Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Typical Planet Rossi - use socks to generate a story line then deny it on JONP. More circular arguments for arguments sake.

    A very weak performance on behalf of the LF moderators as well. Planet Rossi can keep this kind of floamage flowing for weeks.

    There is a reason for it - we'll figure it out.

  • Okay Argon - get Rossi to send a letter to Tom Darden offering to buy back his license and the 1MW unit. $11.5M plus reasonable contract separation terms, mutual indemnifications and confidentiality agreements. He'll need to move quickly as the bombers are fueled and ready.

    23 June 2016

  • Dewey Weaver

    So it was indeed Dewey who in June 2016 would have still settled if money were to be given back, or maybe it was merely provocation.

    To bad then that Rossi never really made the offer to him and just had others on a blog somewhere talk about it instead of putting it in writing and putting a copy in the discovery evidence

  • Wow, you really are messed up and delusional Sigmo ... I'm not talking about Rossi, I'm talking about YOU. You were clearly stating that your "good" intentions made you sleep well regardless of the outcome... And I was simply saying that "the rood to hell is paved with good intentions". Thats it. And it seems to have hit a sweet spot, since you totally went ballistic about it... ;)

  • It has already been accepted upthread that Rossi claimed to offer IH a refund. So I'm not going to play fetch.

    Other things on Rossi's JONP blog have been entered as evidence.

    And - for the 986th time - even if other things on the blog have been entered into evidence1, that doesn't mean that everything from the blog is admissible.

    And, as woodworker and I have both told you, stuff that happens in settlement talks generally isn't admissible. Federal Rule of Evidence 408:

    (a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible — on behalf of any party — either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:

    (1) furnishing, promising, or offering — or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept — a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and

    (2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim — except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.

    So your mythical offer to settle probably doesn't come in either as evidence that Rossi thought Rossi owed the money or as evidence that Rossi lied. Both uses are explicitly banned. (The rationale being that settlement negotiations should be encouraged as much as possible.)

    1: Technically, nothing has been entered into evidence yet. There are things that have appeared in the various things we've seen from discovery, and lists of stuff that the parties intend to admit, but they still have to jump through all the right hoops in the right order to get the stuff admitted.

    1 Cranch 137, 177

  • Rossi is shrewd. My guess is he not only has the original 10.5 mil, but has probably grown it some. Besides, he may have other backers willing to step up.

  • From the report, " MFMP obtained a (false) reading of 1524°C versus a 874°C thermocouple reading".

    It is mind boggling that scientists could be off by more than 500degreesC in a measurement of heat. And the odd thing is that this "reality distortion field" seems to apply to when Rossi is involved. No one thought to bring a simple thermometer?

    Kevmo - glad to see you are beginning to see the issue here.

    Rossi's ability to spoof tests is indeed mind-boggling, and has taken in many people better (though maybe also more naive) than you.

    Surely even you are not claiming MFMP, TC, Bob Higgins, GSVIT are all wrong on this subtle but large error?

    Let me point out - maybe you did not know - how Rossi does it.

    Most people doing experiments of this type reckon a control experiment is needed. It lets them debug their equipment and check what they are measuring is real.

    Rossi is on record as saying that controls are not necessary because they provide no information. And he is as good as his word. his experiments have almost never had a control. Where there has been a control it has been under different conditions or protocols from the real experiment - hence no control at all. And in the Lugano test Rossi convinced the testers (or the testers convinced themselves) it was two difficult to use a simple thermomenter AKA thermocouple except at very low temperatures where it did no good.

    Now you can perhaps see why almost everyone here reckons Rossi technically incompetent as well as a liar? The above are all incontrovertible facts, in the public record. I'd like you to acknowledge them.

  • It does not matter if Rossi was lying about the offer. Once you get it on the docket and the judge starts asking Rossi questions about it, the jig is up. If he lied about the offer then there is no reason for the jury to believe him on anything. If IH lied about the offer the same thing applies.

    Juries don't understand calorimetry; hell, it looks like even 'experts' don't understand calorimetry. But they know when someone withdraws an offer disingenuinely that means they'll be sitting through 5 weeks of depositions. It's the whole case in a nutshell.


    We have some guys here who actually understand the legal stuff - a good idea for you to pay attention to them.

    There are so many things wrong with this statement I'll just point out the non-legal one.

    Having got this far, and spent some $3M or more on legal fees, Rossi (or his lawyers if on contingency) is going to want to recoup them - if he has a case. Similarly IH. So withdrawing such an offer (assuming it was ever made, which seems highly unlikely) can be perfectly well argued. I can't for the life of me work out why this one insignificant issue so concerns you.

    On the other side, if you think one of the gadzillion blog lies of Rossi paraded in front of Jurors is going to have more effect than the more relevant letter boasting about how he lied to his previous partner to break a contract, or vanishing heat exchanger, well then you are just far away from everyone else. Quite apart from the fact that a dissection of Rossi's blog (if such a comment is admissable) is going to be argumentative and distract the Jury from the main point.

  • Standard Type K thermocouples good up to 1200 degrees c. Used to run multiple thermocouples at a time thru 40-foot long muffle belt furnaces, glued (sometimes drilled into and glued) onto ceramic (aluminum oxide usually) substrates with ceramic cement, the thermocouple leads with alumina bead insulators rolled up on bicycle rims and fed thru the furnace (this was 25+ years ago), for profiling metallurgy firing processes--slapping several on the static Rossi Patented Hotdog Cooker tubes is a no-brainer (but that tried and true, direct measurement leaves way too little room for the Wizard of Miami/Italy to yank the levers and wave hands).

  • I'm trying to figure out the psychological strategy of your FUD posts and it comes to me that it is all about to state in every possible way and as often as possible that Rossi is a liar. Include some FUD-traps (legal or technical) and that is all there is to it.

    I suppose this is done to establish the idea that Rossi should have also lied under oath, which is critical for your work, isn't it?

    In reality we know that the professional liars (sales people lawyer types) in this story are Dewey, Darden et al. I've read some of the court docs and I do not believe any of them dare lie under oath - as Dewey so clearly points out by refusing to say anything with the hand on the bible here ... In that case the thing to watch for is what is the squirming and what is dodged and not clearly answered... And in that case Darden/Vaughn testimonies takes the price without any competition.


    Are you saying Rossi does not lie? (I'd like an answer)

    It is on the record. To be fair, the blog comments are mostly deceitful misdirections, rather than outright lies, but from a distance there is not much difference. for example, the sales of e-cats, robotic factories, etc that feature so prominently on his blog correspond to something, but usually just a plan or idea. rather like JMP which Rossi claims he planned to have something to do with a real customer, but the plan fell through. Somehow, in all these cases, Rossi's audience gets the idea that he is talking about a real thing, not a fantasy.

    if we talk about strategy I'd say yours is to attempt to portray a highly deceptive and technically incompetent person in a good light, because you believe he uniquely has undisclosed technology that will save the world. You would do better to engage honestly with the reasons why few other people agree with you, instead of throwing round accusations of ulterior motive.

    Further, you so dislike (I guess on ideological grounds) VCs, lawyers, and professional people that you brand them as professional liars. The only lawyer in this case who on evidence published may have lied (or else been seriously deceived by Rossi - but I'm not sure that washes) is Rossi's own lawyer and third party counter-claim co-defendent Henry Johnson.

  • Rossi is shrewd. My guess is he not only has the original 10.5 mil, but has probably grown it some. Besides, he may have other backers willing to step up.

    I doubt Rossi wants this offer to become 'real' because it means he wouldn't get his $89M. He seems to have very little chance of winning that but juries do very strange things, like saying "if the glove don't fit you must acquit" while completely ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence of DNA .

    Rossi seems to be able to pull the wool over the eyes of seasoned scientists and even Skeptics Society members if you believe the hyperskeptics side of the story. So he might easily charm a jury that will roll their eyes when the technical stuff goes back & forth.

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.