Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from Roseland67

    Another troll,


    Because even though you object to all evidences indicating Rossi is a fraud and liar, and you desperately want to believe that the Ecat is what he says it is, you just cant say it, can you?

    But I just did... I said YES.


    And as you might realize you are confusing "evidence" with "indications" and there are even more "evidence" indicating Darden et al were trying to steal Rossi IP. As seen in many docs they got some IP of COP in the one digit range, but obviously not the two digits that the plant produced (or five like the QuarkX), which make their IP ~worthless anyway. It really is obvious. So by using technicalities like signatures and cylinder counts they are trying to wriggle themselves out of the deal. They were however not expecting to be sued - they had hopes of keeping Rossi under control for much longer. That is why they went ballistic a year ago (using loudmouth Dewey mostly).

    Quote from anotherTroll

    As seen in many docs they got some IP of COP in the one digit range, but obviously not the two digits that the plant produced (or five like the QuarkX), which make their IP ~worthless anyway.


    Assume for the moment that the QuarkX is what has been claimed of it (which I do not assume). I believe it will at any rate fall under the terms of the license agreement under the category of future modifications and inventions. In which case IH's IP would not be worthless, because it would include the QuarkX. Is this reading of the license agreement too broad? That is a question for lawyers, but the wording of the agreement is broad indeed.

    AnotherTroll


    So fascinating how some people process information. So let me see if I can follow this.


    So we now have a big pile of anti-Rossi evidence that supports Rossi is a liar and fraudster.

    The pro-Rossi evidence that Rossi supporters relied on has not much left to latch onto and is mostly unsupported or Rossi says (but we know he is a liar).


    So lets all ignore that then!!!


    Lets look at the pile of anti-Rossi evidence and compare it to the pile of anti-IH evidence and imagine that the anti-Rossi pile is somehow smaller and so that means the blame goes to IH so Rossi wins and IH loses, which in turn means that Rossi must be right so the E-Cat must be real.


    Yep, Dewey is right, you really are from another planet.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Assume for the moment that the QuarkX is what has been claimed of it (which I do not assume). I believe it will at any rate fall under the terms of the license agreement under the category of future modifications and inventions. In which case IH's IP would not be worthless, because it would include the QuarkX. Is this reading of the license agreement too broad? That is a question for lawyers, but the wording of the agreement is broad indeed.


    That is actually an interesting comment. I believe this is one of the reasons Rossi wants the license agreement to be terminated. Even more so than getting the $89M. So yes, in the minds of IH the possible IP is not worthless per se; it is more of an open ended option (Darden even said so somewhere in his depositions). But as it stands, Darden do not have the juice - and the possibilities for him getting it, regardless of outcome, is null. So what he has is worthless. The mistake Darden made was trying to be smart and reducing risk by delaying as much as possible and distributing IP among many R&D entities. He underestimated and misjudged Rossi though in the process.

    Quote from sigmoidal

    That excerpt is a great find. I'm impressed how 'chatty' both Darden and Vaughn are.


    Which document is this from?


    There is so much stuff here . . .


    Here is something I noted. The lawyer who deposed Murray knows nothing about science. He admits as much. He slept through his science course. He doesn't know the difference between power and energy. Yet he presumes to lecture Murray about steam and hot water. He is a stupid as many of the people here, and as stupid as Lewan, who do not even understand a kitchen pressure cooker, and who think that water at 101 deg C cannot be liquid. I refer to this part, starting on p. 173:


    Q. Water in its liquid form cannot reach the temperature of 101 degrees C at atmospheric pressure, correct?
    A. It's not that simple. . . .


    Q. I can tell you don't want me to agree with me, but I'm asking you specifically at atmospheric pressure.
    A. And at atmospheric in a, in an idealized world where you don't have real pipes and you don't have real, a real system, then the, theoretically you would say that at 0 PSI, absolute or relative -- at 101?


    "Don't want to agree with me"?!? What an ass! Murray is the kind of guy who as an undergrad working for a company saved the company millions of dollars with heat transfer engineering. He knows more about thermodynamics than everyone on Planet Rossi tied together. And this ass of a lawyer presumes to lecture him about steam? Give me a break!

    Quote from JedRothwell

    For $89 million? With no proof that it works?


    Well, unfortunately I do not have the money ... But that was not the question anyway since the terms were not set only intention.


    I however do believe that IH know that it works. The issue is how well it works. And if the stuff they bought performs as well as the newer stuff that Rossi built or not. At that point it gets more complicated.

    The License Agreement allows for Rossi to use "commercially reasonable best efforts to cause Guaranteed Performance [GPT] to be achieved." Even if a case can be made that this was the GPT and that the Guaranteed Performance was achieved, is Rossi's 16-hour 400 day involvement during the test reasonable? I don't think so and so the test, if it indeed were the GPT, fails on this point alone.

    Quote from oldguy

    How do you get GPT out of that? It was billed as a R and D effort. I see no claim of GPT.


    I guess you need to combine with the Vaughn dodging deposition of 207-21 to get the whole picture. It looks as if it was important for Darden to have Rossi/Penon believe it was the GPT but at the same time hedging legally by keeping the backdoor open. Lawyer tactics you know...


    Darden certainly wanted Rossi to keep working, since I do believe the tech was what we can call only partially reliable and it usually it needed hand holding from Rossi to work for longer periods. This is probably what IH hints when talking about failed replications. They are not talking about COP (they got single digit COP many times, which is documented), but they never got the reliability, because the feel of Rossi (remember stetoscope) was needed for it.

    Quote from PeterMetz

    The License Agreement allows for Rossi to use "commercially reasonable best efforts to cause Guaranteed Performance [GPT] to be achieved." Even if a case can be made that this was the GPT and that the Guaranteed Performance was achieved, is Rossi's 16-hour 400 day involvement during the test reasonable? I don't think so and so the test, if it indeed were the GPT, fails on this point alone.


    Interesting. I believe IH thinks this path is too risky. They would need to admit to much to start walking it, otherwise it is probably the most sincere one.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Assume for the moment that the QuarkX is what has been claimed of it (which I do not assume). I believe it will at any rate fall under the terms of the license agreement under the category of future modifications and inventions. In which case IH's IP would not be worthless, because it would include the QuarkX. Is this reading of the license agreement too broad? That is a question for lawyers, but the wording of the agreement is broad indeed.


    Eric Walker : This claim possibly wrong and IH knows this.


    In classical Ni-Li-H LENR the stimulation happens over magnetic coupling (and phonon coupling). The new technology is based on coulomb coupling!

    Wyttenbach, you may have missed earlier discussions of the license agreement. I encourage you to re-read it closely for details relating to future modifications and inventions. The wording is expansive and appears to cover anything even remotely related to the E-Cat. Again, though, it is the lawyers that would need to sort out this (hypothetical) question, and it is not a question you and I will be able to resolve here.

    Quote from THEDEBATEISUSELESS

    Rossi specifically stated, using a sockpuppet on the JONP, that the flow meter was at the bottom of a U.

    Please read you statement! Does this sound logical as something to believe? He specifically stated, using a socket puppet!

    Rossi has made all sorts of claims with sock puppets on JONP. He has made all sorts of claims under his own name. "real customers making real production",

    "Chief Engineers", independent ERV's..... I tire reciting of the many fraudulent statements.

    Why would you believe this one versus the others? It is because it supports your own attached belief that the eCat MUST be real. Latch onto anything that might possibly support that and completely disregard everything else! The evidence is overwhelming! Step back and really think about your approach!


    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Here is the pertinent exchange with Murray about the positioning of the flow meter.


    Again, you are tying everything to a pipe size or flow meter position! What happens when the picture comes out that the pipe size is DN40? You will latch onto another caveat since the eCat MUST be real. You ignore the tons of other presented evidence, such as fake customer, fake engineer, fake production, hidden heat exchangers, the black box now only having "serpentine" pipes with heaters, etc. etc. and you latch onto a pipe size, which still has not been proven yet!


    If Rossi had a real working eCat, there was NO need to do ANYTHING fraudulent!


    Then if the pipe size is shown to be DN80, what then? This erases all the other proven fraud and lack of evidence that the ecat is real? Really! IH has never testified that the flow meter was not in a "U". Jed has stated that. IH has NEVER stated that pipe was DN40 in testimony. Murray included in a memo, that you microscopically pick on grammar, that the pipe was DN40. The context of the email is CLEARLY that he is asking Penon to clarify and answer very pertinent and logical questions. Yet the only thing you harp about is the grammar and pipe size. Murray was not under oath and there was not even a lawsuit at the time he wrote the memo. It was BEFORE the lawsuit and he was doing his job, asking pertinent questions. You are simply barking up the wrong tree!


    Even if the pipe is DN80, or the flow meter was in a "U". it proves nothing! IH was not lying or deceiving about it. You are wanting it to be lying and deceiving but it is not! You cannot fathom that Murray may have made a mistake in his memo. I am not saying it was a mistake, I am saying that it really is meaningless in the context of the memo. Yet you rest your entire case on it! Really:?:


    Let's see you criticize the hidden heaters, the JMP "engineer" that admitted Rossi was really the boss. That Rossi controlled all the equipment on the JMP side.

    That Rossi refused to let anyone on the JMP side, specifically claiming the "customer" would not allow it. Explain the serpentine pipes, now known to be in the black container, experienced state inspectors testifying under oath that no production, inventory or other activity was observed and on and on and on.


    Yet these lies do not detract you from Rossi and yet you cling to a four word phrase "pipe size was DN40", in a pre-lawsuit memo, that was simply asking for clarification of legitimate questions, (that was never answered) as being the real yardstick to measure if the eCat works or not!:?: Really!


    Blatant contradictions under oath to Rossi statements and yet no criticism from you on these. Yet, you continuously make derogatory remarks about IH people based soley upon your "interpretation" and conjecture! Really?


    I can tell you now and you can quote me later. If the pipe size turns out to be DN40, you will STILL argue that the eCat works and nothing has been proven otherwise. Simply because you have dug a hole so deep, the view that the eCat works has been explicitly attached to your own world view and cannot be false.

    As the statement goes "the alternative is unthinkable"! :|

    Folks, I think we all need to take a breather, step back, and let's look at the big picture. This is a historical moment for LENR and the events unfolding now will reverberate for many years into the future. It is too important for us to immediately dismiss each other or dismiss the evidence without very good reasons for doing so.


    It is perfectly clear now that Rossi was running the operations and financing for JMP. The evidence reveals this. There are few questions remaining on that front. Rossi has essentially explained the scheme in excruciating detail during his testimony. If you think Rossi is lying about this in his deposition, then you would be more of a Rossi supporter than Rossi himself. He knows it looks bad. He knows IH will use this to their fullest extent. He laid it out on the table because he knew he had no other choice. He is human, and he messed up. He probably wanted to try and help IH attract the funding it needed to consummate the $89 million deal. Greed probably got in the way.


    IH has also been less than forthcoming. On April 7, 2016, IH said: "Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success." But prior to that, JT Vaughn wrote: "After receiving the components from various suppliers, we proceeded to build the control equipment, heating elements and reactors, which we fueled. . . . They appeared to operate similarly and we believe they produced significant excess energy, though we do not want to report specific multiples until we have reviewed the data thoroughly and conducted tests using at least two thermal cameras to ensure the data is accurate." (emphasis added.)


    Before you criticize my position, which is still neutral at this point, please absorb the documents and evidence as I am doing now. If you are the type of person that goes straight to the end conclusion, and perhaps just reads the brief, then don't even try to grapple with me. If, on the other hand, you are interested in gaining a complete understanding of what happened, and what is happening, and want to dig in as I do, then I welcome you to engage with me.

    Some people learn that Rossi lied about the customer and assume everything he says is a lie.


    Others also know that Rossi lied about the customer but don't want to assume that everything else is a lie. The non-existence of a customer doesn't 100% affect the size of the output pipe or the placement of the water meter.


    That doesn't mean we live on different planets. Most of us just want to get down to the truth, and have different ways of approaching it.

    I think we are all deluding ourselves if we believe that the proceedings of this court case are going to refute or vindicate Ni-H LENR as a technology. This case is an interesting story of intrigue and deceit and the court will decide the outcome of the lawsuit. At the end of this case, I don't believe any of us are going to be more or less convinced of the veracity of Ni-H LENR - though by reading the comments, one would think that is exactly what is at stake.


    The science of LENR does not depend on the personalities and actions of these people; though future funding of LENR research may depend on the outcome.


    When the underlying science behind LENR is discovered and if it becomes clear that LENR will have a huge impact on the energy landscape, the likes of this court case will be repeated many times over as inventors and businesses try to grab a share of what will surely be a huge economic pie.

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.