Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • It was very clear from my reading, that the author of 303 understood, that Wong's opinion being based on a Rossisays, makes 3 and 4 opinion borderline excludable. He concludes though by playing it safe, and deciding that a jury is best suited to judge whether Rossi is being truthful.


    Excellent analysis.


    But just for clarification I'm pretty sure 'he' (the author of 303) is 'she', as in Judge Altonaga, or if it's not written by her, then it's 'he or she'.

    • Official Post

    But just for clarification I'm pretty sure 'he' (the author of 303) is 'she', as in Judge Altonaga, or if it's not written by her, then it's 'he or she'.


    Understand Sig. I went by the assumption that judges are too busy to research and write up these complex decisions? Could be wrong, but I thought they had clerks, interns, law students etc who do the heavy lifting, and they review, and sign off on.


    Anyways; whomever -whatever sex they may be, that wrote 303...good job!

  • Thanks for following along. If the tube emitted more energy in a narrow band within or near that range compared to an ideal black body, wouldn't it appear hotter to the IR camera than it actually is? I think this apparent excess heat would disappear or at the very least not be as visible in a calorimeter or with thermocouples. Is this reasoning correct?


    Yes, so any estimate of power dissipated based on such a reading of temperature would be too high.


    Like what Rossi did with the quarkX measurements.


    You can see though from Ahlfors plot that typically over one decade in spectral frequency the ups and downs average out: you get these monospectral effects in strongly fluorescent or laser systems where electrons are being pumped somehow.

  • ....hard to find 6 jurors who could believe him on this.

    Well....

    1) IHFB

    2) We_Cat_Global

    3) Ele

    4) Scc

    5) Ahlfors

    6) Wyttenbach

    7) Rinonrlty


    and about 20-30 on ECW!


    Not only believe him on this, but the QuarkX and it's many wonders, the existence of any customer he states, robotic factories, certifications, purchased platinum sponge, industrial production, the existence of any consultant he states and that he will soon give an "independint confirmation test"!


    The above will also easily return the verdict that IH is evil, Darden a liar, Murray incompetent, the heat exchanger DID exist, the pipe was DN150 (wait... perhaps DN200 now), Bass was a qualified chief engineer, the Doral event WAS the GPT, that the eCat works exactly as Rossi states and that "big oil", the "powers that be" and greedy capitalist are all conspiring to cheat poor, frail, honest, saintly Mr. Rossi from his Nobel worthy IP!


    Rossi says = Absolute truth (in the end anyways. He is totally justified in stretching things a little now and then due to evil IH and their scheming ways!)


    =O


  • They're just waiting for the rest of us to have our 'come to Rossi' moment.

    ;)

  • Yes, so any estimate of power dissipated based on such a reading of temperature would be too high.


    Like what Rossi did with the quarkX measurements.


    You can see though from Ahlfors plot that typically over one decade in spectral frequency the ups and downs average out: you get these monospectral effects in strongly fluorescent or laser systems where electrons are being pumped somehow.


    I general I think there has to be some sort of continuity between the Lugano-type, opaque ceramic hot tube reactors and the QuarkX. Maybe they're not completely different in both the way they're made to operate and how measurements are performed.


    Now, whether standard alumina tubes can actually be made transparent to IR enough to affect infrared camera measurements, I have no idea...


    "Gas discharge lamp" based on embrittled soft ferrites embedded in variable B fields and "measured" in Lugano with IR cameras, near or below Curie point - the "mouse".


    Wouldn't this imply temperatures around 600°C or so?

  • Rossi will provide as evidence, his patent applications for "Invisible Megawatt Heat Exchanger", and "Quick-Change Glazing System for Commercial Construction".

  • Will there be an appeal of the upcoming verdict undertaken by the loser of the Rossi/ih case?

    I am unclear on that. If there is a summary that releases IH as the defendant, I am not sure if Rossi can appeal. There is a double jeopardy thing but I am not sure it extends to this kind of contract case.

    I am fairly sure that IH would appeal if it went against them but not sure about a appeal that puts a defendant in jeopardy a second time. But this is conjecture and out of my field of experience.

  • Will there be an appeal of the upcoming verdict undertaken by the loser of the Rossi/ih case?



    From: http://www.uscourts.gov/about-…ourts/types-cases/appeals


    Quote

    The losing party in a decision by a trial court in the federal courts normally is entitled to appeal the decision to a federal court of appeals.


    If it is a civil case, either side may appeal the verdict.


    Given the amount of money and the contentious issues, it's virtually guaranteed that the decision will be appealed by the losing party.


    But that won't happen until the jury hears the case and reaches a verdict in the current Court.

  • Andrea Rossi
    May 17, 2017 at 4:34 PM

    Mindy:


    My working time now is 50% dedicated to the litigation, 50% to the QuarkX, but luckily the trial will end by the end of July, so, at this point, we are in the home stretch.


    Thank you for your kind words,


    Warm Regards,


    A.R.


    ===================================

    With the certainty of an unending appeal that will be undertaken by either party in the Rossi/IH trial, Rossi has not yet understood that this legal process in protecting his IP rights is an unending legal job that will probably extend beyond his life expectancy. He needs to setup a corporate structure that can support continuing litigation in perpetuity through the long term and can persist and be sustained beyond his lifetime.


    Rossi can only fight one foe at a time in court. While IH anf Rossi are engaged in battle, other parties can infringe on Rossi's IP rights with little chance of legal entanglements. While Rossi and IH are contesting in court, they both become non factors in the LENR marketplace.

  • I am not sure how much IP Rossi actually has outside of a hot water heater. There is a lot of prior art and public information. One year after the info is public it become virtually impossible to produce a lasting patent. Also, if he wins, then IH will still hold the rights to any improvements on the Ni - H devices if they pay the costs. Sure looks like the first agreement would hold even if the second is in question.

    Perhaps, his new device does not use Ni at elevated temps.

  • I must say that if Judge Altonaga authored Doc 303, it shows that there are no flies on that lady, and that she has a firm grasp of the essentials of the case. In particular, she will have no truck with any argument that it matters not if the ecats don't work and that it's all about the letter of the agreements. If the ecats don't work, IH owe Rossi nothing.


    And wouldn't I just love for her to order Rossi to produce a working ecat to avoid criminal prosecution. (Yes, I know it won't happen, but a man can dream...)

  • Depending on how it goes, Rossi may not have enough money to appeal?


    Appeals are cheap ... no more depositions, evidence, experts .... and usually just on legal issues. (Maybe spoilation ... if either party appeals the rulings just made/coming up May 23 .. then the whole trial could get postponed). (I think ... not a lawyer, have followed other civil cases where that happened).

    Edit: any payments awarded are suspended pending appeal.