Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    • Official Post

    Rends and IHFB are absolutely right...the unsuccessful "Super Q" test that Boeing's Jamie Childress conducted on 11/20/2014, was run with fuel altered from the original by TD himself. After that test, Childress sent an email to TD, explaining that his funding would dry up 12/15/2011, and if he were to wrap it up, he needed the real stuff. TD never did send it, and there is no clarification as to why he did not.


    I do not know from the depo if Childress was aware he was testing fake fuel at the time, or found out after the test? I suspect after, as that would explain Childress' email shortly thereafter, asking TD for the "real fuel". TD, as most know, was/is the only one that knew the formula, and prepared each batch himself I believe, so he alone bears responsibility. No doubt he will be asked these questions at the trial.


    You just do not play fuel switch-a-roo games with a respectable company like Boeing. That is the kind of thing Rossi does, but IH? :)


    A couple other interesting tidbits:


    -Dameron emailed Childress 6 months after the failed test, after Boeing disengaged, and said he "had seen an interesting temp swing".


    -Boeing signed a "proprietary information agreement" with Rossi on 4/13/2011. That was well before TD was first introduced to Rossi. When Rossi's lawyer pushed for more info, Boeing's attorney firmly intervened and stopped Childress from answering.


    -Boeing has been keeping abreast of LENR for some time. Mainly by reviewing public info. Childress keeps up with it via the "blogosphere", so hello Jamie! :) Jamie became more interested after Rossi came along with his "high power" claim.


    -While Boeing's Childress was working confidentially with IH to test the Super Q, Rossi contacted him (Chidress) -not knowing he was working with IH, to inquire about attaining a jet engine from them.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    The most interesting element of the heat exchanger episode is that Planet Rossi argued on this forum that it was not needed until the overlord realized he was cornered with a bunch of unmanaged imaginary heat. He then had to conjure up a fantasy cooling system, a duped rebuttal witness and fake window repair schema (timed for the same day more than a year later nonetheless - go figure..... what an incredible coincidence!!!) in an attempt to save his bacon from ashen incineration (so to speak). Rossi is going to feel every bit of that heat explaining that story very soon . Bolster that with a potential failure to call Penon as a witness in person we'll soon see what is left of his argument. Oh - and Planet Rossi - don't forget that Fulvio has proven that an empty reactor works just as well as a loaded reactor using the overlords tried and true P.R. device management / excess heat claiming techniques. Rossi's blown gasket / storm off from that event will be a nice cherry on top for that story finale. Then he has to navigate gauntlet after that, then the gauntlet after that, then the gauntlet after that.


    From my POV a failure to call Penon personally to support his report makes the report, as evidence, worth not much more than toilet paper.

    Quote from Rends


    This one ...
    https://www.google.com/patents/US20160051957
    IPH INTERNATIONAL B.V., NORTH CAROLINA (last Assignment June 2016) applying for an US Patent with the complete data of the Lugano Report (it is more or less a full copy)

    Yes, as I thought. It is just for the reactor or the vessel and not for the material to put in the reactor nor any claims of excess or nuclear activity. Again, it is the claims you have to look at. Having a device that was use to test the claims is a use for the reactor/chamber. The accuracy of the data is not the issue in these claims. The fact that lugano used a chamber made by IH is not the same as saying that Lugano's data was correct. Also check the filing date. was it before or after the finding that a empty container gave "excess".

    I read (probably in one of the depositions) that not only was Darden aware that Rossi had failed in his attempt to get Johnson Matthey as his client for the heat, but he also said he didn’t care if the heat was simply vented.


    Under ideal conditions the measurements taken by the independent referee in the plant would suffice. The JM Co has only surfaced because IH doesn’t believe they can make the process work and can’t prove there was a problem with the plant measurements without looking at what happened to the heat.


    Both parties are biased and I doubt anyone here will prove it one way or the other. It is certainly no slam dunk. If the COP was as high as Penon reported, the output of Rossi’s plant could be less than half the stated 1 MW and he would still pass with flying colors. Better to wait for the court’s decision.


    Ps. As the E-Cat’s output increases with rising temperature it is not likely to be fundermentally stable, despite what the blogger masquerading as a female rattletrap says.

    Oh think of the patent claims like the legal description on a title to land. It doesn't make much difference what the pictures and words in the real estate description, you only own what the legal description says. Oh you may want to sue the broker but the land you bought and now own is what is in that legal description and what is registered with the county.


    It sure looks to me that IH only patented (with Rossi as a co-inventor) the container/reactor/vessel.


    If they were trying to claim a procedure to produce heat, it would have to be in the claims, and if they were patenting a material it would have to be in the claims. As it is, it sure looks like a "device patent" and not a "method patent".

    Quote from kirkshanahan

    ..


    If you want my whitepaper, suck it off the net like everyone else. The other papers are copyrighted. I won't violate copyright laws unless I check with my legal department to ensure I'm not.

    You're worried about copyright issues over a paper that YOU wrote? Submit it to Arxiv.org, they don't seem to have a problem with copyright issues.

    From Doc.326 including Fabiani's statement we can learn a lot

    p.111

    The second system would allow the

    regulation from zero to 100 percent power for each

    Big Frankie.



    During the whole test (99% of time) only the 4 Big Frankie's were used. Running a big Frankie at 30% power did not reduce the water flow! Thus it is clear, that the pipe to the customer site most likely always contained steam & water.

    In total at least 4 redundant T-coupler, flow-meter, water level measurements were made, only the power meter was double used. Fabianis steam T-probe was far enough away from Penon's and will not comply with some misplacement claims made by IH friendly posters...


    From AEG's statement it is clear that they always were aware that Doral is and was the GPT. IH never made any contrary statement.


    I would draw the following conclusions:

    If we do not face a gang of fraudsters, then the system did run at least with a COP of 9, based on no steam, just a hot water flow. This explains why there was no real heat problem.

    Thus the terms of the GPT were always full filled.

    Looking at Cherokee's and AR's past, we can only notice a perfect match of conduct. It looks that both sides are responsible for the blown up test scenario like 1MW instead of 100kW, customer instead of wasting heat etc... Originally a simple test was planned.

    From a legal point of view IH can only claim that the COP was lower than required. But this is refuted by Fabiani's and Penon's data. Thus IH must claim fraud.

    A technique aware Jury will come to the following final conclusion, that looks at both side of arguments. If an official expert instance can prove the COP 9 (>6) of a single Big Frankie IH has to pay the full amount, otherwise the AR suit is dissmissed.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    If anything, this experience goes to show how stark raving mad mainstream science's approach has become with respect to the LENR phenomena.

    I think it shows that all he needed to say is, "yes I believe in 'warm fusion'" which is chemical in nature rather than Nuclear and could be a way to generate lots of cheap renewable energy. Then use his theory to explain it and ask for money to develop his own chemical process. The DUHH factor is incredibly high.

    • Official Post
    Quote from oldguy

    Also check the filing date


    The filing date is not important because the last legal event was June 2016 (New Owner IPH INTERNATIONAL B.V., NORTH CAROLINA)

    https://www.google.com/patents/US20160051957#legal-events

    that event was for sure at a time, where today Darden et.al claim that the E-Cat (also the Lugano Reactor) is a not working and a fake,a fraud!

    If the officials at IPH INTERNATIONAL B.V., NORTH CAROLINA (Darden et.al) are convinced that the E-Cat is a fraud, then why the hell are they still applying for this patent, or are they at the end trying to deceive the US Patent Office ;)

    Quote from [email protected]

    You're worried about copyright issues over a paper that YOU wrote? Bullshit.

    You misunderstand. He said the other papers are copyright:


    "If you want my whitepaper, suck it off the net like everyone else. The other papers are copyrighted. "


    The whitepaper is not copyright, but I prefer to get explicit permission and the latest copy from the author.


    Many authors have problems with publishers not granting permission to upload papers. I have the impression that academic publishers are becoming more strict about this. Perhaps they are feeling the heat from competition from PLoS and other free, on-line publishers. There is a lot of turmoil in academic publishing these days.


    I am careful not to violate copyrights. I have to avoid riling the publishers. I am not Cornell's arXiv which seems to ignore the copyright laws. I guess I should say the scientists uploading papers to arXiv ignore the copyright laws.

    I caught that after re-reading his post. If someone were to set up a parallel library to yours, but didn't care about Copyright laws like Cornell, how much trouble would they get into?

    Again it is for the container and add ons. I for one do not know what other items IH may have. For example, perhaps someone has found a way to make a lot of "type A palladium" that could be used in the container at temperatures with Deuterium. Asking why is someone doing this or that is not an easy question to answer. I prefer not to assume I can divine someone else's motives.

    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    I read (probably in one of the depositions)

    Ok cite exactly which deposition. It was asked to me and I ask it to you. No double standard.

    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    Under ideal conditions the measurements taken by the independent referee in the plant would suffice.

    Of course it suffice, It was an independent expert approved even by IH that used his services also for the first test done in Ferrara.

    Your phrasing suggest that you want to disseminate the usual FUD.

    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    Ps. As the E-Cat’s output increases with rising temperature it is not likely to be fundamentally stable, despite what the blogger masquerading as a female rattletrap says.

    Interesting affirmation, What you know about the Ecat ? In fact there were already published examples of ecats that went into a supercritical state and melt. They were producing to much energy.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I guess I should say the scientists uploading papers to arXiv ignore the copyright laws.

    I guess that you never published a paper. Every scientist has to agree the publisher copyright conditions, fortunately many publishers let the authors upload on ArXiV what is called a Preprint. A not final version of their paper.

    Looking at your assignment dates... It is very interesting that Rossi assigned the patent on March 10 2016.

    Quote from ele

    They used even the same figures of the Lugano Report and even copied part of its text in one of their patents !

    https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160051957A1/en?assignee=Industrial+Heat%2c+Llc&inventor=Andrea+Rossi

    yes, but it only covers the vessel and addon and not the method or procedure of making the heat. If you look you can see there all kinds of things in the report (like elements, conditions, ...) but they were not claimed.


    It is surprising that if Rossi thought he has a great method of producing excess heat, he would have claimed it in a patent. The included report info is now in public domain (patents are like that) and more than a year has passed, so such things are no longer patentable ( unless he filed some that are still pending and even that is not good enough for some countries)


    My guess is that even with the 10M in pocket, he thought it was worthless to file on.

    Quote from oldguy

    My guess is that even with the 10M in pocket, he thought it was worthless to file on.

    No you are wrong. That patent was filed by IH (assignee) not Rossi himself !

    It was IH and Darden that (without having the rights to do so) have copied the Lugano Report and filed the patent.


    Rossi files his own patents for the Leonardo Corp. and one patent regarding the Ecat was GRANTED.

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.