolute.
215-3, pp 171-172
9· · · · Q.· · Can you have liquid water that is 101 degrees
10· ·Celsius at zero pressure?
11· · · · A.· · If zero pressure, give -- which pressure?
12· · · · Q.· · Relative.
13· · · · A.· · Relative.· No, you wouldn't normally have
14· ·that, but --
15· · · · Q.· · What about gauge?
16· · · · A.· · That's the same.· Relative is --
17· · · · Q.· · Okay.
18· · · · A.· · Absolute?
19· · · · Q.· · What about absolute?· Sorry.
20· · · · A.· · Oh, you could -- you would not have at a, at
21· ·a pressure of zero absolute, your water would absolutely
22· ·be a gas.
...
·9· · · · Q.· · Sir, I'm, I'm asking you, if you have zero
10· ·relative pressure or zero absolute pressure, whether
11· ·water can exist in its liquid form at 101 degrees C.
12· · · · A.· · No.
I'm surprised you would take issue with Murray. Murray does not doubt the temp measurements. The only question is the pressure, and there were multiple gauges for that. The only remaining dispute then should be whether the gauges operated correctly at the measured temperatures.
I do not cast IH in good/evil terms. In my view, they acted rationally up until the end, when the APCO inspired stories such as the "at all times" narrative began to form, and Darden/Vaughn went all out to stick to that narrative. I think they will ultimately regret it.
That is interesting information. Are you a semi-insider as well? Here I thought this whole time you were one of us lowly "outsiders."
IHFB,
It came out in the deposition that JMP rented, or sub-leased, that small area from Leonardo, but that does not preclude Sig being an insider. Right after that revelation, there was an interesting exchange between Rossi and Pace (IH's/JD lawyer) that went something like this:
IH: Dottore Rossi, are you the owner of JMP.
AR: No
IH: Well, you are the director of JMP...right?
AR: Yes
IH: Why are you the director?
AR: Well, JMP thought that I would be good for that role.
IH: So do you also pay JMP's bills?
AR: No
IH: Well, who does?
AR: Leonardo does, because they have an agreement with JMP to pay their bills.
IH: Do you own Leonardo?
AR: No, Florida Energy Trust owns Leonardo.
IH: Who is the beneficiary of FET?
AR: Well, I have to look into it, but I think I am the sole beneficiary.
@Shane,
Yeah, I agree that JMP/Rossi are for most purposes (although not technically) one and the same.
What is interesting to me is sig mentioned a lease agreement, and that he had seen it. That is new information, at least to me. And how did he gain access to it? Inquiring minds want to know, and all that.
Display MoreHi sig.
That would be the January 2014 timeframe, remember? Darden's story from his depo suggested that he knew it was all a big scam as early as January 2014.
That is interesting information. Are you a semi-insider as well? Here I thought this whole time you were one of us lowly "outsiders."
No, I'm not an insider, just a 'co-lowly outsider'. It's on the docket (236-33 pp72-73), including a copy of the actual sublease (236-37). And if it were anyone but you, IHFB, I'd make 'em look it up themselves
And this was the point I was making to Roger about bunches of evidence and facts available on the docket that can be referenced to quell some disagreements.
My interpretation of these facts (a sublease negotiated between Dott. Rossi and Dott. Rossi) is that Dott. Rossi went to extreme measures to intentionally deceive IH when he implied that JMP was an independent company but in fact it was Dott. Rossi's own creation. I think that the evidence strongly supports this conclusion, though this was not determined using the scientific method.
236-33 pp72-73
Dr. Rossi, you have in front of you what's been marked as Exhibit 3. This is a subleasing agreement between Leonardo Corporation and J.M. Products, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Who negotiated this on behalf of Leonardo Corporation?
A. Me.
Q. And who negotiated it on behalf of J.M. Products?
A. Me.
Q. Okay. So essentially this is -- you handled both sides of this agreement, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And i2(A) refers to a base rent of $71,000 for the first year, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then after that the base rent would go up by three percent a year for the second and the third year, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And this base rent -- at least according to this agreement, the base rent was money that was going to be paid by J.M. Products to Leonardo Corporation, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Did J.M. Products ever make these lease payments to Leonardo Corporation?
A. Yes.
...
BTW, those must have been some intense lease negotiations. Think of the left and right handed sock-puppets going at each other with Italian expletives flying out of alternating sides of the Dottore's mouth!
I think we can now dispense for good the myth that Woodford's investment was not centrally focused on Rossi's technology.
"On March 4, 2016, Woodford Funds explained that “Rossi’s technology was a core element of the initial [$50 million] investment.” Ex. 4. In fact, according to Defendants’ balance sheet, as reported by their business valuator, Plaintiffs’ technology and/or IP accounted for approximately 95% of Defendants’ total “low energy nuclear reactor” investments. Ex. 5 at 21. Applying that percentage to Woodford Funds’ $50 million investment in Defendant’s IP Holding company, Woodford Funds’ investment attributable to the E-Cat IP is $47.5 million."
276, pp 8-9
Also, we finally get the honorable magistrate's reasoning for denying the spoliation request/allegations. 276-1
Goodness. I spent a little time reading the new documents. This judge may not be the idiot he comes across as in his ruling against spoliation, but I could not tell by what I read in his legal decision thought process. Hopefully his case load, and technical difficulty of this particular one, is so burdensome, that he can not think straight? If not...
LENR+ investment will be very unattractive for some time to come, as potential investors decide to opt out due the high legal risk. Hopefully me356 takes notice, as his chances of recouping his "millions", just about disappeared today. Best keep this stuff Open Source and humanitarian IMO, and forget the riches.
It sounds like even if there are no sanctions for spoliation (e.g., an appeal to Judge Altonaga fails), there is no barring later expert testimony to the effect that (1) the equipment that Rossi dismantled and repurposed was essential to establishing plaintiffs' technical claims in the suit and that (2) it was reasonable to conclude that Rossi will have known that this was the case before having taken things down. (No idea whether such an argument would fly, though.)
It sounds like even if there are no sanctions for spoliation (e.g., an appeal to Judge Altonaga fails), there is no barring later expert testimony to the effect that (1) the equipment that Dott. Rossi dismantled and repurposed was essential to establishing plaintiffs' technical claims in the suit and that
Eric,
Yes, of course the judge leaves open the door for later testimony that may prove spoliation was detrimental to IH's ability to fully defend itself. I am no engineer, yet even I knew the moment I saw Rossi's admitting to dismantling the piping and heat exchanger, that this should go no further. Alas, this judge seems to be over his head and missed the engineering significance of Rossi's purposeful sabotaging of the 1MW plants plumbing, and upstairs heat exchanger system.
Oh well, like many of us have said for the past year, the court system is a crap shoot. Rossi knew that going into this agreement with IH from the beginning, and planned accordingly. As disgusting as it is to accept, he may walk away with a settlement.
@Shane,
Repeat after me: let there be no settlement, let there be no settlement, let .... I have a nagging sense that we have yet to see some of the best evidence (beneficial to either/both sides), which will come out during the trial.
More documents added to the docket:
276-05 is an interesting breakdown of IH's corporate structure and holdings spanning 2012-2014, just prior to Woodford's investment. Page 21 of 54 is a breakdown of investments until that point, showing that by 2014, they had invested $332,000 in "New Heat" which is the company they set up to own their investments in Brillouin. So basically this shows that by the end of 2014, they had invested #332,000 in Brillouin. Now we know what stake they have (or had as of a few years ago) in Brillouin.
I wonder why Rossi has not sold any other Ecat/quark to other customers outside of IH territory?
Surely this would benefit his position in court/trial.
"Ladies & Gentlemen of the jury, see here, 10 other companies are using my equipment and it is working as specified, IH sabotages my equipment so they don't have to pay per the contract"
You wonder....? Probably there is NO other Ecat/quark except the remnants of the 1MW plant locked in the Doral facility (=Leonardos factory!)...
Docs. 278–281 and their many exhibits added to the docket (courtesy of Abd).
Again, Rossi has no IP, neither does IH, a worthless Italian patent, and an equally worthless US patent for a "water heater", no claims, data or otherwise for LENR, the rest are a hoard of published applications, none granted.
Blah Blah Blah.....
Yours are only empty prejudices, The granted US patent is valid and not worthless and should I remember you that is usual in Industry to keep the core technologies secret and to patent all the "surrounding" so to make not immediate for a competitor to replicate and block the applications ?
E.g. Windows is patented but lots of part of the code are not disclosed...... So are Ferrari Engines.
