Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    In regards to the heat camera it seems like the standards for the measurements are very differently when the data of the Lugano team is assessed compared with the data of Dewey Weaver. While these discussions are far above my expertise i just note that it seems a bit unfair how Lugano data is so harshly questioned while no one has made any attempts to objects to Dewey Weaver's measurement.

    In regards to Eric statement that other teams that work with IH are very happy about the IH relationship and have no problems, I'm happy if that statement is correct. Would you care to tell a bit more what you've heard. My guess would be that some of the teams has written so strict NDA's that they are not able to say anything else than the typical "the outcome could be positive but it could also be negative". When IH signed a lot of these teams they shut of a lot of the communication to the outside world so if you can shed some more light on this, that would be most welcome. I hope it's not positive in the sense that "no one publicly complained"?

    Even if IH wins the lawsuit on all important points they might be slightly crippled moving forward, and it makes sense not to put all eggs in one basket, also because competition is something positive, not negative, the more professional and promising researchers and teams out there should consider there is alternative routes and investors for their continued development. There is alternatives routes where they do not have to work under very harsh NDA's, or, where they can have the same privileges as IH provides but working with other investors. I'm always happy to forward an email or two ... just putting it out there.


    OK - so would you care to interpret - in the light of your hypothesis as to what this diagram means - why the Optris camera itself gives a value of n that varies as indicated in my post consistently with the TC report and inconsistently with your claims thast exponent=3?


    You don't have to take my word for it. you can download the Optris software and do it yourself. It took me 15 minutes + a spreadsheet.


    Maybe you should tell Optris that their software is wrong?

    Quote from LFH Sam

    In regards to Eric statement that other teams that work with IH are very happy about the IH relationship and have no problems, I'm happy if that statement is correct. Would you care to tell a bit more what you've heard.


    Since 2014 I've been on the CMNS list, a private mailing list of LENR researchers and other interested parties. The discussions there are confidential, so I cannot provide details. I do recall one or more researchers speaking positively of IH coming onto the scene, but this is at best a vague impression at this point. I also know from the Marianne Macy Infinite Energy article and from other hearsay that several well-known researchers such as Peter Hagelstein and Yeong Kim have collaborated with IH, and there was a possibility that IH were going to host an ICCF conference (not sure what the status of that is). So on balance I see IH's influence as being a positive one. Are NDA's a problem? I personally would prefer that they not be put in place, but I think that's something for individual researchers to decide for themselves. Would a friendly competition from other funders be desirable? I think so. But let's start with what funders are available here and now and then hope that more appear. Should LENR researchers consider carefully the pros and cons before accepting funding from IH and entering into an NDA, and possibly instead consider other avenues of assistance? For sure.


    Is it possible that there are discontented researchers who have been unable to express their discontent as a result of an NDA that is in place, and hence word hasn't gotten out? Possibly.

    Quote from maryyugo

    That fits perfectly with his background and previous complete lack of any accomplishment except for taking money from various investors with no good results EVER. In his entire life -- anyway the parts of which we have reliable records and not just "Rossi-says".


    Yes, but the RossiSays are such a magnificence that if even 1% of RossiSays is true he is a hero of the age and must be supported.


    Now, who can disagree with that sort of logic?


    :)

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Since 2014 I've been on the CMNS list, a private mailing list of LENR researchers and other interested parties. The discussions there are confidential, so I cannot provide details. I do recall one or more researchers speaking positively of IH coming onto the scene, but this is at best a vague impression at this point. I also know from the Marianne Macy Infinite Energy article and from other hearsay that several well-known researchers such as Peter Hagelstein and Yeong Kim have collaborated with IH, and there was a possibility that IH were going to host an ICCF conference (not sure what the status of that is). So on balance I see IH's influence as being a positive one.


    Eric thank you for sharing that piece of information.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Doc. 313, an order, now on the docket.


    Judge Altonaga's Rulings:


    1. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine [ECF No. 262] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.


    2. J.M. Products, Inc., Henry Johnson, and James A. Bass’s Motion in Limine [ECF No.263] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.


    3. Defendants’ Consolidated Motion in Limine [ECF No. 264] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.


    4. Plaintiffs’ Appeal of Judge O’Sullivan’s April 20, 2017 Ruling that Document IH-00079768 is a Privileged Communication [ECF No. 283] is DENIED.


    5. Defendants’ Appeal of Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan’s Denial of Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions Based on Plaintiffs’ and Third Party Defendant J.M. Products Inc.’ of Evidence [ECF No. 285] is DENIED.


    So, no Spoliation (and Jaffe email remains privileged).


    For all parties' (Rossi, Darden and 3rd parties) Motions in Limine, there is no description of what is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. So we'll have to wait for the gory details.


    In any case, Jury trial, here we come.


    And Alan Fletcher wins the bold prediction challenge, thereby receiving $1,000,000.00 LENR Quatloos!

    Quote from Italianlawyer

    What's disturbing you? The fact I'm a lawyer, the fact I'm Italian or the fact I think Rossi is sincere? You can do better! Law is my field and I don't need to insult people (as you do) to substain my opinion 👏👏👏


    I don't want to speak for anyone, but I'm guessing Probably not the first 2, but anyone who is gillible enough to think that Rossi is sincere is what is disturbing him.

    So .... off to trial we go. Unless IH appeals their spoliation issue. But I suspect they think they will be able to convince a jury., so unlikely.

    Would I put money on IH winning? Nope. Too close to call.

    Why? Their main honchos don't remember ANYTHING! I don't think the jury will like I..H.. (And D..W.. ... he'd better clam up real tight!)

    Smith is very weak as an expert. Opinionated, biased against the possibility of CF and wrong on too many issues.
    Murray is an honest engineer (still have to see his expert report) ... but even he didn't know the slope of the condensate return line. No mention of the stain marks on the flowmeter in his deposition, that I can recall.

    Edit: no new killer evidence. Only the photos from the depositions.

    Rossi will play the little guy against the big money guys. And I think he's getting better bang for his buck than the Jones family.

    Force me to make a choice .... ????

    I'll put a coupla bucks on Rossi!

    Q: Mr Murray, did you do some experiments with a flow meter? What were the results?

    M: Yes. They show it over-reported the flow.

    Q: Did your flow meter match the slope of the condensate return pipe?

    M: I don't know.

    Q: So are your results directly comparable? [ Edited to clarify .. previously a double negative]

    M: No ...

    Q : Thank you.


    But what are you going to do with all those Quatloos you just won in the Bold Prediction Challenge?


    I don't give much chance at all for Rossi to 'win', and here's why:


    Rossi brought suit against IH for the $89Million (plus damages). The Judge will instruct the jury that it is Rossi's burden to show that his claims against IH are true. IH can say:

    1. There was not proper standing as Leonardo NH, but if you think that doesn't matter (BIYTTDM):
    2. There was no signed contract, BIYTTDM (presumably via estoppel):
    3. It was not the 6 cylindar unit, BIYTTDM:
    4. It was not done in time, BIYTTDM:
    5. It didn't produce enough heat, BIYTTDM:
    6. He fraudulently induced IH, BIYTTDM:
    7. Whatever else they throw at the Jury, etc.

    And Rossi has the burden of having a unanimous verdict amongst the jurors that a preponderance of evidence shows that each and every one of these are not true.


    Now, regarding IH's counterclaims for $11.5 Million (plus damages), the same applies: they have the burden to prove to the jury their claims, with unanimous decision.


    (I believe this is true, but any REAL lawyer, please clarify if wrong).


    So, my new, (not so) bold prediction?


    No monetary damages awarded to or from any parties.


    And because I'm a big spender, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is and bet a millyun Quatloos! (That I just happen to have sitting here burning a hole in my wallet).

    Sigmoidal,


    If Rossi really wanted to know, he could have ,(and still could), simplyh se marine batterys for the power source.

    These power and energy densities are fixed,

    No 3 phase calculations, no connections to grid, no hidden wires etc. when the battery dies, the experiment does with it.

    Quote from sigmoidal

    So, my (not so) bold prediction?


    No monetary damages awarded to or from any parties.


    And because I'm a big spender, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is and bet a millyun Quatloos! (That I just happen to have sitting here burning a hole in my wallet).


    I'll bet all of my Quatloos that you are right. I think the jury might look at all involved parties with exasperation, just as we have, the two judges have, and the overall LENR community has.

    BOLD PREDICTION :


    Rossi keeps his 11.5M (or whatever, 1M plant + Acceptance test) -- doesn't get his 83M GPT

    I..H.. gets nothing ... but keeps whatever ill-defined rights to worthless Rossi IP (QuarkX is another court battle)


    [ Big mystery : why Rossi didn't file to get his IP rights returned? ]


    I'll try to find a way of converting Quatloos to Dingeridoos, aka real money.

    Losers pay MFMP & lenr-canr.org 50-50. Draw : (no money penalties): each better pays 50% 50-50

    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    Rossi keeps his 11.5M (or whatever, 1M plant + Acceptance test) -- doesn't get his 83M GPT

    I..H.. gets nothing ... but keeps whatever ill-defined rights to worthless Rossi IP (QuarkX is another court battle)


    Except IH paid for the Plant in full ($1.5 million), and they paid a lot to refurbish it. So I would imagine that the Plant remains IH's.

    Perhaps they will allow Rossi to purchase it back for cost of the Plant plus refurbishment costs.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.