Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from JedRothwell

The reason why nobody is scandalized is because IH does not, in fact, have a very dark past. This dark past is a figment of your imagination.

My imagination?? Have you read the news reported by Sifferkol? The orders Cherokee has accumulated over the years are certainly not production premiums .... Judges have imposed on them to do the jobs for which they were paid and obviously they had not still done. Every time the same story: Cherokee creates an affiliate, buys a brownfield and collect funds to clean up it and then does not complete the work ..... and what about the money? You can also choose to turn around and do not look at what makes you embarrassed, but you can not deny what has been documented. I can have imagination problems, but you definitely have problems with reality.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Please provide a cite to something that supports this statement. Darden never claimed that the dummy produced a COP of 9. Darden recounts the dummy test story occurred in January or 2014. He went on to secure tens of millions of funding from Woodford, with the e-Cat tech being core to those investments. The readers here can ably determine whether there is an inconsistency in Darden's dummy reactor story and his later actions.

The story of the dummy with Cop 9 is absurd and I have not found any document in which it is told. However, if it really happened, why did Darden not immediately break up relations with Rossi? Why did he continue to raise funds by showing the Doral Plant? If things really were so, then Darden would be a cheater because he would have lied to investors. Instead I think that Darden has always known that the E-Cat works and that's why he did not suggest a settlement by returning the IP.

Quote from Rends

So if Boeing never tested the E-Cat with the proper fuel, then the whole deposition of Jamie Childress is useless, or better, says nothing about the functionality of the device!

Surely the Boeing test does not have any value in determining whether the E-Cat works or not. IH has never shown the reactor's not functioning.

Quote from Shane D.

I'm about half way through 326 (Cassarino depo), and it is interesting as TTM says. Not sure either side can take comfort though, as Cassarino often contradicts himself:

He always felt Doral was the "350 day test", yet he also claimed the "2nd agreement was not valid" (GPT ) because he did not sign it.

Says the 1MW in Doral was built by Dameron and Rossi, yet Rossi told him it was the same 1MW shipped from Italy.

Thought the GPT was delayed due shipping damage to the 1MW, but then recounts how he played "go-between" between Rossi/TD as to why Rossi had not started the GPT yet.

Other than that, he does shed some new light on the start (2010) of the Rossi/Ampenergo (AEG) relationship. Why Rossi delved into TDs (capture the heat from the Ecat). Failed hook-up with NASA (IP worries). Formation of Leonardo Technologies.

Cassarino also knew early on (June 2012) that TD would form a new company (IH) to handle the Rossi tech. Cass had no problem with that, as he says he formed his AEG for the same reason..handle Rossi's tech.

Rossi also misrepresented JMP to him, just as he did to IH. It was "affiliated with a bigger company", independent from Rossi, etc. Rossi even asked him to: "tell IH to look at the customer".

Cass knew too, about IH's lack of success with the IP.

So far, Cassarino comes across as very disengaged from the actual engineering aspects of the Ecat from the start (2010) of their AEG/Leonardo relationship, through to Doral, (perfect partner for Rossi ) and more focused on getting his "second tranche" payment from IH. Not sure Cassarino's being a witness for Rossi will help, or hurt? Stay tuned.

Display More

It is interesting that people try to equate the 350 day testing at Doral with the GPT. After all the GPT (other than being outside the agreed timing and signed agreement) was to be 400 day test with 350 active days. That is the GPT was a 400 day test not a 350 day test.

Quote from JedRothwell

Or you can read Rossi's own deposition where he claims there was an invisible heat exchanger in the mezzanine that did not show up in photos.

The heat exchanger was dismantled at the end of the test: it is not invisible, it is simply no longer there. Who took the photos? Do the photos show all the environments from every angle? You can not prove in any way that the heat exchanger was not there, so stop expressing about it as if you possess the absolute truth.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I read earlier that millions of readings were taken. I presume by computer. So what is on the reports are summaries. It would be necessary to see the actual record rather than just the summaries to understand what was going on.

I gather that the meters were sealed and some at least showed just the running totals. Some of the problems may have been just averaging these to show daily rates

Of course, it is clear that the data reported in the report are summaries: their number is too high for them to be used directly, and it would also make no sense to do so. There are certainly many details in the report that will be explained in court. It was written by a highly competent engineer with a great experience and a remarkable curriculum. If something is not clear right away from reading it, it will certainly be explained in the right place.

Quote from Rends

I am wondering why the by Thomas Darden controlled IPH INTERNATIONAL B.V., NORTH CAROLINA is still (Assignment June 2016) applying for an US Patent with the data of the Lugano Report?

https://www.google.com/patents/US20160051957

If the Jones Day Lawyer claims before the jury that all the E-Cat tests are fraudulently faked by Rossi, how could Darden et.al. use exactly this data for an official US patent application that is still valid today and how to explain this contradiction to a normal, rational man? In my opinion this patent application had to withdraw immediately!

Someone here wrote that for patents do not count the truth and that any thing can be patented, even objects that can not work. This is a silly thing. Many patents on Cold Fusion were rejected precisely because the Examiner felt that the phenomenon upon which the operation of the described object was based had not been recognized by mainstream science. If IH filed that patent it is because they knew they had a worth technology and an IP that they did not want to lose.

Quote from SSC

The heat exchanger was dismantled at the end of the test: it is not invisible, it is simply no longer there. Who took the photos? Do the photos show all the environments from every angle? You can not prove in any way that the heat exchanger was not there, so stop expressing about it as if you possess the absolute truth.

Rossi sued IH. As plaintiff, he has the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence. Where are his pictures or even purchase receipts? Why was the exchanger only mentioned after an unfavorable heat dissipation analysis? Why has no person except Rossi seen this exchanger?

Quote from THHuxleynew

 

Mike

Performance. The license agreement states that Rossi must transfer IP to Rossi after the $10M payment and (chronologically, given the timeframe) well before the GPT. There is a dispute over whether he has done this - IH claim that his devices never worked when tested by him (though initial results were encouraging using test setups mandated by Rossi). I think perhaps whether the IH devices provided by Rossi ever actually worked might be relevant to this since if they in fact do not either Rossi did not transfer the IP, or his devices do not work. You might perhaps argue that the GPT device is the single one that does, miraculously, work, and that IH have the IP, it is just that they have not yet hit upon another such occasional working device. That seems a difficult argument to sustain.

 

Yeah, I forgot about the counterclaim. IH are arguing that their inability to get the thing to work suggests that Rossi didn't turn over all the IP. There are enough alternate explanations (incompetence, failure to exactly match, the entire Rossi device is a rainbow-fart powered fantasy, etc) that it's a stretch to say that it proves that Rossi didn't turn over everything, but it's relevant to that.

I found a mildly amusing legal-oriented forum somewhere else. Basically a former member of this site appears, offers some unschooled legal opinions rapidly followed by some schoolyard insults, and receives a few slapdowns in return... C'est la vie. Or as Mark Twain might say: History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure as hell rhymes Bwoi.*

Anyway - Some interesting snippets from folk who have delved into the particulars, but who are essentially impartial observers:

Quote

Thanks for the summary. One thing that's puzzled me about this is how much they've spent on lawyers. Rationally (not that there's much evidence of rationality on either side here), the amount you're willing to spend on a lawsuit should depend on what you stand to gain (be it financially or some other way), what it will take to get to a decision, and what the chances of success are. We don't know the details of this calculation for either side, but we do know both parties are asking for $7.5 million in attorney's fees. This would be the lion's share of what Rossi got from IH or pretty much the rest of the $20 million that IH had raised to spend on this project, which seems ridiculous given that neither side seems to have a slam-dunk case.

Now maybe Rossi is a overly optimistic true believer and IH wasn't going to be bullied by someone they saw as a charlatan and things got out of control of either party, but it still seems like someone should have done a reality check before a combined $15 million in legal fees were racked up.

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum…opic.php?p=884882#p884882

Quote

Whatever is going on, what it will all eventually come down to is WHAT IS IN THE CONTRACT, NOT what they think is in the contract, or what they think it means, or what they meant it to mean. Sloppy in little details in the contract means sloppy in the big details in the contract. It sounds to me like there was a whole lot of sloppy going on here.

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum…opic.php?p=892644#p892644

Quote

I am mostly in the camp that thinks IH's parent company was doing its own grifting, and having Rossi's stuff in their (temporary) portfolio was a good way to get more investors on board. Rossi, after all, has spent a great deal of time self promoting and this would be a good way for a 3rd party to capitalize on the momentum he built for himself.

Thus the quality of the contract was not all that important, esp if the capital they did raise was shielded from the dispute.

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum…opic.php?p=892730#p892730

Seems like Planet RossC has a plethora of orbiting moons. Wonder if the jury will be feeling it's gravitational pull?

-------------------------------------------------

* There's even been a follow-up lecture in the Hall of Brevity, just for old times' sake.

EDIT: Although to be fair to the chap: He's pulled off a scoop here:

Quote from AlainCo

and the only way to respect CoE is to assume it come from nuclear energy

or from integrating an error...

Quote from Alan Smith

kirkshanahan

Please don't pursue your arguments in this thread Kirk, which is attempting to be about Rossi v Darden -it's hard enough to keep on topic as it is.

I pointed out the flaw in Alain's logic. If it is off topic, blame him.

Quote from Alan Smith

kirkshanahan

Why not start a new thread specifically on this topic?

I have (or responded in other threads). Many times. And Alain (and Jed, and Abd, and...) keep right on as if I had never done a thing... Perhaps they should be chastised for being dogmatic and unable to incorporate new ideas...

Abd just posted a mistrial because of jurors being excused from service. The trial starts over tomorrow.

Well, not even 30 hours since the jury trial started, and we have....

A mistrial!

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/mistrial/

(Due to 5 of 10 Jurors selected leaving, with a minimum of 6 required).

New Jury selection starts tomorrow.

Is this a preview of things to come? Inquiring minds want to know (but will have to wait).

Thanks Abd for the on-the-spot reporting!

(And if anyone feels inclined, Abd does have a go fund me site for support, as he is doing this all 'out-of-pocket'. Search engine terms that should get you there: Abd Lomax gofundme )

Quote from SSC

The heat exchanger was dismantled at the end of the test: it is not invisible, it is simply no longer there. Who took the photos? Do the photos show all the environments from every angle? You can not prove in any way that the heat exchanger was not there, so stop expressing about it as if you possess the absolute truth.

No evidence of the fathom behemoth pipe and plywood contraptionion being installed, having been installed, or having been removed...pictures, materials, data, sawdust, metal chips, witnesses, workers (Rossi must be a superman if he dragged all that pipe up to the un-airconditioned mezzanine, fitted all that pipe, plywood, and then removed it (invisible steel pipe also must have a density of zero, and anti-gravity properties)--all without a trace or witness---absolutely amazing!!). It was yet another invisible Rossi invention/claim, and yet another item that the Rossi Brethren insist must be proven using the Rossi antiScientific Method: "thou must prove the negative of every Rossi exhortation"--good luck with the jury/judge believing that.

Quote from MikeDunford

(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.

Display More

@MD,

No apologies necessary, as I was being dead serious. You unfortunately misunderstood my reference and assumed that I was referring to Smith's report. While Smith's report has shown to be misleading in many aspects, I won't rehash those now.

My original reference was to IH themselves using the ostensible violation of conservation of energy as a direct line of attack against Rossi. See this post: Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2 to understand better my original reference. And such an attack coming from IH is about as hypocritical as they come, given that IH hold themselves out as a LENR-friendly investment group.