Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    It appears to me that he transferred the knowledge. Dameron got a COP of 9. He was still running the IH-Rossi-built reactor as late as 2016--the same time Murray was ramping up his testing of his own modified e-Cat. Murray's modified e-Cat apparently didn't work, although he was given little time to build and test it. But the IH-Rossi-built one worked. IH admitted as much. And there are no contemporaneous emails or test reports that state otherwise.


    IHFB - you have no curiosity and would never make a scientist. You think a test (undoubtedly recommended by Rossi and Fabioni, probably set up by them) showing COP=9 means a reactor works? The evidence of Rossi's tests, even when checked by 6 high-powered academics, giving lagre false positives is legendary. You suddenly seem to have an exaggerated respect for IH competence in the one area they (real estate VCs) were particularly weak. You think Dameron was able to debug Rossi's false positives?


    Call IH, in retrospect, careless and over-trusting, sure. Calling Darden a forsworn liar on the assumption that IH were more technically adept than 6 Profs is stupid and unjust.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    He would have the entire LENR+ community in his corner evangelizing for him. And even if he never sold a single reactor in the open market, he would become very wealthy, from speaking engagements alone.

    I do not think Rossi needs prophets ...... Better if he finds partners or investors, but no one would join his business if he reveals his secrets to the MFMP. I'm sorry IHFanboy, I will never catch this idea!

    Quote from PIH

    forgive my ignorance, but wasn't 10 million smackeroos the reward for handing over

    HOW TO START IT ?

    PIH, you entered in a speech without understanding it. We were talking about the possibility of giving the E-Cat to a group of scientists or experts, such as MFMP, not to IH. IH people already had enough time to study the reactor and I'm sure they will not need a second more .....

    Quote from oldguy

    But notice that the Rossi followers never address the obvious question about IP transfer he was paid for.

    I have expressed my opinion on this issue many times. I think that IH has received the necessary information to replicate the E-Cat and has in fact had positive results. Then they preferred to transfer this information to other members of their portfolio, probably less demanding than Rossi regarding the final payment.

    Quote from oldguy

    We are getting off topic but.....it doesn't look like Ni is working (as per Me346, Rossi, ....) might be best to invest in Palladium. Try the ETF ticker PALL YTD up 21% . Seems to be going up ever since the Tex Tech/Gate rumors. ....

    Ni is much more a common metal then Palladium. All precious metal go up when there is difficult times in Economy so before making conclusions it would be nice to make a correlation plot of Palladium price vs Gold price in order to see if there is a correlation.

    Quote from SSC

    PIH, you entered in a speech without understanding it. We were talking about the possibility of giving the E-Cat to a group of scientists or experts, such as MFMP, not to IH. IH people already had enough time to study the reactor and I'm sure they will not need a second more .....

    This is a typical Rossc excuse. MFMP has demonstrated that they can be quite discrete without even revealing the identity of the inventor or any secrets. This type of excuse making has allowed AR's scams to run unabated for years. There are no excuses for not submitting to a proper test. If you don't, any potential investors would be wise to conclude it doesn't work.


    That should be the default assumption: it doesn't work until it can be demonstrated empirically that it does. The next assumption should be that any results showing excess heating are wrong and all efforts made to disprove any apparently positive results. A real phenomenon will persist despite any and all efforts to disprove it.

    Quote from SSC

    I have expressed my opinion on this issue many times. I think that IH has received the necessary information to replicate the E-Cat and has in fact had positive results. Then they preferred to transfer this information to other members of their portfolio, probably less demanding than Rossi regarding the final payment.

    There is no credible or repeatable empirical evidence of LENR occurring with nickel-hydrogen. You have no legs to stand on other than suspicion and conspiracy theory. The data support IH's claim that AR did not transfer the IP--almost certainly because there is no IP to transfer. It doesn't work. It never has, and there is not a shred of good empirical evidence showing otherwise.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    IHFB - you weren't there and you continue to not have the slightest clue what you are posting about. Nothing of Rossi's has worked in the IH era.

    I know this is hard for you to accept but the empty reactor had the same performance as the loaded reactor on a side-by-side basis.


    And yet IH pressed forward, later landing tens of millions of investment with Woodford, with Rossi's tech core to that investment? Bullocks.

    Quote from SSC

    I do not think Rossi needs prophets ...... Better if he finds partners or investors, but no one would join his business if he reveals his secrets to the MFMP. I'm sorry IHFanboy, I will never catch this idea!


    I said nothing of prophets. Have it your way and Rossi / Leonardo could very well languish for another 10 years. Be more open to the one group (LENR+ community) that could catapult Rossi to success, and get it to mass market in less than 5.

    Quote from Jack Cole

    There is no credible or repeatable empirical evidence of LENR occurring with nickel-hydrogen. You have no legs to stand on other than suspicion and conspiracy theory. The data support IH's claim that AR did not transfer the IP--almost certainly because there is no IP to transfer. It doesn't work. It never has, and there is not a shred of good empirical evidence showing otherwise.

    This seems to be a rather absurd and discouraging statement. What about the original (and later) work by Focardi and Piantelli? What about the more recent (last few years) claims by Piantelli? What about the work of Brillouin energy, which has been verified by SRI (Stanford Research Institute)? What about the recent work of Parkhomov (he will give a talk on this at the conference in Italy in a few days I believe)? What about the work of Tom Claytor (previous and recent) in which he detected tritium production? What about the recent work of Mizuno et al - here's a link: http://iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol13.pdf#page=432 (although these results may have been "corrected") and another more recent paper by Kitamura et al involving Ni-composites and hydrogen: http://iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol19.pdf#page=143


    You believe that all of this work, including the recent JCMNS reference above and the SRI/Brillouin work is not credible?


    It would be nice to know why you (and others) repeat these flat, but poorly justified statements. Are you the expert on all research in Ni-H? Is there any reason I should believe your subjective evaluation of these works, as opposed to those of other experts such as SRI?


    For the purposes of discussion, it would be nice if you could provide credible reasons for your statements and how they apply to the works I have cited above.

    Quote from ele

    WOW you must say that to all Investors that visited Doral with Darden and that had put their money in IH.

    And where is now all this money ? we are talking about 250M$ not just few bucks.

    It would be interesting to understand why IH has approved the first test done by them in Ferrara and payed 10M$ to Rossi.

    250M exists only in "Rossi says". Don't you realize by now that he just puts out things like that (along with heated factories in Italy, robotic assembly lines, endothermic events, .....) just to cloud the issues instead of telling the truth. Why do you constantly repeat such misinformation? And yes, I think that IH did tell investors that Doral just that: Rossi's stuff is not to be believed. It was IH's other research that they were interested in by that time.

    Quote from Jack Cole

    There is no credible or repeatable empirical evidence of LENR occurring with nickel-hydrogen.

    There is somewhat credible evidence, from Mills and Thermacore, Piantelli, and in recent years from Kitamura. However, these studies have not been independently repeated, so the second part of your sentence is correct.


    There are also many failed Ni-H studies. I think as of now we should put Parkhamov and me356 in that category. If they come up with better evidence we can move them to another category.


    Rossi's 1-year test is not a scientific claim. It was a crude attempt to defraud people. Anyone familiar with conventional instruments and boilers can see that the Penon report is fake, and that even the data and configuration in it were real, it would prove nothing. People who do not see that, such as IH Fanboy and SSC, have no idea what they are talking about. They do not understand grade-school level science, such as the fact that pressure changes the boiling point. You should ignore everything they say.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    The data support IH's claim that AR did not transfer the IP--almost certainly because there is no IP to transfer.

    Can you point us to the data, that underlays your claim?

    Oh come now. The data has been repeated here time after time, ad nauseam. The data includes, but is not limited to:


    1. A test with an empty cell produced as much apparent heat as a cell with powder! You can't ask for better proof than that. Rossi never denied this happened.


    2. The Penon report. This is a crude fake, as anyone with any knowledge can see. The numbers are obviously made up and impossible, but even if they were real by some miracle, they would prove nothing, because the instruments cannot distinguish steam from hot water.


    3. Additional ad hoc preposterous claims about small quantities of endthermic materials that absorb 1 MW of heat continuously for months, and invisible heat exchangers that could not begin to work even if they real and made according to Rossi's specifications.


    You do not believe this data. That's okay, but you should not keep demanding that people repeat it and repeat it, pretending you do not know about it already. You should just say "I believe whatever Rossi says." That closes the discussion.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    There is somewhat credible evidence, from Mills and Thermacore, Piantelli, and in recent years from Kitamura. However, these studies have not been independently repeated, so the second part of your sentence is correct.


    There are also many failed Ni-H studies. I think as of now we should put Parkhamov and me356 in that category. If they come up with better evidence we can move them to another category.


    I would maybe add Brillouin Energy Technologies and the Chinese researchers to the list of somewhat credible Ni-H researchers.

    In terms of Parkhomov and Me356 I'd have to agree, if they come up with better evidence we can move them to another category.

    There are as well three wild cards teams in Nickel Hydrogen that does not communicate openly I would add to (my) list of somewhat credible or interesting to follow, but they are not all reputable as those you listed.

    Wild card 1: A larger team that has operated a very long time without the knowledge of the LENR or beyond communities. Their claims are in the "to good to be true category" and they struggle with the credibility needed to raise larger funding.

    Wild card 2: An anonymous researcher LookingForHeat is collaborating with. They have just a little bit of data, so far, it's been extended to experts, some deemed it very interesting, others said with certainty it had no significant value at all. Alan Smith is receiving new data as we speak from a three day test-run that will be analysed by him in the days to follow, possible others.

    Wild card 3: Make yourselves some popcorn


    The IP transfer.


    It is quite simple. IH have in sworn depositions said that the reactors did not work, do not work, if they had worked things would be different, they told Rossi that they did not work, Rossi refused to help get them to work. They also point to early indications that reactors appeared to work, and equal indications that control reactors were working. From which they worked out there was something wrong with Fulvio's test setup they were initially using.


    Rossi in sworn deposition has not denied this. Nor has he any other evidence that he gave IH the knowhow to make working reactors. So it is Darden's sworn word vs ... Nothing.


    IH never claim IP was not transferred. They claim either IP was not transferred, or Rossi's reactors never worked as he claimed. I think they prefer the latter but quite correctly they point out that they cannot know.


    RossEle, Rossc, etc. Would you like to point out the Court document actual evidence (not summaries in MSJs which are allowed to lie within broad limits) which contradicts this?

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Can you point us to the data, that underlays your claim? Or do You you just repeat statements made by scientific dilletantes like Darden?

    Did Darden say this? If so, maybe he is repeating what I have been saying. ;)


    Please point to one credible and repeatable claim of excess heating from Ni-H. I can point to lots of null results. We've been down that road, but I can go through the list again if you can't remember.

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.