Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    • Official Post
    Quote from IH Fanboy

    I recommend that you watch the National Geographic American Genius series of documentaries. It is a fascinating watch filled with brilliant inventors of the past. Much intrigue, deception, court battles, triumph, and failure. And these things seemed to consistently accompany the narrative of about every world-changing technology. It is due human frailties: greed, power, fear, dishonesty, and the like. The Rossi / IH affair is in no way unique, and is actually about what I would expect if the underlying technology was real.


    Dang, I was afraid you would come up with something like that! :) So now, I have to not only read the rest of the case documents, now I have to watch a series of documentaries that will make Rossi appear the norm?


    They will be coming to take me away aha, oho, ahee, to the funny farm, where I belong, they are coming to take me away.....



    Fair enough, Jed doesn't have to disclose anything. I'll make my own assumptions however.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    The only way you can disprove it at this point is to provide evidence that the return pipe and flow meter configuration was completely botched.

    Read the case files and you will see that I.H. has evidence that the return pipe and flow meter configuration were completely botched. Heck, you don't even need to do that. Look at Penon's flow rate numbers. They are obviously fake. He made them up. No flow meter would produce those numbers in real life.


    You might as well try to defend Defkalion's flow rate numbers after it was demonstrated that their meter showed a high number when there was no flow at all.

    Quote from sigmoidal

    Regarding Paradigmnoia's post of a page from Darden's deposition where he talks about how he identified a serious measurement error, and when Rossi came up and discovered that there was no charge in the unit, he claimed someone must have stolen it (even though it was sealed in a way that would make that explanation unlikely).


    It comes from 207-09, page 15. Interesting read (not just the yellow highlighted part). Para wished that the whole transcript were available. Me too. Some day, presumably.

    I have been attempting to include the court document identifier in the images if I can.

    I thought that the water meter testing with clear pipe and changing angles and using calibrated flow rates was pretty nice. They managed to get 300 L/h to read 1500 L/h on the meter.

    So much for impossible.

    I don't have the documents with me, so I'll scrounge a document location later.

    (Probably it is in 215-03)

    A little interesting tidbit:


    Remember this email from Rossi? (207-34 page 4) - emphasis mine.


    June 10, 2014, around when Rossi was pitching the "customer":


    Quote

    SITUATION



    I have completed the organization of my plan to put the 1 MW in operation. I confirm all I already said: we have a Customer who pays 1,000 $ /day to rent the 1 MW plant, put it in his factory in Miami, produce catalyzers that he sells; I will direct the operation of the plant for the first year, the contract will be for 3 years, renewable. The Custo will not ave access to the reactors, that will remain under our full control for maintainance and recharge. For the permissions, I already got the necessary instructions along what I already had been told before, as you know. In the meantime: I will start the next Monday with Barry the application of the components we are buying this week by T.Barker ( the list I gave to Elizabeth) that Fulvio is finding in this moment on the Internet, as T.Barker asked for. Fulvio will receive tomorrow the container from Italy with all his lab and components for to make the upgrading of the control system: as soon as ready it will be mounted on the plant. Tomorrow I will be in Raleigh, to work on the 1 MW plant. That's all.



    Now check out Rossi's deposition on behalf of JMP, doc 207-36 page 9 ("pages 34-37")


    Rossi claims that he told IH "from the beginning", in this email specifically, that he was going to direct the plant of JM.




    Actually, there is also another e-mail in the same exhibit, where Rossi is saying something about "running the plant".





    hmmmm I think we can all agree that Rossi is FOS here?

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Can you provide a cite?

    Paradigmnoia described it. I think it was in the Murray deposition.


    But the method of fooling the flow meter is beside the point. While there is no doubt the flow meter was the wrong type, incorrectly installed, and it showed the wrong numbers . . . As you see in the Penon report, Rossi ignored the flow meter and wrote fake numbers into the spreadsheets. The same with the temperature and pressure. He just cut and pasted the same fake numbers, day after day, even on days when the machine was turned off. (Either Rossi did this, or Penon did it during his infrequent visits.)


    Even if the flow meter had been working perfectly, anyone can see that no real flow meter, thermometer or pressure gauge would produce those numbers.

    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."


    JT Vaughn Deposition, when placed under oath, concedes:

    14 Q. Okay. The second paragraph below, where it

    15 says Industrial Heat update July 2013, the document

    16 states, in the middle of that paragraph: "We tested our

    17 plant at the end of April and beginning of May for four

    18 days. During the test we operate 37 different reactors

    19 for periods ranging from 24 hours to a few hours and the

    20 results were good. Our engineer and the independent

    21 engineer operating the test reported the machines produced

    22 far more energy than they required to operate. Nearly 11

    23 times as much in some instances versus our test

    24 requirement of six times during the 24-hour test."

    25 A. Mm-hmm.

    214-4, page 164


    Some of you may wonder why I'm highlighting these. It's because I had a strong hunch back when IH first released their PR statement that they were being less than forthcoming. And now that hunch is being confirmed many times over. When they made that statement, they injected massive FUD into the prospects of commercially viable LENR. It upset me then. And it still sort of peeves me off. My apologies for that, if any are warranted.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    I thought that the water meter testing with clear pipe and changing angles and using calibrated flow rates was pretty nice. They managed to get 300 L/h to read 1500 L/h on the meter.

    So much for impossible.

    I don't have the documents with me, so I'll scrounge a document location later.

    (Probably it is in 215-03)


    Yeah, Murray was fiddling around with all different kinds of slopes and water flow rates trying to fool the flow meter in his "reconstructions" even though he testified that he didn't even know whether the flow meter was located above or below the pipe inlet. And if you take his worse case numbers for faking out the flow meter, there is still a many multiple COP left to explain away.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Yeah, Murray was fiddling around with all different kinds of slopes and water flow rates trying to fool the flow meter in his "reconstructions" even though he testified that he didn't even know whether the flow meter was located above or below the pipe inlet. And if you take his worse case numbers for faking out the flow meter, there is still a many multiple COP left to explain away.

    Jed already showed how the the other supposed excess can be explained away.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    No, he did not.

    Page 122-123 says


    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Jed already showed how the the other supposed excess can be explained away.


    I don't recall Jed every showing such a thing. I think he has said something like Defkalian didn't have any flow. But I don't think anybody here is claiming that there was no flow. It is very difficult to get to unity based on the three sets of data. Try it--run the numbers.

    @Zeus46


    Remember Dameron's testimony where he hemmed and hawed about what COP they had seen, and finally admitted to 1.3. Everyone here pounced on that and said the reason he seemed so uncertain in his testimony was because IH was uncertain of the number, that it was probably less. After I closely read his testimony, I posted here that I thought he was being evasive, and that IH had probably seen COPs in excess of 1.3, thus the reason for his stumbling over his words. THH about wanted to start a fist fight with me over my hunch (well, maybe not a fist fight, but he wasn't happy). Now look, we are seeing evidence that IH had replicated the effect upwards of COPs in the range of 5, 9, and 11.

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.