Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

I've said it hundred dozen times : I wouldn't have signed off on the contract OR the validation (maybe, yes) or the GPT (no, not never, not even hardly ever).

But there's too much 'maybe' to say Rossi never had anything nothing. [Edit]

On the GPT : it's on Penon's sign-off only. It sure quacked like a GPT. Even AEG was anticipating a $45M payoff in June, despite not signing the 2nd Amendment)

But now it's a court case. I kinda like Rossi's exclude-all-the-technical-foo.

In terms of COP, I'd say Rossi's attorneys are delivering more LOP (Lawyerly Objectionable Poop?) than the might of Jones Day.

Did anyone notice? I've made my way up the ranks from Beginner to Student to Intermediate, even though my Likes-to-Post ratio (LTP) has fallen below 1.0000 ?

EdIt : and that IS my real name!

Doc. 263 now on the docket (courtesy of Abd).

Quote from IHSupporter

It only take one item of evidence favorable to the defense to let the defendant (Darden ) go and it only take one juror to think there is a lack of evidence or a questionable item for IH to win.

Only one juror and only one item of evidence? That would not be fair. I hope that all the Jurors will consider all the evidence present in the Court papers and presented during the discussion and would not consider all the chatting and the posts here or in other places in the net. Here any poster could even post false information without being punished...... in Court, under oath, is different.

Quote from IHSupporter

Again, IH may have been clueless but working with naïve innocent people is not a legal excuse for misrepresentation or fraud.

Again and again IH has taken advantage of the situation rising money from investors ! No problem with Rossi at that time.

They started to have problems only when they were asked to pay.

Quote from IHSupporter

They may have been clueless early on, but that does not give Rossi the right to run a scam. I think they have awoken and will fight to the end. Rossi made a mistake when he turned it personal against Darden and Vaughn. Darden will not easily "roll over".

Clueless ? come on !

In your own post you say that Darden can't be naive. If you look at his (obscure) history you will find that he is an experienced entrepreneur and tycoon.

That guy was just wanting to get the technology paying it with peanuts ! In fact he was selling already the ECAT technology all over the world (e.g. China)!

Quote from Rionrlty

I believe this explains to a large degree why F and P were more or less driven out of town following the original 1989 breakthrough. I believe that kind of behavior permeates all facets of our lives and the scientific community is far from immune to it. It is also my opinion that is why Rossi is like he is to a large degree. He has learned the hard way how cut throat and unfair things can be and has become both defensive, and too aggressive with perhaps ill advised counter measures as a result. To a large degree your scientific community has made him who he is, but who he is now may just give him the brass to prevail where others have succumbed to the pressure.

I totally agree with you. Also here there is probably a PR company behind the scene just to spread FUD and poison the Jury.

262-1 p146 (Vaughn deposition, extract)

All sensible people had worked this out already, but from the horses mouth:

Quote

Q. Does Industrial Heat believe it has value?

1 A. That the license agreement has value to date?

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. No.

4 Q. Does Industrial Heat believe that the E-Cat IP

5 has value?

6 A. No, with one caveat. And this is, you know, it

7 would be an obtuse kind of minimal value, which would be

8 if some of the claims in some of its patent applications

9 were allowed and they, in fact, relate to something

10 somebody else is doing that does work. But that is a

11 pretty hypothetical scenario, so I think the answer is no.

12 But you could paint a hypothetical or possibly it could be

13 some value there.

Display More

Document: 262-9 (Penon report, 1MW validation)

This is interesting, from Penon about the steam TC positioning. True, but as always there is a sting in the tail.

The key thing here is that if the measurement position is near the steam exit, and the pipes leading to it from the ecats are well insulated, it would be possible that the pipe temperature is higher than the enclosed water temperature because of conduction from possibly higher temperature ecat reactor bodies. Enough to push temperature up from 100C to 104C if the thermometer was in thermal contact with the pipe.

More than one way to skin a cat, but this is one possible one. Penon shows a lack of practical engineering experience here since while 104C is theoretically Ok for superheated steam at 1 bar, constant 104C is unheard of for superheated steam - you'd expect more variation - but expected for steam/water at 1.2bar. The heat conduction issue, if relevant here would allow 104C measured when actually 100C and 1 bar pressure.

Interestingly, in the previous validation test (262-9) the steam temperature is 130C or so and Penon notes that this temperature is significantly higher than 100C thus assuring vapour. Strange that the temperature for this new test is so much lower, because if it generated superheated steam, to increase the temperature a bit would be trivial and require care to avoid.

In 262-9 (the previous Validation Test Report) the whole thing is powered from a 300kW generator. That is great - 1MW output and no possibility of input power being greater than 300kW! Oh - except Rossi altered the conditions of the test so he ran only 18 out out 107 reactors. The I talked to neighbours and they told me to run fewer reactors excuse. The calculated COP (2.25) seems low for a typical X1/3 input mis-measurement (clamp reversal or just recording only one phase). But if you look at the Report details you see there are a number of extra losses discounted, so this looks about right. Rossi started using 3 phase supplies around the time his preferred two-phase mis-measurement (using average V & A meters on spiky Triac waveform) was exposed.

The total list of likely Rossi calorimetry errors is not that large, but he rings the changes. It is a tribute to his inherent pseudo-honesty that we have enough information from his many demos to detect these errors, though in most cases, as you'd expect, the evidence is incomplete:

• Assumption of phase change to vapour when not valid: known
• TC mis-siting to give wrong reading due to housing conduction: known
• Flowmeter spoofing (IH will I guess know by now whether this applies or not): probable
• 2 phase input power mis-measurement using average V & A meter: known
• 3 phase input power mis-measurement using PCE-830 or equivalent and counting only one phase, or reversing a clamp: probable
• Dual-flow system to recirculate hot water: probable, special new method for the 1 year test
• Incorrect IR measurement on alumina surface: known

Rossi has lately been more inventive. With the quark-x we have three new methods, known courtesy of the Gulstrom paper:

• Counting power in as power measured over a current sense resistor (a weird mistake this one, implicit in the writeup of Rossi experiment data by Gulstrom): known
• Assuming (eery blue) radiance dominated by spectral lines is black body equating the peak spectrum amplitude with the black-body peak: known
• Assuming the quartz or sapphire container of a radiating plasma has the same temperature as the (incorrect, see above) calculated temperature of the plasma: known

These three new methods are very powerful and when combined lead to Rossi-COPs in 5 figures.

So I have to give it to Rossi: he is not only talented at PR - he is a very inventive engineer.

Regards, THH

Doc. 264 now on the docket together with its attachments:

Quote from THHuxleynew

The key thing here is that if the measurement position is near the steam exit, and the pipes leading to it from the ecats are well insulated, it would be possible that the pipe temperature is higher than the enclosed water temperature because of conduction from possibly higher temperature ecat reactor bodies.

Yes. Regulations for boilers say that the thermometer has be placed on a straight pipe some distance from the boiler. I think it is 6'. (Maybe somewhat less?)

The regulations say bimetallic dial thermometers must be used. You can use other types as well, but you have to have one of these on the inlet and outlet. The stem should extend to the middle of the pipe. Not the bottom of the pipe, the way Penon describes.

Is there some indication in the deposition that the thermometers were close to the boiler?

been watching this debacle since Rossi piped up in 2011. He's mad as a box of frogs is my only clear observation, a preternatural conman who is possibly even self deluded in that he is some sort of misunderstood energy producing messiah. His behaviour truly beggars belief and if LENR is efficacious and real? He almost looks like a planted saboteur of the whole field. Calling what he does science is an insult to the spirit and essence of the scientific method itself. Popper is doing 8000rpms six feet under, the guy believes that reproducibility is some sort of extra? I'm gobsmacked that such a slippery little conman such as Rossi could beg 10 cents on a street corner let alone get his greedy mitts on 100 million in funding for his magic box. He won't win a thing and get torn apart in court. If you wanted to invent a figure to discredit the field of LENr? You would come up with Rossi.

Quote from Rends

I want to add some facts concerning the questions if IH is somehow related to Cherokeefund or not, which is denied by Darden et.al.
The email address domain used in all the communication is allways @industrialheat.co ...

I remember bringing the whole domain thing up a while back. On that same topic:

Interestingly, the Rossi side is now arguing in doc 263 that the way Rossi represented JMP orally shouldn't count because the Term Sheet doesn't mention Johnson Matthey.

Quote

Counter-Plaintiffs should be precluded from introducing any evidence related to

alleged oral representations concerning Johnson Matthey

By the same logic, Rossi shouldn't be able to complain about how IH was represented to him by Darden before signing the licence.

Interestedpeasant

Not sure if Rossi is a scientist.

He is not a good businessman as he has zero customers and cannot seem to form a working business partnership.

I originally had him down as an engineer/inventor in which case good science and replication is not in his job description he is more of an engineer.

But as an engineer he should still be able to supply good and accurate data to his clients (such as IH) which he does not seem to be able to do.

But then with Rossi it is never so black and white, he also wants to have published scientific papers hence his team up with Gullstrom.

I think what he really is is an entertainer and showman.

Questions:

- was thw pretty standar Flowmeter exonerated by all nasty accusation? (see what tells Penon about it);

- is considered now possible that the manpmeter indicated well atmospheric pressure. 'cause the condensation of steam

at the JMPlant?

- was the steam pipe 40mm or 6" (152 mm)? i.e. section 14.44 times grateer as natural for 2500 cu.m steam per hour?

- are you sure the thermcopules were misplaced and not at a decent distance from the generators?

I think that better focus on Vaughn deposition he clearly explains how confused and uncertain actually IH leaders are

and what are their proofs

techno-calumniating is not so easy if it wants to be taken in consideration. Please refer to the Plant not to Rossi.

peter

Reading the latest batch of docs, it seems like IH has a strong case for spoliation of the evidence. destruction of data and email, destruction of the plumbing, heat exchanger.....

And then Penon took the instruments out of the country and never returned them so they could be checked by IH. I am not a lawyer but the argument is convincing to me.

IF I understand it the judge could throw the case just on that alone or perhaps do the forced adverse interpretation of the info. related to the items. That would mean the jury would have to do things like assume the instruments were not correct, the heat exchanger was not sufficient, the emails were negative to Rossi's case and so on. We should know tomorrow

Was the pressure sender screwed into a blind hole where the pressure never changes?

Para,

I like the idea, it is destructively creative. But real...?

peter