Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

  • Why trust them with this claimed secret- Because it agreed to technology transfer. He was required to by previous agreements ( that also include future tech that can be use to generate heat)


    I am not aware that there was any agreement about technology transfer from Rossi to the Lugano team, in fact I am certain there was not. The quote from SSC you are referring to was clearly about this, not about IH.

  • I recall that Rossi claimed that he refueled the 1MW reactor on the last day of the "test", the day before the disastrous inspection days. He also implied that he sent ash samples to Oops-salla for study and those results were published in Spring of 2016. I think it was physically impossible for Rossi to have refueled the "reactors" in one day without at least a shutdown and that his story was just cover for fuel that was "dead" all along. No matter what, he did share confidential IH property / IP by sending ash samples out for analysis without first obtaining IH approval and thus, violated the agreement.

  • One of the big mysteries of this case :

    Why didn't I..H.. take the 1MW apart (under court order, as part of the Doral on-site inspection) strip away the insulation, produce an as-built schematic (or 3D model), open, inspect and analyze the ashes from one of the Big Frankies, etc etc. (I agree with D..W.. that it would be physically impossible to refuel them.)

    Instead, their expert Smith's total knowledge of the ecat is a drawing he "found on the web". He misreads Penon's schematic to assume the condensate connects to the steam riser, he shows multiple pictures of the non-existing super-heater stages, which could easily be IN the Big Frankies (eg the "fins" of the original fat-cat as illicitly photographed by Mats).

  • Why didn't I..H.. take the 1MW apart (under court order, as part of the Doral on-site inspection) strip away the insulation, produce an as-built schematic (or 3D model), open, inspect and analyze the ashes from one of the Big Frankies, etc etc. (I agree with D..W.. that it would be physically impossible to refuel them.)

    @Alan - surely since this this stuff is impounded as evidence the sort of in-depth destructive analysis you suggest could not be done. Never mind - there is hope yet - perhaps at some later state in proceedings it will be possible to do this.


    IHFB: To be clear, Darden never said the dummy had a COP of 9. He was not that specific with his language. Nevertheless, the very fact that Darden shared the dummy story and that he knew in Jan. 2014 that it didn't work is not going to bode well for him, I'm afraid.


    IHFB: Not only that, they even built it (allegedly). Just for fun though. Because they like building stuff that they know doesn't work.


    Rossiesque statements - almost a dictionary definition. It is difficult to see you really believing this stuff.


    No-one here has said IH knew Rossi's stuff did not work and I posted ample evidence from the documents (Cassarini handwritten notes) that they had high hopes, but no certainty, it would work.


    The logic here seems to elude you so let's go for the car analogy a bit more:


    Suppose you have ordered a special new super-duper automobile with a special high-power engine. it is all research stuff and you are very excited. It has already been test-driven by a whole load of profs from Upsalla who rave about its road-holding, high acceleration, fuel economy, and in-car back-scratcher.


    You are delivered this car and unwrap it. You don't have the manual (it is a one-off and almost as complex as those F1s) but the manufacturer has given you some instructions about how to switch the engine on. You do this (or think you do) and the prototype you are shipped does not work.


    Now IHFB - here is your MCQ. In this situation do you?


    (a) Assume the car design does not work and scrap it even though you have paid $10m for the development and hope to sell it for $ billions if it works

    (b) Assume because the inventor is a nice guy with broken English that it is bound to work and ignore the problem proceeding as though you are sure you will have a working car

    or

    (c) Reckon you don't know whether you made a mistake, or this is a one-off car fault, or maybe the car design never worked. Do everything you can to get the car checked out. Keep the inventor happy (he is temperamental and needs you to say nice things about his cars else he goes off in a huff) while trying to get help from him and others to make the car, or other versions of the same design, work. Make contingencies for if the car ends up not working while keeping plans in place for if it turns out all to be a silly mistake and mendable.

  • If so, only after IH violated the agreement.


    What part of the agreement did IH violate (from the contract)? They paid the 11.5 million for the E-Cat and the license to the E-Cat IP. Even if the Doral 'test' was part of the contract for the $89Million (which IH denies and a Federal Judge will determine if Rossi's interpretation can even be argued in front of a jury), IH's payment was not due until later - in fact a day after Rossi sued them. So Rossi's violation could not have happened 'only after IH violated the agreement', as you assert.


    Your statement is inane, as you cannot show any evidence that IH violated their part of the contract then, whereas Rossi's sending a sample of ash off for analysis without IH's permission is a clear violation of the contract.


    Or did you not bother to read the contract?

  • We just had several posts from Cassarini's hand written notes, along with THH's excellent summary, pointing this out clearly. But also we know that Darden specifically pushed Rossi for a 'big independent validator' in an email he sent, and Rossi wrote back IN ALL CAPS refusing to allow that to happen saying that it would create 'big troubles'.


    The original validation test was apparently extended to two days so that IH could use whichever 'big independent validator' they wanted to provide further validation on the second day of the test. Rossi's concern was that the agreed-to ERV not be changed last minute, because that could cause a contractual issue. I think you might be exploiting Rossi's lack of command of the English language a little here when you harp on his inelegant phrase 'big troubles.'

  • The original validation test was apparently extended to two days so that IH could use whichever 'big independent validator' they wanted to provide further validation on the second day of the test. Rossi's concern was that the agreed-to ERV not be changed last minute, because that could cause a contractual issue. I think you might be exploiting Rossi's lack of command of the English language a little here when you harp on his inelegant phrase 'big troubles.'


    Rossi's use of 'big troubles' as inelegant has nothing to do with my argument - are you stating that Rossi didn't object to having a big independent tester of the IH (or 1MW) device? That was my point - that IH wanted truly independent verification but Rossi objected. This is not disputed (at least I thought I could assume that). They eventually hired Boeing, so obviously they weren't sure if it worked or not. They wanted verfication from someone other than Rossi's buddy Penon because they weren't sure whether it worked or not at that point. (My use of 'big troubles' was shorthand to clarify the exact email exchange I'm talking about - your response shows that you also know this exchange - so thanks for confirming).


    You didn't address your own self-contradictory statement: you know that IH did not build their device "Because they like building stuff that they know doesn't work." And a sarcastic intepretation doesn't help either if you're trying to imply that IH believed whole-heartedly that Rossi's stuff worked: obviously (from the docket) they had skepticism at that point and were straining to get better verification. But you dropped that quip anyway.


    I don't understand why you do that.


    (It doesn't lend credence to your assertion that you 'just want the truth' or that you have superior 'objectivity' compared to other commenters here.)

  • @THH,


    IH would not have built four shiny brand new cars (i.e., the four Big Frankies) without first having built a simpler prototype vehicle (a simple reactor with some controls), and would not have proceeded with building the four big impressive ones without having high confidence that the simpler prototype worked. Would they?

  • @THH,


    IH would not have built four shiny brand new cars (i.e., the four Big Frankies) without first having built a simpler prototype vehicle (a simple reactor with some controls), and would not have proceeded with building the four big impressive ones without having high confidence that the simpler prototype worked. Would they?


    So many assumptions there...


    In any case, who says they did not first build some small ones which (according to Rossi's test methods) worked?

  • How did IH violate the agreement?


    And why would he be justified in sending IH's materials to his friends in Sweden? Remember the system was owned by IH Sure sounds like theft to me. Notice he filed before the payment was due they had 5 days after (as I read things) to pay after the report was submitted. Notice the timing is based on the report and not on the operation of the system- otherwise what would prevent Penon from waiting year to give the report. . Rossi sent the materials before Penon's report was even sent to IH.

  • @THH,


    IH would not have built four shiny brand new cars (i.e., the four Big Frankies) ...

    According to the the term sheet (Doc 29 - Exh 17) the 1MW plant was build in Italy:

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…11/0029.17_Exhibit_17.pdf

    Quote

    Clause 1:

    Industrial Heat llc, directly or through its affiliates, owns a 1 MW E-cat steam plant (the "1MW plant") build by affiliates of Leonardo in Italy in 2013.

    Clause 4:

    IH intends to make available to JMC the 1MW plant for a period of 2 years.


    Btw: Another funny episode of the e-cat soap opera can be found in Doc 214-22 p3 (JTVaughn status update e-mail): http://coldfusioncommunity.net…loads/2017/01/0214.22.pdf

    Quote

    After Rossi finished the 24 hour test in May, he began the process of shipping the 1MW plant to us, with its 105 individual 10kW reactors inside. This took time because the container was non-standard, but arrived at Norfolk on August 1.

    We had some disconcerting moments when customs first required an x-ray test to see what was inside the mysterious box, followed next by a special in-person inspection. But this should not have been suprising, since a Google search of the shipper would reveal they are in business of making some kind of nuclear reactors (at least, "low energy nuclear reactors"). Nothwithstanding the drama, our 1 MW unit successfully cleared customs Wednesday and will arrive in Raleigh Friday, 8/16/13. Rossi was extremely worried during this time because the 105 reactors inside are fueled and operational, so an invasive inspection could reveal their internal design and fuel system. Now that it is over, perhaps we should be glad customs did thorough tests of the reactors, because this is further ratification that they are not radioactive or obviously harmful.

    Maybe the Russian's have stolen the fuel from all e-cats while they were shipped (unsecured) from Italy to US - and that's the reason why the e-cats didn't work anymore when with IH?8)

  • Depends who bought the fuel. We assume it was IH, but don't really know. And I don't suppose for one moment he sent more than a gram or so for analysis, what would be the point of sending more than that?


    But it doesn't really matter if it's a gram or a pico gram, does it? The point of sending it was to get analysis. The point of the analysis was to get an isotopic fingerprint of the ash. But disclosing a fingerprint for analysis to a third party (which is involved in researching this to find out how it works) clearly violates the contractual agreement, which prevents Rossi from disclosing any of his IP to anyone without IH's permission.


    IH paid for and licensed Rossi's IP, and could disclose to whomever they wanted, whereas Rossi needed IH's written permission to disclose to anyone. Per the contract.


    Right?

  • Both government and big business seem to adhere to a different set of ethics than most individuals are held to. I believe that everything that Rossi did, good or bad, was simply trying emulate and play the so-called game by the same rules as IH held itself to. Only as an individual he gets tagged as scammer, fraud, liar, schemer and charlatan, while IH acting through its myriad shell companies is just behaving normally, as any good business would.

    Exactly! Just because certain behaviors are common and therefore predictable does not mean that they are acceptable or judged correct. The fact that it is common for VCs to behave like sharks to pursue their profit ends does not make their attitude justifiable.

  • A key insight in this context is that If IH knew that Rossi's IP worked at the start of the Doral matter and were just trying to give him the short end of the stick, they would have strongly objected to Doral if they thought that it could eventually be construed in retrospect as the GPT, as it would present an 89 million dollar liability which they would have been keen to avoid, since they only hoped to bilk Rossi (by hypothesis). Even if you assign ruthless motives to IH, this is support for the conclusion that they were not confident that Rossi's IP worked at the start of the Doral business.

    I don't think so. I think that IH has always believed in Rossi's technology and that Doral's test has served to raise funds from investors. After all, if you really think they were not confident that Rossi's IP worked at the start of the Doral business, you should agree with me that they have been unfair with investors.

  • Strange question. Rossi removedparts of IH testing sensors and plumbing for the invalid claimed testing and 2year sale of heat to an “independent customer” and even prevented IH agentsfrom entering to check on the testing.It is clear that if it worked as claimed it needed to be done correctlywith proper measurements and run truly independent of Rossi. If he did that I am sure they would bedelighted to pay for such technology. They had commitments for money reallocationif he could do that.

    My question has another meaning. I think IH have deliberately acted in an ambiguous way: since the beginning of the Doral test, they knew that it could be considered legally invalid because of the missing signature but they decided not to say it clearly to Rossi because they wanted to see how the test would end. In case of a positive end, they would have had the answer they were looking for and at that time they could still say that the test was not GPT and therefore not pay for it. They have never intended to pay Rossi, from the beginning they have left him to work just to get a confirmation of its technology.

  • Why trust them with this claimed secret- Because it agreed to technology transfer. He was required to by previous agreements ( that also include future tech that can be use to generate heat)


    An agreement with the Swedes for technology transfer? I do not know what you're talking about.......

  • My question has another meaning. I think IH have deliberately acted in an ambiguous way: since the beginning of the Doral test, they knew that it could be considered legally invalid because of the missing signature but they decided not to say it clearly to Rossi because they wanted to see how the test would end. In case of a positive end, they would have had the answer they were looking for and at that time they could still say that the test was not GPT and therefore not pay for it. They have never intended to pay Rossi, from the beginning they have left him to work just to get a confirmation of its technology.


    SSC - do you really believe this test gives them confirmation, or ever could? It is set up from the start to provide zero information.


    If they want confirmation, and have working reactors, all they have to do is test a few monitoring breakdowns etc. They get better reliability info that way. And no $89M at risk.


    But they have acted in an ambiguous way from the start. What do you expect when they could not know whether or not Rossi's stuff could be got to work? Had Rossi given them IP as promised, and working non-spoofed reactors, they would have been in a different and better place.

  • So many assumptions there...


    In any case, who says they did not first build some small ones which (according to Rossi's test methods) worked?


    You don't think that IH, in two years time, would have ever thought to place a thermocouple on their prototype reactors to back up the thermal camera measurements? You really think that Darden said "yes sir" to Rossi who allegedly said (according to Darden's testimony) not to ever place a thermocouple on the reactor--for two years or more? And that they would not double check their prototype with a thermocouple before building four new shiny complex Big Frankies? Rossi's control over IH is astounding. He must be a hypnotist.

  • According to the the term sheet (Doc 29 - Exh 17) the 1MW plant was build in Italy:

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…11/0029.17_Exhibit_17.pdf


    We are told that a new 1MW was built using some parts from the original. The shell of the original 1 MW plant was seen in the parking lot. We have heard from Dewey that IH was involved in building the new 1 MW plant, and even built in extra security features to make it difficult to access the fuel/ash.

  • But it doesn't really matter if it's a gram or a pico gram, does it? The point of sending it was to get analysis. The point of the analysis was to get an isotopic fingerprint of the ash. But disclosing a fingerprint for analysis to a third party (which is involved in researching this to find out how it works) clearly violates the contractual agreement, which prevents Rossi from disclosing any of his IP to anyone without IH's permission.


    How do you know that there were not (or are not) pre-existing agreements still in force covering the relationship and flow of IP between Lugano testers. IH and Rossi that allow for the exchange of information and material samples for scientific purposes? The answer to that is of course, that you don't. Nor me, btw, but I'm not shouting about it.

  • Docs. 301, 302 and 303 now on the docket. (Nothing to download for 301.)


    MSJs

    All denied incl 3rd party. My summary of argument "parties clearly disagree about everything, there can be no undisputed facts - it must go to Trial".



    Expert witness exclusion:

    Murray and Smith: allowed, but Murray must submit a proper expert report. (Annesser did not object to Murray in a timely way, so his evidence is allowed in spite of no report at interview, but he must be treated as an expert witness).

    Wong: All statements not allowed except for heat exchanger calculations. These are allowed because Jury is best-placed to judge is Rossi lying, and Wong's testimony can be challenged.


    Comment from me.

    Great that Wong is allowed, his heat exchanger error can be shown. Judge also notes that Wong would have received precise info from Rossi on heat exchanger design, from which he could calculate performance. It is going to be very difficult for him to wiggle out of this one.


    We still, I believe, have the Spoliation issue? If this succeeds the MSJs might be revisited.

  • After all, if you really think they were not confident that Rossi's IP worked at the start of the Doral business, you should agree with me that they have been unfair with investors.


    As has been pointed out before, and which I'll take the time to point out again: (1) IH are only the trustees of the funding that was obtained from Woodford and others. They will have to cough it back up if they have not used it for the purposes for which it was obtained, e.g., if they use it instead for self-enrichment, or for buying real estate in Florida. (2) They are likely to have represented to Woodford and others that this is a promising but high-risk investment. IH need no great confidence in Rossi's tech to do (1) and (2) in good faith, only some level of hope and optimism, accurately represented as such, together with the risks. Indeed, I find it much more likely that they did not convey confidence in Rossi's tech to Woodford and others.

  • Indeed, I find it much more likely that they did not convey confidence in Rossi's tech to Woodford and others.


    There are always risk disclosures in these kinds of deals: always. So yes, IH would have disclosed many risks, especially given that LENR is a nascent field.


    Nevertheless, it remains that Woodford stated in no uncertain terms that Rossi's technology was core to their investment. And the valuation documents that are now on the docket confirm that (as it is split out based on LENR tech, with Rossi's accounting for most of it).