Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from THEDEBATEISUSELESS

I wonder if the manufacturer of the pressure gauge has any torture test data from subjecting their gauges to high temperatures for long periods?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBxSTlJLk6g

Quote from sigmoidal

Please show how you know Darden's motivation.

Sorry, but I already wasted enough time reading through the documents. Not going to piece together a case to prove it to you. All you have to do is look at the exhibits that Rossi's lawyers cite in their motion for summary judgement for evidence that IH was treating it as a GPT. Then look at Darden's and Vaughn's statements in their depositions about this issue and see how they tap dance around it, tripping over their own tongues to worm their way out of admitting they considered it to be a GPT and represented it as such to Rossi. Maybe they are just doing that avoid getting sued for $89 million. But then that would be some kind of perjury.

It's funny, because pretty much all the pro-IH posters keep telling Rossi supporters to look themselves hard in the mirror and wake up to reality, while they themselves engage in some kind of unreflective hero worship of Darden and IH. Snap out of it! I've got news for you folks: there are no angels in this sordid saga.

Quote from joshg

I think one problem here is that it seems you have not read the legal documents much if at all. Or at least less than I have. So I'm basing my statements on my reading of the documents, whereas you are basing yours on... I'm not sure what.

What I've read makes it very clear that Darden et al. were trying to have it both ways: they appear to have deliberately mislead Rossi, leading him and others to believe it was the GPT while trying to make the case in their depositions (poorly, I might add) that they did not view it as such. But the evidence from some of their own personnel indicates that they viewed it as the GPT and Penon as the ERV. Basically, they wanted to have it both ways: "heads I win, tails you lose." (Where heads is 'if the test is positive' and tails is 'test isn't positive'.)

It's actually an interesting question: they say in their depositions that they didn't view it as the GPT, that the proposed second amendment was not valid and that the time for the GPT had already passed. So I wonder if they would have paid the 89 million if they felt the 1MW test was actually a success. In any case, it's quite clear that they are not innocent victims, even if Rossi is a fraud.

I'm quite open to the possibility that they were playing it both ways. From their POV, if Rossi's stuff works, they are happy to pay up. If it does not, then how can the test with a fake customer be real. Were I them I'd never trust Rossi/Penon measurements. I don't think this is unfair to Rossi - it is just accepting that he is not honest. I guess that when they signed the contract they accepted the whole flawed and no doubt Rossi-required ERV/GPT idea because they reckoned they would get their hands on the IP, and either it would work or not, so by the end of one year things would be clear. Perhaps they reckoned also they could delay a GPT in the case the IP did not work.

Given the outcome: no IP from Rossi and a claim for $100M which they cannot possibly raise because they know Rossi's stuff does not work, they are not in a great situation and I'm sure not one they expected. Rossi has not behaved rationally, because his legal case (as I understand it from those who know US law) looks very poor. Their defence raises every possible legal and physical objection it can to this being a valid GPT, which is what both morally and legally they should be doing.

Abd argues that they had to resolve the matter of Rossi's claims one way or the other, since they were distracting LENR investment, and this bad and expensive contract, giving too much power to an ERV in a $89M up-front payment test, was the only way to do it. Maybe, or maybe they gambled on the possibility that Rossi really had it. Many people have been convinced by him...

Regards, THH

Quote

But the evidence from some of their own personnel indicates that they viewed it as the GPT and Penon as the ERV.

Here is how I think it happened. The Term sheet (which I guess IH required) distinguishes this from a GPT. However, after that contract is signed IH cannot stop the test, and cannot stop Rossi misrepresenting it to all and sundry as a GPT.

We'd need to look carefully at all the evidence to work out whether IH could have done better than they did. They may well have thought the Term Sheet keeps them legally safe, and they should humour Rossi. Or, maybe it was only Rossi's friends (Fabioni, Penon) viewing this as a GPT?

What is your specific evidence for thinking that IH viewed this as the GPT? You could quote doc number and page on Eric's site...

Quote

Sorry, but I already wasted enough time reading through the documents. Not going to piece together a case to prove it to you. All you have to do is look at the exhibits that Rossi's lawyers cite in their motion for summary judgement for evidence that IH was treating it as a GPT.

I think that is not so. You cannot reach conclusions in this matter without looking at both SJ's. Even then, as Dewey points out, there will be a lot of additional evidence (for example stuff contradicting points made in an SJ) that we do not yet have access to because it is not exhibited.

SJ's are meant to be standalone and clear-cut factual. They are supposed to present uncontested evidence that proves the case. I guess if Rossi's one is upheld I'd have to eat all my words. I doubt that will happen. Otherwise, to judge, you need to see both sides of the evidence, not just selected snippets.

Quote

It's funny, because pretty much all the pro-IH posters keep telling Rossi supporters to look themselves hard in the mirror and wake up to reality, while they themselves engage in some kind of unreflective hero worship of Darden and IH. Snap out of it! I've got news for you folks: there are no angels in this sordid saga.

Rossi is a devious liar who shows himself untrustworthy in his business relationships. Whether or not his stuff works.

It sounds like you claim IH is comparable. As someone pro-IH on this thread I don't agree. I'm just not going to judge anyone as untrustworthy devious liars without clear evidence. There is a perfectly good case that IH are on the side of the angels (though not themselves angelic). Till that breaks calling them dishonest is unfair.

Quote from THEDEBATEISUSELESS

He also did testing with identical flow meters at identical slopes/reaches to those at Doral and didn't find obviously huge errors using Penon's reported water flow. Thus another problem at least partially mitigated.

(from 215-03, PDF page 228)

17· · · · Q.· · Okay.· What was the margin of error when you

18· ·put the water flow as purported, as reported by

19· ·Mr. Penon through at the slope that you say was measured

20· ·at the Doral facility?

21· · · · A.· · A flow rate of approximately five liters per

22· ·minute corresponded to the flow rate that Mr. Penon

23· ·reported in his report.

24· · · · Q.· · Five meters per minute?

25· · · · A.· · Five liters.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I think that is not so. You cannot reach conclusions in this matter without looking at both SJ's. Even then, as Dewey points out, there will be a lot of additional evidence (for example stuff contradicting points made in an SJ) that we do not yet have access to because it is not exhibited.

SJ's are meant to be standalone and clear-cut factual. They are supposed to present uncontested evidence that proves the case. I guess if Rossi's one is upheld I'd have to eat all my words. I doubt that will happen. Otherwise, to judge, you need to see both sides of the evidence, not just selected snippets.

Rossi's did not follow the judge's order on page limits even after they asked for added length and it was denied. I would think it might get thrown out on that alone. Not a way to win the favor of a judge.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Rossi is a devious liar who shows himself untrustworthy in his business relationships. Whether or not his stuff works.

@THH: What about mentioning other liars too? Which endlessly repeated facts (DN40 etc..) that melted down during the last few days?

What about the T³ Optris calibrating now confirmed by mfp??

All the engaged play a liers game. Did you and some others ever think who will ever trust you again in the future, after this messing around?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

(from 215-03, PDF page 228)

17· · · · Q.· · Okay.· What was the margin of error when you

18· ·put the water flow as purported, as reported by

19· ·Mr. Penon through at the slope that you say was measured

20· ·at the Doral facility?

21· · · · A.· · A flow rate of approximately five liters per

22· ·minute corresponded to the flow rate that Mr. Penon

23· ·reported in his report.

24· · · · Q.· · Five meters per minute?

25· · · · A.· · Five liters.

Display More

So that is 1/6th of what Rossi claims.

In context, if the 60C -> 100C claimed temperature difference is real, that corresponds to:

40C * (5/60)kg/s * 4.2 kJ/kgC = 14kW. Leaving 6kW (I'm supposing 20kW input power, is that correct?) for phase change.

At 2260kJ/kg, and this flowrate, 100% phase change would require:

5/60 kg/s * 2260kJ/kg = 190kW. Thus we have phase change of approximately 3% of the total flow. Two electric kettles worth.

Quote

What about the T³ Optris calibrating now confirmed by mfp??

Sorry, I was not aware of this, and am surprised. Could you reference and I'll comment?

Quote

Which endlessly repeated facts (DN40 etc..) that melted down during the last few days?

I did not endlessly repeat this, if I remember the main person making a lot of this matter was IHFB, who was trying to claim this was the most important evidence.

I think you need to distinguish between barefaced deliberate deception (e.g. Rossi, many examples, do I need to cite?) and incorrect interpretation. Jed here has often stated his interpretation as fact, and sometimes been incorrect (Jed you will I hope forgive me, I don't have a specific example of this so if you contend you've always been correct I'll stand corrected). That does not make him a liar

Quote from Alan Smith

It is standard practice for steam systems. Any proper pipe-fitter would know this, personally I cannot recall seeing a steam-pressure gauge without a condenser loop in the feed pipe.

Right, such "pigtails" should be used in a steam application.
But you aren't suggesting that this pigtail - in case one was installed - would cool down the condensate to the allowed 50°C operating pressure, are you?

Quote from Bob

I would feel ashamed to put the name Rossi in the same sentence as F & P, stating they are similar!

F&P were respected scientist, who answered questions truthfully! They did NOT make up fake customers, fake sales, fake factories, fake, fake, fake ...... lies. Their reputation was built on solid work. Truly examined by others and with sound results.

They were badly misjudged by a few in key positions with agendas and that unfortunately tarnished their fine work. HOWEVER.... they did not tarnish it themselves! Rossi has only Rossi to blame for this mess. No one else.

If Rossi had a working product, he could easily dispell all these conflicts. He could easily arrange real and legitimate replications. What does he do.... fake, lie and cheat.

Comparing F&P to Rossi is a slap in the face to them!

Display More

Again, this did not stop a lot professionals from accusing them of falsifying things at the time. There were some pretty outrageous accusations thrown about and, yes, they did have much better reputations than Rossi. This makes it doubly bad.

Quote from Bob

Also, now with the claimed heat exchanger on the second floor

Oh well, this dubious heat exchanger(s), which Rossi claims now to have them installed instead of the office window - that window which is on most of the photos we have seen coincidently covered by a tree.

I hope some people nevertheless have some pictures from that time-periode, which demonstrates if there was glas in this windows or whether there was a noisy fan there instead.
Otherwise we would have to get a destimonial from a botanic guy - what would happen to the leafes of the tree, when constantly exposed to hot air flow (1MW).

Btw: What was Rossi's reason why to run only half of the 1MW plant during the test in Ferrara? The noisy air fan of the heat exchanger?
But in Doral, Rossi was able to install and run them on the 2nd floor of the warehouse/office building, blowing hot air out of an window?

Quote from Bob

OK Wy, please show me one place where IH stated the pipe was DN40 in depositions under oath and repeatedly in fact!

As a matter of fact, please show me one time where there is a proven lie in any IH depositions. That will help me understand your case.

(Remember, the memo of Murray's was written well before the lawsuit, simply asking questions to be cleared up, which were never answered.)

Thanks!

Display More

Dewey sure as heck insinuated it over and over, and may have even made the claim. And he is paid directly by IH.

I don't believe the second story tale, however

If the heat was being discarded out the window

(and not the endothermic chemical reactions that Rossi previously claimed used by the "customer),

then the heat exchanger efficiency should be tied to the climatic conditions and vary with day/night cycles and not

the week day cycles (not previously claimed for the work in the manufacturing "plant").

Then that would likely be seen in pressure variations.

I always wondered if the work cycle was week day, then why weren't "customer's" employees seen in and out during the week. If it was just automated, then I doubt there would have been a weekly cycle of power use.

An interesting point about the second-floor window heat exchanger heat exhaust explanation is that it occurs within a sworn deposition. So if it's true, it's true. If it's a blatant falsehood, it's perjury.

ETA: I have not been reading the exhibits closely, so the deposition detail should be vetted.

ETA2: It appears to be Rossi himself, speaking in 207-37, according to P., although I'm having trouble locating the exact section of the transcript.

ETA3: It's 207-36, p. 29, not 207-37.