Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Paradigmnoia

That is a valid concern. I see no engineer stamp on it, or a signature.

Maybe, not being certified in the USA, Penon could not legally put his stamp on the report.

Para, All,

Why you guys keep fueling irrelevant, almost obsolete discussions is beyond me.

This trial is not about a missing signature or a wrongly placed camera. It is about two parties that fight over what they believe is the valuable IP of a new, still controversial technology. This case would not have its current proportions if it all were a scam.

The Rossi / IH cooperation was not successful and the trial will decide on what terms they divorce. That's it.

You and your buddies can spent an endless amount of time inventing, debating and following useless leads (here are some new ones; Did Rossi have a non-compete as "Chief Inventor" at IH? Is Rossi entitled to damages because IH put his health at risk by all the demanded tests?, etc.) , but if you cannot send somebody a fat invoice, it will not bring you anything. Moreover, IHFB is not only debunking all the FUD, he is making you all look like a bunch of kids that want to have the last say. Every post, every reply is taking you and your comrades further onto the sticky mud plains of desperation land.

The judge will after a jury verdict decide how to divide the estate and determine the height of the alimentation. Apart from the expected appeals, the outcome of the trial, the trial costs and reputation damage will determine who outsmarted who.

Cheers,

JB

Quote from IHSupporter

If I was IH's lawyer, I sure would directly question the legality of the report as evidence.

Try to be included in the team !

As a matter of logic what sense have to collect a testimony under oath of Penon if his report was not valid ?

Come on !

Quote from JedRothwell

I.H. expressed doubts about Rossi's test to me while the test was underway. They told me this in confidence. They did not tell me the full extent of the problems. I do not know whether they grasped the full extent of the problems. But they expressed doubts for reasons I felt were well founded. I thought it sounded bad, but I hoped that Rossi would correct the problems.

I am repeating this to make a point. If I.H. was willing to tell me this, I find it inconceivable that they would not also tell potential investors.

Following your reasoning, you think that is more conceivable that if I betray my wife, instead of confessing my action to a friend of mine I run to her telling everything...... How can you think that since IH told you their doubts then they should have done it also with Woodford? Did you gave them 50 million dollars too?

(sorry but I had tried to post that already but seems that was not recorded)

Quote from SSC

Following your reasoning, you think that is more conceivable that if I betray my wife, instead of confessing my action to a friend of mine I run to her telling everything...... How can you think that since IH told you their doubts then they should have done it also with Woodford? Did you gave them 50 million dollars too?

There are three reasons why I am sure they told Woodford:

1. The Internet works in the U.K. too. Woodford surely found out all about Rossi. How could he not know that Rossi is a huge risk who has been accused of criminal conduct and lying?

2. This is business. If you do not reveal something like that, Woodford will find out and then demand his money back. If you don't return it, he will sue. That's how business works. You don't hide critical facts from people who invest $50 million. That would be a crazy thing to do.

3. They told me and several other people. Why would they not tell Woodford? I never heard from him. In fact, I had never even heard of him until recently. But I expect he has heard of me, and of others in the cold fusion field. I would be surprised if he did not consult with researchers. Any researcher would tell him that Rossi's reputation is poison and his claims are questionable.

Quote from we_cat_global

This trial is not about a missing signature

Yes, it is. This is about business. Legal issues such as signatures are more important than thermodynamics. If a contract is not signed, it is invalid and you don't have to pay.

That doesn't mean I.H. can keep the IP, scot-free. If Rossi's gadget worked, and I.H. did not pay, eventually he could force them to give up the rights to the IP. He could probably sue them for a lot of money, once they start selling the technology. But he cannot sue them today, based on that contract for an ERV test, because the contract wasn't signed properly.

They also do not have to pay because the test was a sloppy mess. As I said, consumer protection laws say you do not have to pay for a failed product. That applies to non-tangible products such as software or a physics test as much as it applies to new houses that collapse, lemon automobiles, leaking swimming pools, etc. You sign a paper promising to pay for your new house, but if it falls to pieces and the builder is at fault, you don't have to pay. Even if I.H. agreed beforehand that Penon would be the arbiter, when all expert witnesses say Penon's report is invalid, I.H. is off the hook. You will not find any expert witness who says Penon's report and this test was valid.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Reply to THH et al :

For the Hotcat the best test is the March 2013 116-hour test of the Ecat HT2.

Levi report : https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf

1. Power was measured with a PCE 830 (True RMS)

Edit : single phase

2. The outer cylinder is steel, coated with Macota enamel (albeit coated unevenly)

(The IR analysis is complicated by the flange at one end, but for convection it's mostly a simple, smooth cylinder).

3. Thermal dots valid for the operating range (up to 300C) .. some fell off, but some remained on for the whole test

4. A thermocouple was used, giving results within 2C of the emissivity value (actually, the thermocouple read 2C HIGHER)

5. A dummy run with no charge, the same thermal dots and operating range.

(Unfortunately the power was held constant, rather than cycled as in the live test).

(In this table I used mostly conservative values, eg they recalculate COP as 2.9)

Run	Radiated	Convection	Total	Power In
Dummy -- Table 6	457	277	734	810
COP	0.56	0.34	0.90
Live -- Table 8	459	281	741	322
COP	1.4	0.87	2.3

Note that for the live test just the radiated value gives a healthy COP of 1.4

Since the "dummy" COP is only 0.9 the live COP is likely to be 10% higher than reported.

Display More

This experimental write-up was fascinating to read. As always with Rossi work you need to look carefully at what seems odd to detect the likely error. Equally, when looking at this setup from the outside, without the possibility investigation, we can never know. That is the point really - for results from an inveterate deceiver that would be disruptive if real, who for some reason has never allowed independent testing, we can never know is not good enough.

So how do I think it was done?

The COP is almost exactly 3, and therefore would correspond to one of many typical 3 phase measuring errors - the simplest of which perhaps is a reversed current clamp.

But as a magician trying to work out how the trick was done from a written report from one of the audience who was convinced it was real magic - I may well be wrong.

Quote from ele

Colors have NOTHING to do with the emissivity ! he he he he he Read the manual at least and try to understand it !

In Optris SW you have many palettes to render the thermal image in false colors or even in BW.

You can regulate the contrast and actual rendering of the palette using the cursors at the bottom of the picture !

Why would anyone mess with the camera color pallet? (Besides choosing one standard version that looks OK).

Leaving it alone would make way more sense.

I suppose glowy yellow might look impressive, but that is not the point of a independent test.

Accuracy and precision is. Not obfuscation and customization to non-standard attributes.

Quote from THHuxleynew

This experimental write-up was fascinating to read. As always with Rossi work you need to look carefully at what seems odd to detect the likely error.

I think you mean "a likely error." Not "the" error, because you cannot be sure there was an error. Even now, after all that has happened, it is possible this test actually demonstrated real excess heat. Not likely, I will grant, but strictly on scientific grounds you cannot rule it out.

As I said before, I thought this test was pretty good. I still think so. I was distressed to see the follow-up Lugano test was worse, not better.

Quote from THHuxleynew

So how do I think it was done?

The COP is almost exactly 3, and therefore would correspond to one of many typical 3 phase measuring errors - the simplest of which perhaps is a reversed current clamp.

Did you note that the March test was single-phase?

Quote from we_cat_global

This trial is not about a missing signature or a wrongly placed camera. It is about two parties that fight over what they believe is the valuable IP of a new, still controversial technology. This case would not have its current proportions if it all were a scam.

The Rossi / IH cooperation was not successful and the trial will decide on what terms they divorce. That's it.

The American Courts will not be impressed by that argument. The trial is about:

• A contract dispute (Rossi suing IH)
• A claim of fraud (IH suing Rossi)
• Rossi sued IH for fraud as well but that is even more likely to be dismissed than the contract dispute - hardly worth mention

The contract dispute is so clearly in IH's favour it is likely to be resolved without a Jury, by the Judge. Rossi just has not put up any substantive evidence. But we will see, I'd never say certain when it comes to Courts.

The other issue is not as you say a divorce settlement. It will hinge on whether Rossi's many deceptions can be shown to be fraudulent practice under the FDUTPA. I'd bet on:

1. Rossi's action fails at MSJ stage (his arguments are not to the point, and IH make arguments with evidence that Rossi does not contradict).
2. IH's case for fraud against Rossi goes to Court - unless Rossi settles.

Can't say I'm sure I understand how the legal process will go, one thing that makes this action so fascinating.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Did you note that the March test was single-phase?

Yes I did, but the power was measured on the 3 phase input. (unless I got that wrong).

EDIT:

Yes, the power was measured on 3 phases:

As in the previous test, the LCD display of the electrical power meter (PCE-830) was
continually filmed by a video camera. The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the
control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed

Quote from we_cat_global

Para, All,

Why you guys keep fueling irrelevant, almost obsolete discussions is beyond me.

Because they are interesting.

Lets say I turned on the Optris software, with a 235 C hot alumina tube in the frame, and it looked almost exactly like it did in the Figure 7 photo...

I would say "Cool. It looks just the same. Almost certainly the tube was at the temperature indicated in the report".

Instead, like almost everything else Rossi-related, when one examines a random detail (such as Figure 7) that might corroborate his story, there is almost always an inconclusive result, or something not quite adding up. More often than not, there are multiple things that can cause a multiplicity of possible interpretations.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Yes I did, but the power was measured on the 3 phase input. (unless I got that wrong).

EDIT:

Yes, the power was measured on 3 phases:

As in the previous test, the LCD display of the electrical power meter (PCE-830) was
continually filmed by a video camera. The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the
control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed

Display More

I take the quote to mean that the control box was excluded from the measurement. What do you mean by "the power was measured on 3 phases"?

"Resistor coil power consumption was measured by placing the instrument in single-phase directly on the coil input cables, and was found to be, on average, about 810 W. From this one derives that the power consumption of the control box was approximately = 110-120 W."

p.16

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf

Is that what you are referring to? What specific concern do you have?

ele-

As a fact is quite sure that IH has a signed copy and that Penon can prove to have sent that signed copy to IH.

Otherwise all the case was surely all the case was dismissed at his starting. (remember the IH motion to dismiss ?)

That is what I am asking. Where is the alleged signed copy? Please give me a reference to docs that have been entered into evidence. I have not found it yet. Why do you say IH has a signed copy. Are you an "insider" within IH?

Unfortunately there is way too much assumptions with little evidence from the Rossi camp. If you are quite sure then give your evidence - Please. I would like to know what it is other than just a feeling.

Quote from ele

Try to be included in the team !

As a matter of logic what sense have to collect a testimony under oath of Penon if his report was not valid ?

Come on !

I have seen his testimony but I do not see the "oath" reference within the court docs.

Realize that Penon's testimony could be used in the counter-suit against him. You seem to ignore all possibilities accept the assumed position.

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes, it is. This is about business. Legal issues such as signatures are more important than thermodynamics. If a contract is not signed, it is invalid and you don't have to pay.

That doesn't mean I.H. can keep the IP, scot-free. If Rossi's gadget worked, and I.H. did not pay, eventually he could force them to give up the rights to the IP. He could probably sue them for a lot of money, once they start selling the technology. But he cannot sue them today, based on that contract for an ERV test, because the contract wasn't signed properly.

They also do not have to pay because the test was a sloppy mess. As I said, consumer protection laws say you do not have to pay for a failed product. That applies to non-tangible products such as software or a physics test as much as it applies to new houses that collapse, lemon automobiles, leaking swimming pools, etc. You sign a paper promising to pay for your new house, but if it falls to pieces and the builder is at fault, you don't have to pay. Even if I.H. agreed beforehand that Penon would be the arbiter, when all expert witnesses say Penon's report is invalid, I.H. is off the hook. You will not find any expert witness who says Penon's report and this test was valid.

Mr. Rothwell,

I am sorry to blatantly oppose you, but it is not. It is about the intentions of both parties. And since IH's intentions are very clear, especially by the evidence of them showing third parties, that might or might not be asked to testify, what beautiful things they were organizing in Doral. I wonder what Darden told them they were visiting. A kinetic art mobile?

Sure, if it can be proved that the test was an outright scam, Rossi's holding a worthless hand. But IH doesn't succeed in doing that. And while they perhaps might have some arguments, these points might be obsolete, because IH only started complaining, and i am talking about material complaints, at a stage where it was too late.

IH, as a professional party, intentionally involved in a one year long test, had the responsibility to be involved and take care of their duties under US contract law. I believe that one of their weakest points is that they only started being "involved" when they legally had to, when it was too late.

Anyway, i am reacting to reactions on useless details and thus starting to contradict myself. The court case will be a lot of fun, that is for sure.

Cheers,

JB

Quote from we_cat_global

It is about the intentions of both parties. And since IH's intentions are very clear, especially by the evidence of them showing third parties, that might or might not be asked to testify,

That has nothing remotely to do with the lawsuit. There is not a word about that in the suit. In any case, I.H. was completely normal and within its rights showing third parties anything they wanted.

This lawsuit is not about whatever you people on Planet Rossi imagine it might be.

Quote from JedRothwell

That has nothing remotely to do with the lawsuit. There is not a word about that in the suit. In any case, I.H. was completely normal and within its rights showing third parties anything they wanted.

This lawsuit is not about whatever you people on Planet Rossi imagine it might be.

Mr. Rothwell,

Let me explain myself.

IH intentionally set up this test with Rossi. A contract and or (Penon's) report without signature does not make the endeavour something else. More info here;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_to_be_legally_bound

So, if Rossi and IH both legally entered into this test, IH's only chance to win this case is to discredit the test and everything Rossi has ever shown. Because if Rossi at one point was able to show a COP higher than 1, chances are that the test was a success. IH never really complained about the reports and visited the plant with third parties and thus silently confirmed the reports. Only very late, when they realized the liabilities, they started (materially) complaining.

IHFB's statement therefore is very true (in my own words); IH will have a hard time to convince the jury that there never was any excess heat, that everything Rossi ever produced was a lie.

That leads to a situation where they, besides acknowledging that they are at best a bunch of third-party money burning, incompetent and sloppy businessmen, have to discredit, besides everything Rossi ever produced, MFMP, me356, Parkhomov, the Swedes, Levi, etc.

Rossi's defense is much easier. Convince the jury that the Rossi Effect is real.

And while his lawyers are doing so formally. The Dottore himself is preparing practically;

Cheers,

JB