Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Penon deposition (sorry, selected parts of, may be some duplicates):


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0194.09_Exhibit_9.pdf


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0207.10_Exhibit_10.pdf


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0235.14_Exhibit_14.pdf


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/238-23-Exhibit-65.pdf


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…17/01/242.8-Exhibit-8.pdf


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/245-20-Exhibit-20.pdf


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…7/01/264-09-Exhibit-9.pdf


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…7/01/276-02-Exhibit-2.pdf


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…7/01/279-05-Exhibit-5.pdf


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…7/01/285-04-Exhibit-4.pdf


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…7/01/297-04-Exhibit-4.pdf


    Thanks to Abd's site, you can do a keyword search for such stuff.

    Quote from woodworker

    JD: So you lied to IH?


    Rossi definitely has credibility issues, that's for sure. In fact, he had such issues before he ever had a relationship with IH. Why did IH go into business with what you claim is a known liar? Regardless of why, they did do it, and the ensuing contract was what gets generated when you go into business with those kinds of issues hanging over your head.


    So the question becomes whether Rossi delivered according to the contract. They had an agreed third party monitoring the results, the IP was delivered to IH, the 3rd party wrote a report favoring a positive outcome. But a few months later, IH wasn't happy because THEY couldn't generate the same results -- they had entered into a contract with Fred Flinstone.


    I'm sure Fred Flinstone will show that IH had some credibility issues as well, such as telling their investors the Flinstone IP worked when they supposedly thought it didn't, that kind of thing. After all the ugliness, the question is whether the contract was fulfilled.

    Why did IH go into business with what you claim is a known liar?


    Surely that is clear from the record. They hoped he had some disruptive technology worth billions, and were half convinced by all the independent tests. They are VCs, they will bet on even low probabilities for very high return.


    I'm sure Fred Flinstone will show that IH had some credibility issues as well, such as telling their investors the Flinstone IP worked when they supposedly thought it didn't, that kind of thing.


    I'm pretty sure they never did that. Rossi-warnings were a Darden thing.

    Quote from [email protected]

    No one can tell Rossi how to do anything. I have met mercurial inventors like that.


    Ross is not a scientist. He's a businessman thoroughly acquainted with the fact that people will do their best to steal his IP, and in the past people have stolen his IP. His actions match that of a con man but they also match that of a mercurial & paranoid inventor. Rossi initially didn't even want to do ANY demos unless it was to paying customers. But his friend Focardi was dying of cancer and wanted the recognition.


    Here's what I don't understand. He was demonstrating a COP > 10 much of the time. How do you fake that much heat? Surely if it was really COP <1 then the damned thing would barely feel warm. Even the most pedestrian observer would notice such a severe lack of claimed heat.


    I don't think Rossi has been demonstrating COP > 10. At least not for a very long time. He said he had COP 30 before 2011 but those models where never demonstrated in public. In april 2011 when he made public demonstrations it was COP = 6 but then Rossi assumed all water was vaporized. When Mats Lewan measured the water not vaporized in september 2011 he got a COP between 1,5 and 3. When Mats measured the FatCat in oktober 2011 he got COP 3. Lugano also got COP around 3.

    Quote from woodworker

    "The typical legal approach is to take things on face value." Really, as a lawyer, I question everything that is said, especially those things said by my clients. I truly despise Ronald Reagan, but I agree with the line "trust, but verify."

    This is the case where you cannot verify. In such a case the legal approach is to accept at first pass the face value of what is said by both sides and see which side fits the facts better.


    On second pass it becomes a matter of liar's dice, who can lie better without getting caught. When one side lies and the other side tells the truth, the lying side almost always wins. When both sides lie it gets ugly, which is where this legal case is going.

    Quote from [email protected]

    They had an agreed third party monitoring the results,

    This is incorrect.

    They had a void contract for a "GPT" because :

    1) Ampenergo did not sign it, a distinct requirement.

    2) The contract date had expired and it contained an explicit requirement for it.

    3) The contract explicitly required a six unit eCat to be tested. It was not.


    What WAS SIGNED AND IN PLACE:

    1) A contract by IH and "JMP" for the sale of heat for $1,000 per day. But JMP was a fake company represented by Rossi.

    2) A contract that established a length of 3 years. Uh... fake customer, fake production, 3 years.....??? It did not go one year.

    3) That Rossi would maintain the 1MW plant free of charge.


    There was no ERV in this contract, no reporting requirements, no COP, nothing. Why do you ignore this signed contract and keep stating there was this GPT?

    IH's actions during the year were totally in line with a contract for the sale of heat. They did not need to complain about any reports as the contract did not require any reports.

    There was no $89 million riding on COP or other issues as the contract was SIGNED and DATED for the sale of heat.


    So,

    Why do you ignore the contract that was signed and within it's operational dates?

    Why does anyone believe the GPT was active during this time? It clearly was not, both by the contract wording itself and sworn testimony of depositions.


    Oh.... and why is Rossi not selling 1MW plants in Europe and making billions?:/

    Quote

    3. Does anyone believe that wealthy investors are required to be more careful in making investments than everyone else?


    4. Does anyone believe that wealthy investors are entitled to less protection under the law than everyone else if they make a bad investment?


    5. Does anyone believe that wealthy individuals are less likely to be honest or better able than everyone else to know if someone is being dishonest with them?


    IH is clearly trying protect themselves from poor-little-ripped-off-inventor vs billion-buck-vulture-crapitalists bias.


    Thanks, I had already downloaded, but only a partial transcript and doesn't identify appearances by counsel.


    I did note that depo was taken in Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is not a party to either of the two international service of process treaties, so formal service requires Letters Rogatory, which are a PITA and ain't cheap. So IH didn't serve Penon, Penon was dismissed, depo was taken of country. Very interesting.


    FYI: "USC Title 22 Foreign Relations, Chapter I Department of State, Sec 92.54.
    Letters Rogatory through diplomatic channels are mandated for formal
    service in all countries that are not parties to an international
    process treaty. Documents must be sent through diplomatic channels
    adhering to strict formal diplomatic protocol. The lengthy and expensive
    procedures are not to be confused with the procedures of The Inter
    American Treaty on Letters Rogatory, which does not go through the
    diplomatic channel, even though these methods of service share a
    confusingly similar name."

    Is there a central acronym listing? What is GPT? If the new contract is what supplanted the old contract then was the ERV report just a comic book? If Rossi was selling heat to someone else, what is that to IH? They had no use for that heat he was supposedly selling to himself. At some point this heat contract you like so much harkens back to the IP contract with the independent agreed third party and the independent third party ERV report.


    I don't know why Rossi isn't selling stuff across Europe. That isn't part of this contract case so address it elsewhere, and ask Rossi. Otherwise I could go on about why the patent office doesn't allow cold fusion patents and all kinds of obfuscations. So, stick to the subject at hand.

    Quote from [email protected]

    This is the case where you cannot verify. In such a case the legal approach is to accept at first pass the face value of what is said by both sides and see which side fits the facts better.


    On second pass it becomes a matter of liar's dice, who can lie better without getting caught. When one side lies and the other side tells the truth, the lying side almost always wins. When both sides lie it gets ugly, which is where this legal case is going.

    I must say that I truly admire your grasp of legal concepts, legal procedure, legal transactional issues, etc. In case it is not clear, that was sarcasm.

    Quote from DNI

    I don't think Rossi has been demonstrating COP > 10. At least not for a very long time. He said he had COP 30 before 2011 but those models where never demonstrated in public. In april 2011 when he made public demonstrations it was COP = 6 but then Rossi assumed all water was vaporized. When Mats Lewan measured the water not vaporized in september 2011 he got a COP between 1,5 and 3. When Mats measured the FatCat in oktober 2011 he got COP 3. Lugano also got COP around 3.

    Okay, let's use your numbers for the time being. He's claiming a COP of 6, others measure it at COP 3. Let's say the output was 1000 deg F. Wouldn't it mean the output should have been off by several hundred degrees F? You can verify that with a thermometer. No one after these 8 long years thought to bring a thermometer and measure the heat? It just doesn't make sense.

    Quote from [email protected]

    Is there a central acronym listing? What is GPT? If the new contract is what supplanted the old contract then was the ERV report just a comic book? If Rossi was selling heat to someone else, what is that to IH? They had no use for that heat he was supposedly selling to himself. At some point this heat contract you like so much harkens back to the IP contract with the independent agreed third party and the independent third party ERV report.


    You are new here, so your confusion is understandable, but fortunately, it doesn't take much time to get up to speed, since both documents are short:


    There are only two written, contractual agreements between IH and Rossi regarding this case (and they are linked right in this post):


    1) The License Agreement has two amendments - the first one, named the 1st Amendment to License Agreement is essentially irrelevant to the case, but the 2nd Amendment to License Agreement amends the terms of the 1 year Guaranteed Performance Test (GPT) to specify the '6 cylinder unit' is to be used for performance.


    2) The Term Sheet was created long after the GPT performance deadline specified in the License Agreement had expired. (IH and Vaughn provided deposition that they told Rossi multiple times that the deadline for GPT had expired, prior to the creation of this document.) If you look at the term sheet, it is a two year Rental Agreement of the 1MW unit (not the 6 cylinder unit), and not 'for 350 out of 400-if-not-consecutive days'. There is nothing in the Term Sheet agreement that says anything about a GPT, about an ERV, about a $89M payment, or about any time period for performance. Instead, it states that the (now known to be Rossi and fake) Customer will pay IH $1000 per day for heat as long as the 1MW unit produces it (and a little less per day if a little less is produced).


    Bob is right that there is no written language anywhere in either of these documents that provides for a $89M payment of the 1MW Ecat based on ERV confirmed GPT performance (only the 6 cylinder unit).


    So the only argument that Rossi has that this is the GPT is because he says it was, and he says that IH behaved like it was. But IH says that they explicitly told Rossi that this was not the GPT. And Rossi has not shown written evidence that IH stated that they agreed that the Doral FL 1MW was a GPT. And in December of 2015, they didn't just 'tell' him that it wasn't the GPT verbally, they communicated that to him in writing. Whereas, Rossi has nothing in writing to counter that.


    And as to the allegation that IH was behaving like it was the GPT, all they have to do is say 'No, we were behaving exactly according to the terms of the written-and-signed Term Sheet'.


    IH testified that they told Rossi verbally that if he could get something to work, they would pay him for it (without specifying how much), but there was nothing in writing (and Rossi has not claimed that there was, nor produced anything in writing about that). And obviously, they have stated that the Doral 1MW plant did not work.


    Anything beyond that is 'he said/she said'. And since it is Rossi's burden to prove his point and all he has is his own assertions, AND he also clearly deceived IH by creating the fake customer, a reasonable observer (even if not a lawyer) can conclude that Rossi's case is extremely weak. And this all assumes that the '2nd Amendment to License Agreement' has any standing, even though it was not signed by all three parties (Ampenergo did not sign), and the agreement itself states that all three parties must agree (and further, the evidence on the Docket at the time of signing shows that Ampenergo refused to sign and that Rossi knew that they refused - the evidence from Discovery shows that Ampenergo not signing wasn't just an oversight). Obviously, things only get worse for Rossi if the only agreement the jurors find has any standing is the (1st Amended) License Agreement, in which Rossi had clearly not met GPT performance for $89M.


    The 'new contract' (Term Sheet) had nothing to do with the 'old contract' (License Agreement), so it could not possibly have 'supplanted' it. It seems you are confused on this point.


    But the answer to the second part of your question: 'was the ERV report just a comic book?', based on the quality of the report, many here including me have concluded that the answer to that is a resounding 'Yes!' (although not a very good one)

    Quote from [email protected]

    Okay, let's use your numbers for the time being. He's claiming a COP of 6, others measure it at COP 3. Let's say the output was 1000 deg F. Wouldn't it mean the output should have been off by several hundred degrees F? You can verify that with a thermometer. No one after these 8 long years thought to bring a thermometer and measure the heat? It just doesn't make sense.


    In the first version Rossi claimed COP 6 and said all water was vaporized. But there was no way to measure how much of the water that was actually vaporized.


    Then Rossi changed to a heat exchanger to avoid the problem with vaporization. That's when Mats Lewan got COP 3 in October 6. But sadly Rossi had but the thermocouple measuring the temperature of the outgoing coaling water on a big metallic piece that was also closely connected to the hot water inlet. So there is no way to know if the measured temperature is correct.


    Then Rossi started with the optical measurements of the temperature on the Hot cat. And it has been shown by both Tomas Clarke and MFMP that there was probably a miss measurement of the temperature. At least they have shown that this way of measuring the temperature is very error prone.


    There has also been an incident when SP (a big Swedish testing organization) showed that Rossi miss measured the incoming effect with a factor 3 because he did not use a true RMS instrument.


    To summarize there has not been any demonstrations without very reasonable explanation of how a miss measurement explaining a COP above 1 could have happened.


    With maybe the exception of Lugano Rossi have to my knowledge never allowed anyone to make independent measurements. There has been numerous suggestion about for instance sparging. But for some reason Rossi has never allowed this. When it comes to Lugano there is different opinions about how much freedom the authors had to measure in any way the liked.


    So I dont think you comment that no one thought about bringing a thermometer make sense. Rossi wouldn't allow it.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    You were saying you looked at the evidence. Well, Rossi not selling across Europe, indeed not selling anything anywhere except nonexistent power to himself is part of that evidence. You don't think it relevant?

    No it is not relevant to this case other than the bearing this case will have for future sales. If Rossi is found to be a con artist, he won't be able to sell anything. If he is found to have fulfilled his contract with IH and has $89Mil in his pocket, he will likely be selling reactors in Europe for a long time.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Context? If you give a link I'll comment. A lot of stuff gets said here.


    Rossi has consistently said this. Any other reason to believe it?

    • avatar-default.svg IH Fanboy Master Likes Received1,318Posts1,800

      oldguy ,


      Well, I'm glad we can agree that Woodford's initial investment was connected with Rossi... I mean they admitted that it was core to their investment. I think we've all seen the evidence for that at this point.


      As for any follow-on fundraising efforts, we have less certain evidence that Rossi was at the core. But there is some. We have an Industrial Heat power point slide listed on the official website of the Baishishan national Sino-US Science and Technology International Innovation Park.



      http://chinauspark.com/appUpda…5/20140925152226_9375.pdf


      Industrial Heat states:


      "We believe our initial technology (“the Reactor”) has several advantages:

      该镍反应有如下优点：

      –

      Generates energy more consistently, on a larger scale and with lower

      input costs and higher energy density than other technologies

      大量生产

      稳定能源，并保持低成本和高密度

      –

      Creates excess energy between 3 and 20 times the energy required to

      operate the device depending on the model of reactor and operating

      temperatures at temperatures between 120 and 500 degrees Celsius

      需要温度为摄氏120至500度，能产生所需消耗能源3至20倍的能量"


      Somehow I don't think they were referring to Brillouin. As an amusing side note, these statements were being made to the Chinese almost a year after the alleged "dummy reactor" had supposedly disproved Rossi's e-Cat in Darden's mind.


      The post was edited 2 times, last by IH Fanboy (Friday, 3:50 am).

      Frederic, Wyttenbach, ZenoOfElea and one other like this.
    Quote from [email protected]

    And allow me to say that you show the level bullshit and meanspiritedness that I have come to expect from lawyers, affirming once again that y'all have such a lousy reputation.


    edit:

    And you completely missed that Penon gave his deposition, which a was significant oversight in your introduction to this group. How's that for grasping legal issues, lawyer man? By all means, publish again the Law Firm you represent so we can all know who to avoid if we need legal assistance.


    Well, in just a few weeks we will all be able to evaluate the accuracy of our legal predictions. I am a betting man, are you? I will be happy to send a $10,000 (US Dollars) cashier's check to the administrator of this site, by delivery this Friday, betting that IH wins on the principal complaint (as I have previously said, I have no predictions on the counter-claim). Are you willing to match? Winner take all? Also, any other takes, IHFB, et al? I will happily consider upping the ante. All bets to be in by close of business next Monday (June 25, 2017).

    So your answer to the question of why no one thought to bring a thermometer was that Rossi wouldn't allow it. I find it amazing he got away with this much chicanery over 8 years. Mats Lewan is selling hundreds of thousands of his books. You should write your own counter-argument book and make money off this. Rossi truly is a fantastic magician if what y'all are saying is true.

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.