Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from joshg

I'm tempted to get drawn into a long back-and-forth with you about the ins-and-outs of this issue, but I don't feel like it and have other things I need to be doing. My last word on it is this:

If you can't see how not trusting Rossi's measurements doesn't enter into a decision to spend tens of thousands of dollars every month, then I don't see what the point of the discussion would be. The case is clear. Darden is either a businessman with "astonishingly poor judgement who is pathologically bad at due diligence" or he had an ulterior motive (and maybe still does). It's one or the other.

You're saying that he was willing to let the customer be the litmus test for whether the thing worked, since he couldn't trust Rossi's measurements. But he had many reasons to doubt the customer's legitimacy before agreeing to the test. You want to tell me he was willing to ignore all the warning signs, cross his fingers and hope for the best because of a 1% chance that Rossi had something? How would he even know if Rossi had something?

But how much do you want to bet that he never shared these misgivings with Woodford or the Chinese? You think he told Woodford that he felt the instrumentation couldn't be trusted and that the customer's President was Rossi's lawyer who had no manufacturing experience, let alone any clue what they were going to be doing? No chance.

Display More

As you say - I don't think a back and forth will help here, but equally it is worth making clear the points of disagreement. Which, from this post are:

(1) I'm not saying anything associated with Rossi is the litmus test. my point about the customer is that if there is a real cutomer (which could reasonably be established) that and the F&P records would be indepndent of Rossi. This is hypothetical, and Darden did not assume this would happen, but it represents a possible good outcome from the test.

(2) Darden would know whether Rossi had something through a long process of testing and retesting all of the IP provided by Rossi. These are reactors that tested some high COP in the Levi/Penon/Swede tests but did something different for IH. You will note that they had some illusory successes here getting COP > 1 on occasion. So at least till the time they signed that contract they had reason enough to hope, with the scientific evidence partly positive. At that point the criticisms of Lugano were not as clear as they are now.

One additional thing (not sure whether we agree over this). The Lugano test was a game changer. Had it been as billed, and not scientifically very wrong, it would have been the best ever indepenent demo of convincing commercial LENR. A big inducement and something that I think allowed IH significant hope, as you can see from Darden's contemporaneous letter.

(3) I'm pretty sure he shared his misgivings with investors. We have information from them saying this (not sure how much of that from the Discovery data dump?) and he would be in big trouble now (more suits) if he induced investment without full disclosure. You can make up a story in which Darden was fraudulent, independent of Rossi, but it seems weird. Why would he do that? He was making quite enough money with Cherokee from genuine high-risk investment. And if you listen to his public speeches it seems likely that he is a genuine altruist hoping to make money from ultra-high risk investment that might save the world.

Re: window to vent the purported upstairs heat exchanger, Doc 207-36, PDF page 29.

(edit: fixed document identification)

Q. Dr. Rossi, I am going to mark as Exhibit

24 21 a picture of the outside of J.M. Products. You

25 identified for us three -- that there were three sets

Page 232

1 of windows over the J.M. Products part of the Doral

2 warehouse, correct?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. And of those three sets of windows you

5 said it was the middle set of windows where the air

6 was being pushed out of the --

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. -- second story of the Doral warehouse?

9 A. Yeah.

10 Q. I am just trying to identify it here in

11 this picture. That would be -- I'm going to give

12 you -- I'm going to let you play artist again.

13 Actually, do you have something a little stronger?

14 Can you circle on Exhibit 21 --

15 A. Yes. Sorry.

Quote from anotherTroll

You conveniently forget the most obvious one (why am I not surprised); the pure reason for any VC to exist. Getting money from investors. Being as wordy as you normally are it is a but suspicious when you leave obvious stuff out, almost like the whole point is to move focus from this fact. Isn't it mr FUD?

There are two sides to this. VC's get capital from investors to invest in ventures. IH already had the money they needed for the 10.5M to Rossi. Had the Rossi IP been real no doubt they would have been able to raise another $100M (they have shown this in the Court documents) and any such potential investor would be interested in the Doral test. Only Rossi would think that test a determining factor, rather than the controlled tests done by IH.

See my replies interspersed below with -->:

Quote from THHuxleynew

As you say - I don't think a back and forth will help here, but equally it is worth making clear the points of disagreement. Which, from this post are:

(1) I'm not saying anything associated with Rossi is the litmus test.

--> I never said you said that. You said that the customer usage would be a litmus test.

my point about the customer is that if there is a real customer (which could reasonably be established) that and the F&P records would be independent of Rossi. This is hypothetical, and Darden did not assume this would happen, but it represents a possible good outcome from the test.

--> There's a lot of "IF's" and wishful thinking here. I have a sense that you have not read through Darden's depostion. I think it's clear from his statements that his due diligence on the customer basically amounted to having dinner with Rossi and his lawyer. You'd think if so much was riding on the customer's data, he would have been more diligent. You say all he needs is the F&P records. But what would he compare them to in order to make a conclusion about how much energy the Customer was using from the 1MW plant? Would he compare before and after records? There were none! And he had no reason to think there would be, nor did he investigate this issue. Again, was he just pathologically bad at due diligence?

(2) Darden would know whether Rossi had something through a long process of testing and retesting all of the IP provided by Rossi. These are reactors that tested some high COP in the Levi/Penon/Swede tests but did something different for IH. You will note that they had some illusory successes here getting COP > 1 on occasion. So at least till the time they signed that contract they had reason enough to hope, with the scientific evidence partly positive. At that point the criticisms of Lugano were not as clear as they are now.

One additional thing (not sure whether we agree over this). The Lugano test was a game changer. Had it been as billed, and not scientifically very wrong, it would have been the best ever indepenent demo of convincing commercial LENR. A big inducement and something that I think allowed IH significant hope, as you can see from Darden's contemporaneous letter.

--> This is all irrelevant, as Darden had no reason to believe any data he would have gotten from the 1MW test. Again, even if "it worked" he knew that he would have no way of knowing it due to Rossi's changes. I feel like we're going around in circles. So let me say it again so it's clear: Darden's belief in the possibility of Rossi's technology working (of whatever size and for whatever reason) is completely irrelevant, because he knew the data would be unreliable and the test would not be able to indicate whether the technology worked. Since he knew that he could not prove the technology one way or another with the 1MW test, there was no reason for him to allow it to proceed and PAY for it.

(3) I'm pretty sure he shared his misgivings with investors. We have information from them saying this (not sure how much of that from the Discovery data dump?) and he would be in big trouble now (more suits) if he induced investment without full disclosure. You can make up a story in which Darden was fraudulent, independent of Rossi, but it seems weird. Why would he do that? He was making quite enough money with Cherokee from genuine high-risk investment.

--> It's possible. I haven't read those parts of the documents. From what I did read it seems that the caveats to investors were very cleverly crafted. If he was completely candid with them about the fact that the data from the 1MW could not be trusted and that the customer's president was Rossi's lawyer, then the other investors would also be guilty of the pathologically bad at due diligence charge. I can come up with lots of possible motives for him to risk a lawsuit. But that's not the point. Many people ask similar questions about Rossi's motives -- why wouldn't he just take the 11.5 million and run? Why this? Why that? His actions also don't seem logical for a fraudster. I can come up with lots of possible motivations for Rossi and for Darden. But it's beside the point.

And if you listen to his public speeches it seems likely that he is a genuine altruist hoping to make money from ultra-high risk investment that might save the world.

--> Yes, it really does seem that way, doesn't it? I admit he had me sold for a time. Rossi also talks a good game and seems very genuine. So do politicians. But actions speak louder than words. Anybody can say anything they want, and some people are really good at making it seem like they really mean it. It has taken me an embarrassingly long time to learn to stop trusting what people say in the face of overwhelming evidence that I shouldn't. I guess I want to believe the best of people. I have finally absolved myself of that naive delusion.

Display More

Quote from Alan Smith

But IH let him do it. Which seems so incredibly dumb. After all, if you want someone to hang themselves, you don't really need to give them $11.5 M to do it with.

Alan, the $11.5m was the price they paid to "crush the tests" and get Rossi's IP. Either Rossi IP proves to have real gold, as you and a few others here believe, or he is hung.

For them the value of the gold was worth trying that.

Quote

I feel like we're going around in circles. So let me say it again so it's clear: Darden's belief in the possibility of Rossi's technology working (of whatever size and for whatever reason) is completely irrelevant, because he knew the data would be unreliable and the test would not be able to indicate whether the technology worked. Since he knew that he could not prove the technology one way or another with the 1MW test, there was no reason for him to allow it to proceed and PAY for it.

OK, let me approach this from a different angle. You approach this test as though IH's backing was for the reason Rossi proposed - that it would increase confidence that Rossi's stuff worked.

In fact IH were supremely uninterested in that. As you point out it would not do that (though as I point out the best possible outcome of a real external custoomer, which could easily be established if it were real, would be of interest). IH were trying to get Rossi's reactors under their control to work. And the wanted to keep Rossi sweet while doing this.

I don't think they did any DD on rossi's customer. Why should they? They were not expecting the test to be real.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Not if you formed a vacuum with two big fans at the end of the pipe work blowing heat out a window, and a pump pumping the condensate back to the plant.

But as Bob H pointed out, if Rossi removed the items without documentation then legally you must give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and rule against Rossi.

If Rossi destroyed the evidence of upstairs fans, pumps, heating tapes and who knows what else then you cannot use those in an argument against IH. ( he could even been sending RF down the pipe to confuse the thermocouples) If you don't have evidence then the defendant wins.

TH,

There is only 1 side to this,

the Ecat never worked as stated, it never produced Energy Out > Energy In.

All of the other arguments, the metallic sponges, roof vents, heat exchangers, steam quality, invoices, ERV data, Swedish Sceptics Society, etc, are all just FUD meant to confuse the unintelligent masses and steal their money, you know, fraud.

What I have trouble with is how did a bunch of supposedly smart lawyer type guys like Darden et al, not do their due diligence and get conned by Rossi?

I asked Dewey and he has not answered, probably because he is embarrassed.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Wyttenbach , Images..

@ PGM I see You got 180 degree inverted images. The one you labeled "not this one" is the correct one.

There is no road on the side of 7861 it's the third last of the condos and the mysterious one is the second last in the row. Just compare where the road runs.

And by the way my image has been marked by professional software, that is able to correctly indicated building numbers!! Please don't discuss this or ask google about possible failures of their GPS software!

This is a warning, anotherTroll: please moderate the ad hominem, both with regard to forum members, and with regard to outside parties. It is always possible to state misgivings in a more polite neutral way, using language that isn't so charged.

People seemed to be judging Darden's judgment solely on views of Rossi. Don't forget that IH was working with a number of other researchers. We do no know if some of the success by other researchers raised his hopes that Rossi might actually have something.

Would it not have been foolish for Darden to deny Rossi a 2 year sale of heat (not officially claimed as a GPT) if some of the other researchers were seeing some modest success with other systems. -- especially if that success was with materials containing Nickel?

Quote from Shane D.

By your logic, the bank should be held accountable for being robbed...

Doing so though, may make you feel good and buy you a little more time to believe.

Shane D. : No, here is my logic: Imagine the bank President is leaving his bank and sees an armed man with a mask walking towards the door. He holds the door open and continues on his way without alerting the police, knowing that if the man robs the bank his insurance company will pay back the money plus extra compensation for damages (not a realistic scenario, but go along with it for the sake of the metaphor). The man robs the bank. The bank president collects the insurance money without telling him what he knew and did, all the while complaining about being robbed. That is a more accurate analogy. And yes, in that case I think the bank president shares some of the blame.

I'm not trying to buy more time to believe. This is not a situation where if IH is wrong, then Rossi is right or vice versa. Both sides appear to be behaving like slippery snakes, as I stated in my first post in this thread. The only side I'm on is promoting LENR for the betterment of our world and the easing of human suffering. And that's not what I see here on either side on the basis of these documents. Yet I still naively cling to the hope that at some point in the future I will be surprised by Rossi or IH or both. But I won't hold my breath.

In fact, I am now regretting I ever opened my mouth on this thread. I wish I could let all these illogical statements and misrepresentations and all-around FUD just roll off me and move on with my life, but alas I am not built like that. So I get sucked into these ridiculous discussions. I'm going round-and-round through the doors of perception with THHuxleynew . When I tell him that Darden knew the test wouldn't be valid, he tells me that Darden was betting on the customer. Then when I tell him that Darden had good reason to not trust the customer, he agrees with me and just tells me they were trying to keep Rossi happy while trying to get his technology to work back in Raleigh. I find that highly dubious. I have not seen any indication in the documents that the test was necessary to keep Rossi "sweet." I have not seen anything to indicate they would spend something like $200,000 (roughly) to make that happen. I have not seen any indication in the documents where they say that this was their motivation. But perhaps I stand to be corrected.

I nevertheless have the strong impression that Huxley is not engaged in an honest debate but merely shifts the grounds of the debate endlessly hoping at some point that I will either not know where I stand or give up. I know where I stand, because the ground here is firmly logical. But I do give up! Arguing with you is almost as bad as arguing with ... what was that guy's name? Thomas something. Oh the memories... Huxley, you may continue on with your slippery arguments and illogical conclusions without me.

Quote from Wyttenbach

@ PGM I see You got 180 degree inverted images. The one you labeled "not this one" is the correct one.

Wrong.

Quote from anotherTroll

At least we know that Woodford based it's view of IH/Darden mainly on the core Rossi asset. They said so. No doubt Darden sold that view to them.

Why do you think that Woodford based their "investment interest" on the Rossi asset? Because of the prospect of near term product sales should the Rossi technology pan out. IH was meant to be an engineering venture. They invested the $11M to determine if the Rossi technology could be brought to product. The record seems to show that IH determined that they could not bring it to product with what Rossi had shown or given them. The GPT was meant to demonstrate that the technology had been matured and IH was ready to take the technology to product. I don't think IH is ready to take any of Rossi's technology to product now - so the GPT did not happen. The contract was phased like many other such advanced technology licenses with payout milestones based on development milestones.

Most such contracts reserve the big payout for not when the inventor says, "I did it", but when he has (with the design team) developed and installed a prototype manufacturing line and built devices like the product to be sold - built by people who will be manufacturing the product. At that point you are demonstrating that the technology is ready for product. This usually means that the inventor will have to work closely with the engineers developing the product prototype design, work with them while observing the prototype manufacturing, work with them to debug the prototypes, and work with the engineers on the design changes required to fix the design/manufacturing problems found in the first prototype run. Prototype runs are normally continued until a build comes back with nearly 100% functional devices. The next step is a larger "pilot" build by the same people with an updated manufacturing process. The pilot products are tested for regulatory and specification compliance, and for reliability, safety compliance, and accelerated life. You go into a pilot run expecting everything to pass. Regardless of what the contract says, this is how new technologies are brought to product. I don't get the feeling that Rossi was behaving in a manner at any time where he was ardently working to get his technology into a product. Without that, Rossi doesn't deserve the next milestone payment.

The time for coming to product phase with IH's other investments is much farther out than it would be if Rossi had what he claimed and worked as an engineer to get the technology into product. I can understand why Woodward was disappointed.