Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from IH Fanboy

 

@Jed,

Any argument about the violation of conservation of energy is an ignorant one among the those in the LENR community. Once IH chose to go down that path, they lost credibility among those who follow LENR (except apparently with you). There is no violation of conservation of energy with LENR.

 

(Apologies in advance if I'm missing sarcasm/joking because of unfamiliarity with forum and participants.)

I read the Smith report. It strikes me (a lawyer w/ an undergrad degree in Zoology) as well-written and compelling.

Smith did not argue that conservation of energy makes LENR impossible because energy cannot be created. His argument was the reverse; that the amount of energy claimed to have been created by this device could not have been destroyed (because thermodynamics) but there is no record or evidence of it being dissipated in any way.

What he argued was that if Rossi's device produced heat, conservation of energy mandates that the heat had to go somewhere. There is no evidence that the warehouse was equipped to send the heat produced anywhere or put it to any use - no huge vent fan, no rooftop cooling tower, no evidence of claimed heat exchanger, water records not showing sufficient city water inflow to account for cooling, no record of building reaching near-boiling-point temperatures incompatible with human life, no use by customer, nothing.

Therefore, either heat energy was being destroyed - which would violate thermodynamics - or the heat energy claimed wasn't created in the first place.

Quote from JedRothwell

You may be referring to the time I tried to give Robert Park a paper by McKubre. He refused to touch it, letting it fall to the floor. He was with the APS, not the DoE. He wanted "plausible deniability."

Rossi's demonstrations have not "left a lot to be desired." That's an extreme understatement. His 1-year test was an outrageous farce and criminal fraud. Anyone who understands the science who reads the Penon report will see that. That is why, for example, Axil refuses to read the Penon report. He also wants "plausible deniability."

That is nonsense. In March 1989, every scientist on earth other than P&F was an extreme doubter. Thousands were convinced by experiments. If Rossi's device was real, and it was demonstrated correctly, it would instantly convince millions of people, and trigger a world-wide effort that would quickly bring billions of dollars to Rossi. I and many others have offered to test his device in a way that would convince millions of people. Rossi refused us. The only people who have tested his machines carefully are the people at I.H. and the people at Boeing who assisted them. They are experts. If the machine worked, they would have proved that beyond doubt. They found instead that it does not work. Not at all. It does not produce 1 W of excess heat. They are certain of that result, and so am I.

You and the other doubters on this forum have not exactly given him reason to believe you would be unbiased were he to give you the opportunity. In fact were it me I would run the other direction as fast as I could.

TTM - I don't understand your question but will flip you one in return - where's Penon?

Quote from Thetruemonty

When I read the whole thing I get the impression that Rossi was always loyal to Craig J. Cassarino and that IH was well aware that the test in Miami was the ERV test after which the 89 mio would have to be paid to Rossi.

From your question I deduct IH is going after the reputation of Penon and the validity of his measurements in the trial?

One would hope they are going after Penon and his report. That is a key claim of AR that supposedly shows his breakthrough technology producing copious amounts of excess heating.

Quote from [email protected]

There are 2 things that I do not understand about this inquiry.

2) If the Penon report is so irrefutable proof of fraud and it has been entered as evidence in the case, why wasn't the case summarily dismissed in the motion for summary judgement?

Because assessing the weight, meaning, or truthfulness of contested evidence isn't done at summary judgment.

Basically, Rossi submitted the Penon report as evidence that certain contractual conditions were met. IH has produced other evidence which (they argue) suggests that the Penon report was either extremely flawed or entirely fabricated, and that the contractual conditions were therefore not met. All the judge can do at summary judgment is decide if: (a) the results stated in the Penon report are material facts in this case (they are, because they determine if contractual conditions at issue in the case were met); (b) the Penon report is evidence supporting those facts (it is, because the evidence has to be taken at face value at the summary judgment stage); and (c) if the IH evidence, taken at face value, suggests that the Penon report is erroneous or fraudulent (it does).

At that point, it's clear that the results stated in the Penon report are disputed material facts. Disputed material facts don't (normally) get dealt with at summary judgment because it's not the role of the judge to decide what the facts actually are. That's the job of the jury; that issue must go to trial.

Docs. 327 – 329 on the docket (a probably uninteresting order and two minute entries).

TTM - well then I guess that it is reasonable to expect that we'll be learning more about the Rossi / Craig C relationship in the coming days.

I still don't understand the point you're trying to make about doc #326. Its a witness list with indexed depo snippets. Rossi is overdue for submitting that same type of list.

I also don't understand why Rossi doesn't have Penon on his witness list - seems seminal to his case but maybe I'm missing something.

Quote from axil

Perhaps you are like Axil and you have avoided reading it so that you have an excuse to support Rossi. What Nixon called "plausible deniability." That's also known as willful ignorance, or refusing to face facts.

This lawsuit is not a means to gain knowledge or a path to establish facts, it is a waste of time devoid of any truth

I was not talking about the lawsuit. I said that your refusal to read the Penon report is willful ignorance and refusing to face facts. You blather on about Rossi this and Rossi that when you haven't even looked at Rossi's own data!

Quote from JedRothwell

To give credit where it is due, I should point out that other people contributed to that document. For example, Shanahan himself wrote the section about his work.

You mean the sentence. I did try to get a section put in explaining it, but it kept being deleted by pro-CFers, and then when I would try to get it reinstated, the pro-CFers would do backflips to keep it out. They all ended up getting banned, but I just ran out of steam (tying this to Rossi...) about editing Wikipedia. I just assumed there were more of 'them' than me.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@Jed,

You might be right that IH has irrefutable tests showing that the e-Cat doesn't work. But as you acknowledge, they're not on the record. And I happen to suspect that if they really had them, they would have put them on the record in this case. Instead, we get lots of confirmation from IH on the record that the e-Cat in fact does work, upwards of COP of 9.

If IH really had irrefutable tests on the non-functioning of the E-Cat, they would surely have shown them. What is said in the documents published so far, however, is the testimony of positive tests. Moreover, the reactor used in Lugano was built by IH, and it worked fine. Finally, the reactor tested by Boeing was not filled with the right fuel, so in fact IH can not prove that the E-Cat does not work. Also because when they talked about this technology with Chinese and European investors they used terms of praise.

Quote from maryyugo

That old stability nonsense again? The ecats in various forms have been around for six+ years and have been tested dozens of times, albeit by idiotic methods. In no case was instability an issue for one of these tests and in no instance has Rossi or anyone else complained of instability as an issue.

The stability question has been a problem that Rossi referred repeatedly in the early days. He has often told about reactors that have fused and reactions that suddenly triggered. Also in the first article written by the Italian and Swedish scientists they talk about a first failed experiment for the fusion of the reactor:

"The tests held in December 2012 and March 2013 are in fact subsequent to a previous attempt in November 2012 to make accurate measurements on a similar model of the E-Cat HT on the same premises. In that experiment the device was destroyed in the course of the experimental run, when the steel cylinder containing the active charge overheated and melted."

They do not say that they have tried to know the strength limit of the reactor (in that case it would be normal to have brought it to the fusion). They say the test has failed because the reactor fused, which implies that it was not their intention to destroy it. If the reactor had been stable, it would probably have been easy to control it without destroying it.

And in the second article scientists have witnessed a sudden trigger of the reaction:

"In a few minutes, the reactor body reached a temperature close to 1400°C. Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted. The speed with which the temperature had risen persuaded us to desist from any further attempt to increase the power input to the reactor."

Even this sudden increase in temperature seems to have caught them by surprise. The E-Cat is not a simple resistor, as you would like to believe it, it is a reactor that works according to a physical principle not yet completely clear. Its instability (when present) could be a consequence of our ignorance of its principles of operation.

Quote from JedRothwell

He does fake demos to defraud investors.

These are insulting and unfounded allegations. His reactor has been tested by skilled and expert people who have declared excessive heat as "anomalous". The scientists who have tested it are now working on a replication and receiving funding from Volvo. Do you really think they're all stupid? Are you so sure you know Physics better than them? What are your skills? And your qualification?

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

He says the only proof that matters is selling working units.

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes, that is what he says, but he has not actually sold any working units. If his claims were true, surely he would have sold some by now.

If you really believe that a completely new technology can be placed in the market in a short time and without a long period of testing and improvement, then you know very little about the economy and its laws.