Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • woodworker


    I saw a comment somewhere about three points I think worth mentioning: the first is how expensive this trial must be, both in cost and potential damages. In reality, not that expensive. Potential damages, maybe 100 million - courts deal with bigger financial cases all the time. Cost of litigating, maybe a couple of million, again, in reality not that much.

    I won't bore you with how many HIV patients a few million will treat or how many underprivileged children it would clothe, feed and educate. What frustrates experienced scientists and technologists is how easy it would be to prove that Rossi is full of shit and nothing else and never has been anything else. If only it could be done without the elaborate precautions and protections of a formal trial involving one of the country's most expensive and prestigious law firms. I don't have the time to do more than briefly scan the exhibits and maybe browse a few of the more critical ones. But from a quick perusal of the list and titles, it is clear that much of the documentation is without the slightest value in determining whether or not Rossi gave IH anything that works. OK, maybe it bears on the contract dispute but the sheer volume and verbosity of it is staggering and breathtaking. A multi-billion dollar corporate merger should not generate that much documentation.

    What SHOULD be done is for someone to compel Rossi to demonstrate a working ecat-- ANY ecat -- and to have it tested by properly educated and capable scientists and technologists. Rossi would, without a doubt, refuse or fail and that would be that. Rossi has NEVER allowed a proper test, by capable independent people, using their test equipment and methods, and completely independent of Rossi. NEVER in more than six years of moronic claims and even dumber demonstrations.

    IH or Woodford could have prevented this entire debacle simply by asking Rossi to allow them to run a few properly conducted truly independent tests, NOT INVOLVING LENR ENTHUSIASTS or proponents.

    Rossi's little shows have been obviously bogus from the start. It was glaringly obvious to any smart spectator, for example Steven Krivit, who speaks fluent Italian and took the trouble to travel to Italy to witness one of Rossi's 2011 demos of the first steam ecats. His interview with Levi, Rossi's principal associate of yore, made it clear that the guy was not capable of understanding or conducting a simple calibration of a simple system and that he had no concept of proper data collection and preservation in the course of a scientific test.

    Again for your amusement (Woodworker, if you have not seen this, you must -- Krivit's commentary overlaid on a reporter's video, shows Rossi for the fraud and liar that he is, using his own performance on Lewan's video), check this out (it's mercifully brief and hilarious):…er_embedded&v=uviXoafHWrU

    My point is that this entire case would have been prevented had IH or Woodford done proper vetting and proper diligence. Instead, their error is unemployment insurance for a score of lawyers mostly at the cost of the share holders of the funds and IH. With due respect for the need of lawyers to make a living (we have two in the family), I would rather see legal fees spent on socially more important and valuable cases. I despise Rossi but I think it would be hilarious if he won the court case.

  • I apologize if you took my comments to diminish or denigrate the amount of good that such monies good accomplish. As an extreme liberal, I wish we spent more money on useful things as opposed to oil production subsidies and weapons. My point was simply that in the grand scheme of litigation, what is being spent here, even if up to $5 million already, is not that much. Fresh out of law school I worked on the Exxon Valdez litigation (on the Exxon Shipping side). We probably spent $2-3 million every month or so.

  • they did say, and Rossi threw Joe M out so he could not see the "window

    Who is JOe M and what window are you talking about? As far as "they did say" it must have been a whisper because even Rossi didn't mention it on his blog at the time. All the ugliness came out afterwards, several months after the ERV report was issued.

  • I haven't read the agreement or the test parameters in enough detail to say whether or not the Florida test, if legitimate, would have satisfied the conditions precedent. I do believe that if the Florida test legitimately worked IH would have gladly paid the additional $89 million while skipping and dancing to show to investors. And none of us would be here right now arguing about it. But it didn't work (more on that in a moment). Someone above commented that the Agreement didn't require a customer. True, but once Rossi introduced that factor, and introduced to prove that the test worked, Rossi can't now say "ignore that the customer was fake."

    How do I know it didn't work - just a few points: (1) fake customer and fake invoices; (2) Rossi created the fake customer, etc. because he knew it didn't work; (3) Rossi's inability to replicate; (4) Penon taking a hike; and (5) no expert stepping up for Rossi giving an expert opinion that it works/worked.

    I have been puzzed by the meaning of the word "worked" in the context of this trial. What does WORKED mean? Rossi setup the test to do far more than was required to meet the minimum requirements of the test. I beleive that Rossi wanted to verify that his product was commercially viable, but he failed in that test in his own estimation if not in objective fact. The wafer, the heart of the old technology had its problems, and after years of work, Rossi could not tame that beast. Rossi could not make it meet his personal standards of operation. Rossi calls that standard SIGMA 5, Rossi was afraid to put out a product that did not meet SIGMA 5. That flawed product would not only destroy him but any investors that backed his product.

    Rossi decided to toss out the old technology and move on to a better solution. The IP for the old Rossi tech is without much value. The new tech IP is a jewel of boundless worth. That chip will meet sigma 5, It seems to me, Rossi went to court to keep that jewel for himself and out of the hands of IH.

    The wafer

  • I have been puzzed by the meaning of the word "worked" in the context of this trial. What does WORKED mean?

    It means that both he and IH designated a 3rd party to view the testing and write an independent report saying whether or not it worked.   

    .... Rossi calls that standard SIGMA 5,

    That sounds a lot like the typical scam of moving the goal posts and coming up with something else to razzle-dazzle the audience. On the scale of Rossi=Con Artist <---->Rossi=mercurial inventor, it falls on the con artist side of things.

  • That would shed a rather cold light of reality if it were admissible in court. They're claiming the device works. In court when it comes time to pay for the demo of the device, they're claiming it doesn't work. If I were on the jury, that would weigh heavily. Seems like both sides have credibility problems.

  • OBJECTION, mischaracterizes earlier testimony

    Third: oops, I forgot (channeling that "esteemed" Rick Perry, our new Secretary of the Department of Energy, one of the departments he wanted to eliminate).

    Objection: Non responsive. I repeat the first question which you did not answer.

    Let's say that you've got such a fancy-dancy lawnmower that you both hire an agreed third party person to write the report on whether the lawn was mowed. The 3rd party writes a favorable ERV report saying he thinks the lawn was mowed. How is the jury going to process that fact?

  • That would shed a rather cold light of reality if it were admissible in court. They're claiming the device works. In court when it comes time to pay for the demo of the device, they're claiming it doesn't work. If I were on the jury, that would weigh heavily. Seems like both sides have credibility problems.

    As always binary thinking will lead you astray.

    My take on it, which AFAIK conforms to all facts:

    IH are a VC who had just bought disruptive technology that they desperately hoped works, have been told works by 6 scientists from an apparently independent and well-written-up test, but which seems sometimes to fail in-house tests. They had, conducting those tests, Fulvio, in hoc to Rossi, and Dameron, not competent.

    Over a period of time the gradually became more pessimistic. But, while they were still hoping, they had to hawk the possibility of working technology around to make sure that should all be good they had the $200M or so needed for phase 2 of the commercial scale-up (and paying off Rossi). And we know the sales pitch included plentiful warnings about not yet sure, and can't trust Rossi. To see how accurate was this presentation you'd want the whole thing, + when it was given, + what was their understanding of in-house tests at that time.

    It makes perfect sense, in fact it is difficult to see what else they could have done. Their sales pitch would highlight the risks as is normal, but hold out the very high possible gain, as is normal - but in this case actually correct. If Rossi's stuff did work they would be in a great position to take in forward. Essentially, their bravery in gambling on the possibility that Rossi might have something for real, in spite of all the obvious flakiness, would be rewarded by a very high return if he did have something. And a loss of $10.5M if he had nothing.

    IH got in competent technical guys, able to see through Rossi's/Fulvio's false positive demos, late in the day. Too late IMHO, but I can understand that. Non-technical people tend to underestimate the need for in-house technical competence. Probably they are still doing this (Dewey - you listening? :) ).

    That is a proper gamble for a VC to take, and their judgements, even the one that said a COP of 3 - 10 vouched for by 6 scientists took this device into the area where you don't need great technical expertise to discover whether it works or not, are understandable.

    Can you truthfully say, in that position, you were not posting then that with a COP of 3-10 and 100s of Watts out, establishing whether of not a device works should be easy-peasy?

    True, for someone technically skilled and skeptical. Not true for 6 Swedes, nor for Darden aided only by Dameron, Fulvio, and Rossi. And I'll bet that when Darden was telling his guys to crush the tests it was for real. This was such a big deal, with gains so high if the device did work, he wanted to make absolutely certain that those apparent working devices early on were not in fact real before pulling the plug. Such is hope, and such is the human reluctance to give up on a bet gone bad. (Yes, VCs bet. That is what high risk means, Ele). Perhaps in this one case Darden was less than professional, clinging to hope longer than a good poker player should have done?

    In fact, although they have no evidence Rossi's stuff works, and lots that it does not, I'd expect them not to pull the plug now, completely. Just in case.

    I notice that the people here who argue that IH look like they must have a hidden agenda are forgetting about human frailty. People often get stuff wrong. Managers, in particular, often get tech stuff wrong. This was tech stuff where no mainstream scientist could be trusted because he might have the general bias against LENR! And LENR scientists were cautiously optimistic after the Rossi independent tests. As a dyed in the wool skeptic and tech guy able to know for myself precisely why the Lugano report was wrong, I can easily say that IH were very, very stupid.

    As an observer of humanity, I reckon they took a long odds gamble, lost, and then got clawed by a pole-cat.

  • THHuxleynew . Do you think you could do it?

    If I had enough time and money, yes. But hooking a hot-cat up to some definitive calorimetry that would remove any uncertainty would take a bit of both, don't you think?

    Having done that, I'd have a report that said the COP was 1 +/- 20% - or something like that. Would that be good enough to prove the device did not work? I'm not sure...

    Now it might be cheaper. I could buy the makings of a half-decent mass-flow calorimeter from you maybe?

    I think my problem would be communicating the uncertainties to management. I mean, you would pretty quickly be sure that the spoofed test results were wrong, but not so certain what the correct results are. People don't evaluate that sort of uncertainty well. So you need a guy with long experience of these sorts of tests and who has the gumption to say definitely what his findings are. Murray a much better guy for that than me, or you!

  • What exactly is the threat?

    Rossele - the only thing I have to say to you is to please keep publishing. It is very helpful material that you are cooking up.

    Maybe I should say one more thing ----- The only you have to fear is Justice itself.

    "Hey Oldguy, please keep publishing your overtly pro-IH comments. I have noticed some patterns, which were very helpful material to me.

    Maybe I should say one more thing ----- The only thing you have to fear is being SWATted".

    I think most people would deem the above a threat - It's not, it's a daft example designed to quickly illustrate a point - but nevermind, because Oldguy seems very happy to downplay such things, so I doubt he'll find anything to complain about.

  • SSC. Are you by any chance one of Rossi's lawyers?

    accepted is not identical to not complained.

    Nor does your assumption here - that the relationship would have stopped, or Penon not paid had IH compained - seem obvious to me.

    You are definitely close in thinking to the Rossi legal team.

    Unfortunately no, I'm not a law expert but I use only a little bit of common sense: when you pay three reports, you've accepted three reports. If I order four products and the first one arrive to me broken, I will give it back and I will not pay it, I do not wait for the other three before complaining. IH has de facto accepted at least three reports of Penon.

  • It makes perfect sense - They (Peter and Henry) traveled around the US visiting most of the researchers supported by IH. It would be hard to say they could not visit Rossi. Your assertion that Darden used Doral as a showcase is not correct. I think the "showcase" was elsewhere (possibly the work by Cooper and that by Miley).

    You keep on discounting all the other work and the visit on the same US trip by the Woodford group to all the other places. Rossi (I think) was the last place the visited on the way back to the UK.

    You assume way to much.

    You are assuming too much when you say that the showcase was the work of Cooper and Miley. Everyone knows that the most famous name in the LENR world has long been that of Rossi and it was Woodford (or rather McLaughlin, if I remember the name well) to say that Rossi was their core business. So it is far more likely that Darden has focused above all on the Doral plant to attract investment.

  • notice the patent (as seen in the claims WO2015127263 ) are only on a device (the reactor tube) and there is no claim that it produces excess power beyond input and no claims on the material to put in the device.

    There is no mention of excessive heat in the claims because everyone knows that it is almost impossible to get a patent if you deal with this issue (the cases of rejected LENR patents are infinite). However, in the patent text it is mentioned:

    [00175] [...] By way of example, using the data of file No. 1 in the table:

    COP = (2128.32 + 307.98) / (815.86 - 37.77) = 3.13 ± (3% + 5%) = 3.13 ± 8>#/p###

    [00193] Even if taken from this extremely conservative point of view, the reactor lies beyond the limits of the Ragone plot

    [00196] Once again, even in the most conservative scenarios, these are values that conclude that the reactor studied here may not be considered a conventional source of energy when loaded with an appropriate reactive material such as was done in the experiments described above.

    It is not correct to say that they have only patented a vessel for material.....