Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from IH Fanboy

Rossi scribbled the 100.1 value on a whiteboard in a video with Focardi from years prior. Are you saying that he gave you that number at the time the measured value was being publicly disputed between Dewey and Rossi?

He gave it to me another time. There is no "public dispute." You are ginning up an imaginary dispute to make trouble.

Dewey and I had some notes with one temperature, and other notes with a slightly different temperature. We both quoted the lower temperature first, and the higher temperature later on -- giving Rossi every benefit of the doubt. Actually, the two are so close together the difference is insignificant, and I am sure the actual temperatures in the pipe varied over a wider range than this.

Quote from SSC

That's right, Peter. Why IH did not protest when the first report of Penon was received, if it was so obvious that the data were absurd?

They did protest. To Rossi, to me and to many others. They were protesting the whole year.

Quote from Peter Gluck

Jed this is the copy of the answer I gave you on Vortex:

An excellent paper kind of old friend- I remember when it was first discussed on the blog of my friend Daniele Passerini years before the Trial and then once again in the Flowmeter scandal days when you,

And here is my response to this damn nonsense:

Peter Gluck wrote:

Quote

Jed. have claimed that a good flowmeter expert can convince the instrument to show one order of magnitude more flow than the real one. (now this is 4X)

Yes, you can make the error 4 X, or 10 X. At Defkalion the flow was zero and they showed it was high. That is an error of infinity, I suppose.

Quote

The results of the paper are perfectly plausible and the solution- scending pipe is simple and fine.

No, it is not "perfectly plausible" that the pressure was 0.0 bar, the flow rate was exactly the same every day, even on days when the machine was turned off. It is no possible these pumps provided as much water as shown. It is not possible the machine consumed more electric power than the power company supplied. That is not "perfectly plausible"; it is outrageous nonsense.

Quote

The main differences to the Doral plant case: a) the paper describes an open flow not a circuit, the Plant has that ascending pipe

That is incorrect. The flow meter is located in the gravity return pipe, according to Rossi's schematic. I suggest you ask him for a copy of that schematic, since you do not believe me.

Quote

b) the tests with errors are made when the flow is just starting, a professional test would let the flow for a few minutes when the parameters are established and constant- and only then to compare reading and effective flow.

That is incorrect. You would see the same result no matter how long the water runs.

Quote

You do not measure the speed of flight during landing- start is anomalous in a way.

Completely wrong.

Quote

Now there are two cases possible in principle: A. Normal professional setup: RESERVOIR- PUMP-FLOWMETER-E-CATS: no systematic, significant errors possible

No, the flow meter was installed in a half-empty pipe. Everyone who looked at it saw that immediately.

Quote

B. Setup according to Jed

The setup is according to Rossi, not me.

Quote

FLOWMETER- RESERVOIR-PUMP- E-CATS- serious problems; doubtful if flowmeter works- erratic, inconstant, jumping readings due to air inclusions however not constant multiplier effect, incontrollable system.

There is no doubt whatever the flow meter was wrong because:

1. The pipe was half empty.
2. It was the wrong kind of meter.
3. The pumps could not possibly supply that much water.

Various other reasons such as --

4. Everyone in the building would be dead if there were a 1 MW heat source.

Quote

Errors- yes, scamming is much more difficult.

This was the most inept and obvious scam I have ever seen.

Quote

BTW the same true for Luca Gamberale's calumny paper. Where in the LENR land are you now, caro Luca?

You should ask instead: where is Defkalion? Why did they never answer the issues raised by Gamberale?

Umm has any one calculated just how much water would flow per day if a DN80 gravity return pipe with even a very slight slope was half full across its diameter under continuous flow?

This might help:

https://www.cedengineering.com…20Flow%20Calculations.pdf

Quote from Eric Walker

Doc. 143, a memorandum of law, now on the docket.

143 - IH files a Memorandum of Law regarding communications with Deep River Ventures protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.

Summary: IH asserts that Attorney-Client Privilege (and Work Product doctrine) protects some communications with Deep River Ventures (DRV), "an independent contractor engaged by Industrial Heat to serve as an intellectual property (IP) consultant". The 'Managing Partner' for DRV is none other than Dewey Weaver. IH and DRV jointly engaged two law firms as IP consultants regarding patent applications and possible other IP-related ventures. At a 2017-02-07 hearing, the court provided two examples of email communications (which are not included on the docket) - one with and one without appropriate attorney-client privilege, in order to guide IH on appropriate application of privilege. IH then gives a fairly lengthy discussion as to why "many" of the communications with DRV are privileged. IH also cites and includes several exhibits, including the executed legal agreements between IH and DRV, and jointly between IH and DRV and two IP legal consultants. The final Exhibit C is pages 1 and 22 of the 55 page transcript of the hearing held on 2017-02-07. It is worth reading, as it provides a glimpse into Rossi's attorney Brian Chaiken's allegations, and one can safely surmise that a common pro-IH poster here is being referenced (though redacted):

THE COURT: I don't see that person's name. I only see one Weaver on here.

MR. CHAIKEN: |REDACTED| is on the first page, |REDACTED|.

THE COURT: Oh, I see it, yes.

MR. CHAIKEN: And on the second page you'll find |REDACTED|.

THE COURT: I see that. So who is Deep River Ventures?

MR. CHAIKEN: I'm glad you asked, Your Honor. Deep River Ventures is a consultant hired by Industrial Heat or Cherokee or, you know, it is still unclear because we've never received an executed version of the agreement. We've received drafts of the agreement.

Now, it is our understanding, through hearing testimony from Industrial Heat VP, that Deep River Ventures was retained for the purposes of helping them with their IP strategy. And perhaps acquiring additional IP related to the technology at issue and finding investors related to that.

And we've also received through discovery things showing that, in fact, what Deep River and |REDACTED| were doing is anything but that as it relates to |REDACTED| And in fact , what |REDACTED| was really doing was attempting to do a character assassination of |REDACTED| on-line.

I leave it as an exercise to the Reader to fill in the |REDACTED|'s. Interesting...

Quote from JedRothwell

No, it a trivial matter. It is momentary confusion, like when you owe $15, you accidentally hand the cashier a $10 bill instead of a $20, and you ask for change. If you find that "funny" you are easily amused.

OK, I know, this is your personal way to pay homage to the genious of one of your heroes: Machiavelli. Anyway, he recommended to appear at least credible, and in this case you forgot to follow his advise.

It's impossible to believe that the LENR librarian, the world's most informed man about the Ecat story, can accidentally confuse the famous "18 hour test" performed by Levi, with the subsequent test documented by the two Swedish professors.

The "18-hour demostration" is one of the few items on the "news" page of your site (1), and in those days, in February 2011, you extensively documented that test on Vortex. You also wrote a letter to Josephson specifically addressing that test (2), in which you strongly supported the results briefed to you by Levi about the production of a huge and continuous excess heat along the whole 18-hours period. But after MrSelfSustained reasserted which test he was referring to, you answered him (3): "These are interesting news items." Were those items really new for you? Should we really believe, that you forgot even for a while that test and your letter to the Nobel laureate?

On the same answer to MSS, you say:

"I cannot draw any conclusions from it. Lewan's description is no better. […] What you see here in these two reports does not meet the essential first steps for a scientific evaluation. […] You can't draw any conclusions from them."

But a few months after that test, in August 2011, answering to the same objections, you wrote (4):

"This data is similar to what you find on a boiler test form, filled in by an inspector. It is no less detailed than that. No sensible person would suggest that such tests are inadequate, or that there is some reason why they might be wrong. They are, of course, imprecise. As it says on the guides to these forms, the results are plus or minus 10%."

And, again, a few comments later (5):

"If your best argument against this data is the assertion that Lewan and I are incapable of transcribing numbers correctly, or that Levi and the others did not bother to check the published report in NyTekNik to be sure the numbers are right, you have lost this debate."

So you were well informed about those early tests, but now you skip all the questions about them, and you try to divert all the attention on the last 1 MW-1 y test, keeping on repeating the same clichéd statements.

This looks like a game, you are playing since 6+ years. At least.

The following is a clear example of your tactic:

Quote

You people make mountains out of molehills, like making a huge fuss about the difference between 100.1 degrees and 103 degrees. In reality, any machine of this size will have fluid over a broader range of temperatures than this. Two or 3 degrees are meaningless.

But you mistake person. I'm not interested in the last innings of this game. The very last is only a win-win matchball inside the LENR field.

(1) http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm

(2) http://www.physicsforums.com/s…hp?p=3214604&postcount=41

(3) Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

(4) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg49829.html

(5) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg49861.html

Quote from StephenC

Umm has any one calculated just how much water would flow per day if a DN80 gravity return pipe with even a very slight slope was half full across its diameter under continuous flow?

Half full is not a scientific assessment. I'm not sure what Jed means when he says this other than "not empty and not 100% full". For a 15% full pipe you get a speed of (approx) 25cm/s, and so on. With a gradient you will get faster flow at the bottom, up to a speed limited by turbulence, and therefore a less full pipe at the bottom. If you imagine poring 500g/s into your pipe you can see what I mean.

deep river -

Dewey Weaver, is listed as the Managing Partner at Deep River Ventures

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dewey-weaver-90b6b128

Yep - quite a fuss underway.

Right out of the Planet Rossi playbook.

Bring it!

143 Certainly connects a lot of dots.

Well, Rossi alleging that Dewey is paid by IH to assassinate his reputation is understandable - though if so I'm pretty sure Dewey could find more profitable assignments and IH could find more effective assassins. So like many RossiSays it has blog plausibility but looks flaky when closely examined.

I prefer Dewey's story that he is here unpaid to defend his friends against the monstrous allegations of a known liar whose cause is nevertheless championed by many here. Either way I don't think Deweys' posts win any hearts and minds - but they are good fun!

Again with the paid poster idiocy? Could somebody explain to me why anyone would spend money to have posts made on a fringe website impugning the character of either a free-energy scammer or a shell company that invests in cold fusion? What is the payoff and to whom? Do people think that this childish infighting will affect a multimillion-dollar lawsuit in any fashion? Will it affect the course of science? Do people here actually think that the petty squabbles on this website are important to anyone but those who hang out here? That strikes me as delusions of grandeur.

Quote from interested observer

Again with the paid poster idiocy? Could somebody explain to me why anyone would spend money to have posts made on a fringe website impugning the character of either a free-energy scammer or a shell company that invests in cold fusion? What is the payoff and to whom? Do people think that this childish infighting will affect a multimillion-dollar lawsuit in any fashion? Will it affect the course of science? Do people here actually think that the petty squabbles on this website are important to anyone but those who hang out here? That strikes me as delusions of grandeur.

Sad though it is, the answer for many here would appear to be yes.

I have long wondered why Weaver has leaked so much information (or hints of information)., compared to Rossi's "In pursue of precise directions from my Attorneys, I cannot comment on issues that will find due evidence in Court."

143 makes it clear he is not just an aggrieved investor, but a paid operator, and thus posts with the full authority and support of IH, Jones Day and Apco. Appendix B (IH/DRV contract) is a bit weak on non-disclosure, but section R indicates that company approval is required for "dissemination" of company information.

I still don't see the reason for all Weaver's FUD : the jury won't see it.

Edit: it's a bit ironic that with all IH's complaints about Rossi submitting un/incompletely-signed documents, Appendix B itself is not signed by IH.

Quote

143 makes it clear he is not just an aggrieved investor, but a paid operator, and thus posts with the full authority and support of IH, Jones Day and Apco. Appendix B (IH/DRV contract) is a bit weak on non-disclosure, but section R indicates that company approval is required for "dissemination" of company information.

I'm afraid Alan it does not. Quite apart from the inherent implausibility - you seem to be following many here and thinking that Rossi's allegations are truth? What evidence, other than a RossiSays, do you have? And what company information has Dewey disclosed? (He has been quite careful, to my knowledge).

You are demonstrating what I said: and why it is necessary in a boring repetitive way to point out Rossi's known lies.

The crux of the biscuit is slowly revealing itself. One who blogs lies, slander, libel, uses aliases to try and control narrative, uses sockpuppets to demean others and perpetuate partial truths, dupes and plys journalist, bloggers, scientist with lies, etc...etc...etc.... clearly thinks that everybody else must do that as well. They cannot possibly accept that the other side could be telling the truth because only Planet Rossi's version of "truth" is useful. Everybody on Planet Rossi thinks that everybody else is lying all the time anyway. Well that gig is almost up. This guy picked a fight with the wrong people and chose US Federal Court as his battlefield. The pleadings are closing shortly, discovery is wrapping up and there will soon be no where else to spin and hide. Bring it!

The legal case may have no relation to whether the ecat works or does not work, or even whether Rossi lies or does not lie.

I knew an attorney who won a major infringement case for Intel by asking one question: "Is there any possibility that you may have seen the microcode".

Dewey has and has not written this:

The crux of the biscuit is slowly revealing itself. One who writes lies, slander, libel, uses aliases to try and control narrative, uses puppets to demean others and perpetual partial truths, dupes and plys journalist, bloggers, scientist with lies, etc...etc...etc.... clearly thinks that everybody else must do that as well. They cannot possibly accept that the other side could be telling the truth.

This is about IH supporters, masters of insulting.

Dewey has told us here the aim is to let the Court know in perpetuity what a dreadful individual Rossi is.

It was a Pareto relationship- 80% painting Rossi in black, 20%

telling no excess heat.

peter

Oh snap....do you mean that this case doesn't have anything to do with whether the Plaintiff lies or tells the truth?

Well that simplifies things dramatically........why didn't you say something earlier?

Quote from Alan Fletcher

I have long wondered why Weaver has leaked so much information (or hints of information)., compared to Rossi's "In pursue of precise directions from my Attorneys, I cannot comment on issues that will find due evidence in Court."

143 makes it clear he is not just an aggrieved investor, but a paid operator, and thus posts with the full authority and support of IH, Jones Day and Apco. Appendix B (IH/DRV contract) is a bit weak on non-disclosure, but section R indicates that company approval is required for "dissemination" of company information.

I still don't see the reason for all Weaver's FUD : the jury won't see it.

Edit: it's a bit ironic that with all IH's complaints about Rossi submitting un/incompletely-signed documents, Appendix B itself is not signed by IH.

Display More

You need to stop implying that Dewey Weaver is a trollbot operating for IH/Cherokee under the umbrella of plausible deniability they set up at the start of the trial, when stating that the only communication from them will be official, which means that people should disregard hearsay or others seemingly speaking in IH/Cherokee's name