Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Peter Gluck

From the Miami Court Pacermonitor we could learn that at least 2 new documents, 133 and 134 are on the docket but can not be seen if you do not have paid for subscription.

Do you can see them? Have no idea how it works.

Not exactly sure how pacer.gov works, either. My impression so far is that files only show up there once a court clerk has uploaded and indexed them, i.e., during working hours, Monday - Friday. Nothing new in pacer.gov (from which PacerMonitor gets its data) as of Sunday, today.

Quote from Bob

However, Penon nor Rossi answered him!

Hi Bob. Do you have any source that Rossi haven't answered? I made the same statement att E-catworld and got challanged. And I couldn't find any source.

Any help would be appriciated

Dear Eric

OK, I understand now.

It is written there:

Docket last updated: 02/03/2017 11:59 PM EST

and it was an other updating after doc 132.

Now the documents start to add technical data to the legal verbiage- in part.

peter

Quote from Bob

So Penon left in February, Murray provided in writing the questions in March and Penon has refused to discuss since February. Clearly he did not answer!

Thanks for wanting to look at the facts. Way too often, some people take Rossi at his word or gossip is posted on ECW and soon becomes "fact". Unfortunately, even when links / facts are given, they will be twisted around to defend Rossi. After all "the alternative is unthinkable" !

Thanks for taking the time. I also found the source for Pennon not answering. But still no source that Rossi haven't answered. It might have been one of those things that has become a "fact".

@Roseland67

As for your "Rube Goldberg" allegation, it appears that Rossi already anticipated your attack, and will respond in kind with the Quark X.

And as to your "that no one can replicate" allegation, we know that IH did replicate it, at least to the tune of 1.3 COP. They say their own replication wasn't "credible." Well, sometimes incredible things happen to be reality.

@Bob

1) While I agree it is not IH's duty to answer my questions on this forum, their avoidance of my questions speaks for itself. And it might just come back around.

2) You misquoted what was said in Exhibit 5. The author of Exhibit 5 at page 2 unequivocally stated "and the piping is DN40." -- not "if the pipe size was.... how could..." as you stated above. So until you start quoting others properly, it is really tough to have a coherent conversation with you.

3) Murry was apparently brought in to prepare for the litigation. Everyone knew and sensed that. It was bound to be fought out on the courtroom docket, not in Murray's inbox.

You seem very upset that Rossi filed a lawsuit. But contractual lawsuits are quite common in the U.S. and you should not despair. It is the best way, by far, to surface the truth.

Quote from DNI

Hi Bob. Do you have any source that Rossi haven't answered?

He has answered (by denial). Look at Rossi's answer to IH's countercomplaint. Particularly paragraph 82.

Quote from IH Fanboy

As for your "Rube Goldberg" allegation, it appears that Rossi already anticipated your attack, and will respond in kind with the Quark X.

And as to your "that no one can replicate" allegation, we know that IH did replicate it, at least to the tune of 1.3 COP. They say their own replication wasn't "credible." Well, sometimes incredible things happen to be reality.

Why mess with the silly little Quark X when you have a 1MW plant with COP's > 100?!?

I suppose it would work great for interstellar travel if its propellantless thrust is strong enough. Or perhaps produce electricity only (as long as you don't try to self-loop for safety reasons). It would be cool to have a little switch so you could switch between 4 different settings depending on what you want (light, heat, electricity, or thrust). I want one!! Talk about a "magnificance."

Quote from Bob

Question 5 on page 3 is where Murray states "the pipe is reported to be DN40".

You have misquoted it once again. I really suggest you be more careful when quoting others.

Sure looks like question 5, page 3.

Here is the entirety of question 5 of Exhibit 5, which spans from page 2 to page 3. Note the bold text below regarding the DN40 pipe size.

"5. The flow of steam through the pipe to J.M. Products.

You stated that the pressure of the steam that was available to J.M. Products (JMP) was nominally atmospheric pressure (0 kilo Pascals gauge (kPaG) or 14.7 psia). The steam passed through a stretch of insulated pipe that was at least 6 meters long before entering the JMP space. (Presumably there was additional steam pipe on the JMP side.) According to the data you have reported, the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was on average 33,558 kg/day (1398 kg/h) and the temperature of the water and steam were on average 68.7º C and 102.8º C, respectively. The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40.

For steam to flow, a pressure differential is required to overcome the losses in the pipe. Given the foregoing, this would require that the pressure on the JMP side of the building was significantly below atmospheric (vacuum) and that the steam would flow at extraordinary velocity. But this was obviously not the situation present at the location.

Given your reported measurements, how do you account for the lack of an adequate pressure differential to provide for the flow of steam?"

Quote from IH Fanboy

He has answered (by denial). Look at Rossi's answer to IH's countercomplaint. Particularly paragraph 82.

I can't find where Rossi answered the queastions in exhibit 5. Paragraph 82 referensed by you don't answer them.

Quote from Jack Cole

Why mess with the silly little Quark X when you have a 1MW plant with COP's > 100?!?

Jack,

I generally respect your views and usually choose not to challenge you on them, but this one seems a little off. Rossi has stated that the Quark X is being developed in parallel with his larger plant efforts. The interesting thing is, people excoriate Rossi for making public claims about certain things, only to find out later on that he was telling the truth all along. This has happened many times.

If you had an effect like Rossi's, would you also not feel a need to try and miniaturize the device to perhaps fit different use cases? And it heads off the "Rube Goldberg" allegations at the same time.

Worth noting that Murray is assuming the report says 0kpaG

Either the pressure transducer was, as reported, measuring abs pressure and Rossi was converting on the fly to G

or

A different pressure transducer was used than the one planned

or

Murray is assuming the report says 0kpaG when the pressure measured was some nonsensical 0 bar abs

Quote from IH Fanboy

@Bob

1) While I agree it is not IH's duty to answer my questions on this forum, their avoidance of my questions speaks for itself. And it might just come back around.

2) You misquoted what was said in Exhibit 5. The author of Exhibit 5 at page 2 unequivocally stated "and the piping is DN40." -- not "if the pipe size was.... how could..." as you stated above. So until you start quoting others properly, it is really tough to have a coherent conversation with you.

3) Murry was apparently brought in to prepare for the litigation. Everyone knew and sensed that. It was bound to be fought out on the courtroom docket, not in Murray's inbox.

You seem very upset that Rossi filed a lawsuit. But contractual lawsuits are quite common in the U.S. and you should not despair. It is the best way, by far, to surface the truth.

Display More

I'm sorry to take to to task again but you have slipped back to old habits.

Quote

While I agree it is not IH's duty to answer my questions on this forum, their avoidance of my questions speaks for itself. And it might just come back around.

When you last did this I pointed out the several reasons why silence from IH and people close to them is expected, and says nothing sinister. In fact if IH said much, or answered your questions, you'd think they were strange.

Otherwise: Jed is independent of IH (they might have let him see small amts of stuff as the LENR seen lots of calorimetry person) but clearly speaking for himself as he has stated and only you and other (what was that word?) don't believe.

Dewey equally is speaking for himself and his pugnacious presence here is quite clearly motivated by his personal dislike at some people (group noun omitted again) making insinuations that his friends whom he believes to be (a) competent and (b) doing a thoroughly benevolent and possibly crucial job in funding LENR are either incompetent or putting self-interest first to the great detriment of teh greater good. You can see why Dewey would be so annoyed at such slurs, especially when they are on the basis of things stated by Rossi whose capacity to mislead and lie is at least 100% proven an over 5 years has assumed legendary proportions.

IH if they have any sense will not comment before a trial. And also will keep large amts of powder dry for later (the documents we see are part of a legal pre-trial dance). It is Rossi, not IH, who has been behaving weirdly. But then that I gues is expected...

Quote from IH Fanboy

@Bob

1) While I agree it is not IH's duty to answer my questions on this forum, their avoidance of my questions speaks for itself. And it might just come back around.

This is really absurd. IH haven't answered any questions at all on this forum. And you claim that their negligence to answer you would say something.

Quote from DNI

I can't find where Rossi answered the queastions in exhibit 5. Paragraph 82 referensed by you don't answer them.

It answers them. He denies the allegations and asks for strict proof. Murray will in all likelihood be deposed. He'll have to state under oath that the pipe was DN40 as he unequivocally stated in Exhibit 5 (assuming he is the author), or he'll have to retract.

Quote from IH Fanboy

It answers them. He denies the allegations and asks for strict proof. Murry will in all likelihood be deposed. He'll have to state under oath that the pipe was DN40 as he unequivocally stated in Exhibit 5, or he'll have to retract.

No, paragraph 82 in Rossis answer do not answer the questions in exhibit 5. Stop writing bull shit.