I think it's fairly safe to say nobody knows for sure whether the IP agreement really covers the Quark-X, what can the outcome of the lawsuit can be, regarding this IP (how does a breach of contract affect it, on one side or another?), and whether there will or won't be further lawsuits concerning this IP .
Also, there's the issue of GPT/time limits. Even if Rossi demonstrates (once again) something for all to see, the contract legalese might make it that he is not entitled to the millions
looks like they renumbered and left out #16 now in Eric's list, but you can find it on the docket at 238-17 lines 19-25
"the ERV asked me to send to him every day at approximately the same time....... I don't remember"
Did you see how many times Darden said he didn't remember in his deposition? So many times it is hard to count them.
Or that Murray didn't remember the placement of the flow meter, after an extensive study and simulation of it all?
Not excusing Rossi for not knowing something. But let's be fair, there is plenty of playing dumb going around here.
... but there's always the Internet Emissivity Experts to convince... there never was any excess heat.
It's a disingenuous attack--don't give it much heed. IH did a COP 9 replication. Even Para had significant doubt that IR temperature sensors could be fooled to that extent with an emissivity setting.
Understand the difference in long term and short term memory. If you send info at the same time every day for a year it should become part of your long term memory and be recalled later easily.
If you called the same time every day for a year you will likely remember the number for a good little time afterwards.
In Darden's cases it was mostly a one time item which is different.
If you call a number only once it is harder to remember and you will likely forget it.
IH still insists that the 1MW Validation test was unsuccessful. But I find their arguments weak and contradicted by early statements.
a) The reduction from 54 to 30 to 18 units. But a successful 18-unit test would be fantastic.
They tested 18 reactors for the full period, and another 18 for a shorter period.
Rossi insists he DID speak to Italian officials.
Thinks: if not, why did Rossi reduce the number? Maybe his 1MW was still leaky, and couldn't hold a full 1MW of steam.
b) That it only ran for 23.5 hours. Penon admitted this in his deposition without comment.
Thinks: why cut it short? Was there agreement with all present?
c) That they didn't measure the flow, or the Delta-T
Amendment 1 (1-3) says : "The ERV will measure the flow of the heated fluid and the Delta T
between the temperature of the fluid before and after the E-Cat reaction."
Penon's sign-off is at 207-11. It's not clear from Penon's schematic where exactly the water pumps or the flowmeters are.
203-0 (IH's ) says "As reflected in the validation report by Penon, the testing was only
conducted for 23.5 hours and a flow meter was used to measure the flow of the fluid entering
into the E-Cat reactors, but no flow meter (or other device) was used to measure the flow of the
heated fluid out of the e-cat reactors."
Note : the delta-T was measured, Input at the external tanks, Output in the steam lines.
Note: I would have put flow meters on the inlet AND on the condensate return line.
But IH received the "Test Protocol of Plant Made for Cherokee" and had Dewey Weaver review it. Dewey's response is in 214-12, raising no fundamental problems except for the COP calculation. It presumably contains Penon's schematic.
It seems that T. Barker Dameron was the IH engineer on site (though the excerpts of his deposition don't cover the Validation test). Others were J. Compton, Darden and Vaughn. (There are photos of this test on the web).
Vaughn reports after the test 214-29 July 2013 : "We tested our plant at the end of April and beginning of May for four days. During the tests, we operated 37 different reactors for periods ranging from 24 hours to a few hours, and the results were good -- our engineer and the independent engineer operating the tests reported that the machine produced far more energy than they required to operate (nearly 11 times as much in some instances, versus our test requirement of 6 times, during the 24 hour test.) "
I'm with Rossi on this one ... it was a valid validation, even allowing for the 18-reactor substitution.
What is nice with this story is that one get educated. I can't find any good evidences that the ECAT works. Rossi seam to be tinkering a lot but lack interests in doing
proper work that enables good verification. The conclusion seam that we can't show from the evidences that it works and I would not grant almost a mega million bucks
on such low grade proof. That is crazy in my book. But Rossi should not be so sad, if the ECAT works, for a fraction of time and cost he could bring forward an experiment
that would make IH forget all the huzzle and pay up. So why the heck the litigation. If I was the judge I would spare myself of a lot of work and simply order Rossi to put up
a good experiment in order to claim the fourtune. So although I'm glad that some of the exhibits are entertaining, the whole litigation is to me proof of our love for litigation
over plain ol craftmanship and work.
Actually I can envision a version of LENR that works for Rossi, but he keeps on using poor verification and lower the effect too much in order to gain control and keeps on reaching
systems with COP 1. But then I conclude why the heck the litigation and no experiment that prove his point that should not be too hard.
Do you think he is going to pull out a Big Frankie in front of the judge?
That would probably be classed as contempt of court.
Perhaps you have not read the uploaded documents. They decided this long before Rossi sued them. Anyone can confirm that. Your statement is flat-out wrong. You are making of fool of yourself. Why? What is the point of saying things that anyone can see are factually wrong?
Jed, please do give us the year/month when this happened, i.e. that they decided there never was any excess heat.
I think it's fairly safe to say nobody knows for sure whether the IP agreement really covers the Quark-X,
You are wrong. It covers the Quark-X. However, the Quark-X is a fraud.
Jed, please do give us the year/month when this happened, i.e. that they decided there never was any excess heat.
How the hell would I know the exact month? They told me that a long time before it ended. I don't recall when. Some of the lawsuit documents show they knew that long before it ended. You will have to look through them yourself.
Any knowledgeable person who saw Penon's data could see it was fake. I don't know when he first gave them data, but as you see from Murray's letter to Penon (Exhibit 5) it didn't fool them.
This document clearly shows they thought there was no heat before the lawsuit:
http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741
My guess is that it took them a while to be sure, but I know they had doubts before Rossi moved the gadget to Florida.
This is, so far, my favorite from the last batch of Exhibits:
(238-28)
And that's almost exactly one year before Darden's "optimistic" interview, lol.
Do you think he is going to pull out a Big Frankie in front of the judge?
That would probably be classed as contempt of court.
Or indecent exposure.
If I was the judge I would spare myself of a lot of work and simply order Rossi to put up
a good experiment in order to claim the fourtune.
I do not think a judge can do that. She might suggest it to him and his lawyers, but she does not have the authority to order such a thing as far as I know. It is not a legal procedure.
But then I conclude why the heck the litigation and no experiment that prove his point that should not be too hard.
Exactly right. From this fact alone anyone can see that Rossi is committing fraud. He would not even need to demonstrate the machine to I.H. He could demonstrate it to any corporation. If he did it right, they would instantly believe him and start developing it. I.H. would be left in the dust. Rossi could later sue them and win easily. As Smith explained:
"The point is that the E-Cat 'system' could just as easily have been flowing water as steam. With the installed instrumentation, there is absolutely no way of knowing. Determining and establishing the whether the system was flowing steam would have been easy to do, if the person establishing the test plan was interested in knowing that data. . . ."
So - to summarise
There are many things we DONT know about the 1 year test, due to Rossi & Penon's spoliation of evidence (which may or may not get called that legally).
There has been much UD scattered about. I agree, many things are uncertain. But it is just plain wrong to forget the things which are certain, in a maze of uncertainty caused by Rossi's attempts to hide details of his testing.
We can say with certainty:
[source: exhibit 235-10]
The flow through each "Big Frankie" reactor comes from 6 dosimetric pumps rated 32 l/h. Total 0.75 gpm maximum flow (could be less because the pumps can be switched on and off).
There are 4 BF units normally used (we also know this because Rossi called these 250kW big tigers, and from evidence in exhibit 10)
The maximum flow of water heated by the reactors was therefore 3 gpm.
The flow of water measured by the flowmeter used by Penon to estimate energy is 6 gpm.
Something is wrong. Not just a little but, bit by at least a factor of 2. FACT
If the flowmeters misread (possible) then Murray shows they can do this by a factor of 4, and we have COP=1 if the ecats deliver minimal phase change.
If the flowmeters are correct (possible), then there must be some path round the customer/flowmeter circuit that bypasses the ecats. That path has flow with no corresponding power input. We cannot know what was the e-cat flow (with such a bypass path it could be zero) and therefore again even if the e-cats correctly make 100% phase change there is no evidence of COP > 1. This does not depend on any schematic, it comes from the dtaa in Penon's report and a physical examination of the BF modules.
So Penon's report is known wrong - that is a FACT - not an assumption or a likelihood. Given such major discrepancies, and the spoliation, we cannot trust Rossi's measurements at all.
I said minimal phase change. How do we know what is the phase change from the e-cats? IH had a sophisticated steam trap with measuring devices on the e-cat output to measure everything. Rossi removed this and replaced it by his own (home-made) instrumentation. We cannot check Rossi's instrumentation because it has been dismantled. So no evidence for phase change. FACT.
BUT - there is plentiful evidence that Rossi wants to prevent anyone else from examining carefully the test instrumentation and data.
Given that there is no evidence from this test of COP > 1, and this by the above argument is FACT, it seems totally weird to me that any discussion of the test can be spun positive for Rossi.
What we cannot do is say with certainty that the tested device had COP=1. The test is factually innacurate, The missing data all Rossis (or Penon's) fault. That cuts both ways: it means we cannot know Rossi's device does not work, and we cannot know that is does work. We are in the same position we would be if no test had been done, except we have gained extra information about Rossi/Penon - together they delete the detailed evidence that would allow this test setup to be properly checked.
Mostly, the arguments here are about all the other stuff which maybe can't be proven (or at least can be weasled around) but smells to high heaven (like Rossi's customer, or his vanishing heat exchanger). The above FACTs are simple, incontrovertible, and completely discredit this test. And show Rossi (and his friend Penon) doing all they can to make precise checking of the test setup impossible.
Regards, THH
Well everyone, this conversation has been fun at times, but it seems we have all (or nearly all) the information that we will likely have access to.
The next interesting Court action will be the Magistrates ruling on IH's claim of spoliation of evidence by Rossi, Penon and Fabiani. And following that, Judge Altonaga's ruling (assuming IH files a Motion for Sanctions with her).
Since there is an enormous amount of evidence clearly demonstrating that Rossi is a fraud, and now that we've seen the inside of the 'black box', showing clearly what a farce his whole scheme is, I am no longer interested in analyzing or commenting on the evidence.
Rossi is unequivocally guilty of far more than fraud: he has done enormous damage to LENR research, staining the whole field (including capable earnest and honest researchers) with his foul deceptions and diversions.
We know that IH paid Rossi in full for his pile of junk E-Cat, paid Rossi in full for his IP that has produced nothing. They gave him every possible chance to deliver something working, but finally didn't pay him for a 1 year GPT because he clearly did not produce anything remotely close to what would be required for that $89Million payment.
Given the Court case, Rossi is now in the position to win $267,000,000.00 dollars (because of triple damages) if he demonstrated that he had a 1MW reactor, become the richest and most famous person in the world, and certainly a Nobel Prize winner. But instead, he decided to disassemble everything for 'other uses'.
So Rossi, always the victim, is suffering greatly because now all he has is millions of dollars of Florida Real Estate.
The comments of those who attempt to defend Rossi or the E-Cat technology are vapid, destructive and ignorant, and the absurdly narcissistic notion that they are 'nuanced' or 'balanced' or from a perspective that 'just wants the truth' are pathetic (at best).
It demonstrates that there is seemingly no limit to the amount of self-deception that some humans are capable of.
I won't be around for several weeks, since there is no real information exchange happening here.
The Wizard of Roz has been exposed, and his pleas to 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' are ignored by anyone with common sense.
Ciao
And that's almost exactly one year before Darden's "optimistic" interview, lol.
What optimistic interview? Please be specific. I see where Darden is optimistic about LENR in general but fail to see the same optimism later with Rossi. Can you spell out your reference for me or is it just your words?
for example: the interview 2016 http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741 only speaks of LENR and makes no mention of Rossi. Remember IH has other "horses in their stables".
It's a disingenuous attack--don't give it much heed. IH did a COP 9 replication. Even Para had significant doubt that IR temperature sensors could be fooled to that extent with an emissivity setting.
My guess this was done with some sort steam-making experiment.
It would be nice to know what that experiment was about, and what about it made them decide it was not in fact making excess heat.
If the flowmeters are correct (possible), then there must be some path round the customer/flowmeter circuit that bypasses the ecats.
No, must is a strong word. If correct, there might be some other path. Or, as an alternative possibility (which I mentioned above but you apparently ignored, because it doesn't fit your view of the world), Smith's assumptions about which e-Cats and how many that were active is incorrect. We might be missing information about which or how many pumps were active. We might be missing information about whether there are other pumps used besides those shown in Smith's picture. Do you know for certain that each BF has six pumps associated therewith? How do you know this? Can you point to deposition testimony to this effect? Have you considered that there are almost always many possible alternative explanations for things, rather than just one?
Display MoreHow the hell would I know the exact month? They told me that a long time before it ended. I don't recall when. Some of the lawsuit documents show they knew that long before it ended. You will have to look through them yourself.
Any knowledgeable person who saw Penon's data could see it was fake. I don't know when he first gave them data, but as you see from Murray's letter to Penon (Exhibit 5) it didn't fool them.
This document clearly shows they thought there was no heat before the lawsuit:
http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741
My guess is that it took them a while to be sure, but I know they had doubts before Rossi moved the gadget to Florida.
So what you're saying is that there is no historical trace for IH/Cherokee concluding that there was no excess heat in 2015 or 2016, that we should consider this whole affair upon their present depositions, and that the pre-emptive declaration of IH/Cherokee in March 2016, knowing full well that Rossi was going to sue them in some way or anothersince they had seeded his IP, should be considered as proof the E-Cat doesn't work?
No, must is a strong word. If correct, there might be some other path. Or, as an alternative possibility (which I mentioned above but you apparently ignored, because it doesn't fit your view of the world), Smith's assumptions about which e-Cats and how many that were active is incorrect. We might be missing information about which or how many pumps were active. We might be missing information about whether there are other pumps used besides those shown in Smith's picture. Do you know for certain that each BF has six pumps associated therewith? How do you know this? Can you point to deposition testimony to this effect? Have you considered that there are almost always many possible alternative explanations for things, rather than just one?
Yes many alternatives. That is why Rossi will have a hard time proving his attacks against IH which is presumed innocent. Yet Rossi has offered so little detailed diagrams, data, photos. In fact I don't remember a single photo from him with instruments or schematics, or signed GPT start agreements,... but I could be wrong about that. And why did he destroy the system the day after the test instead of documenting to eliminate alternative that could "let IH go free".
If it was me, I would have invited the press and scientists to show them that I had a 1MW COP 60 device that would change the world. (even if I had to make them sign a NDA). And where is Johnson Matthey's statements to support his claims?
