Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

More intriguing Boeing deposition testimony. Sadly, I'm seeing the supposed irrefutable Boeing test become uncomfortably transparent.

326, pp. 112-113

Q. Okay.

8 Does this refresh your recollection as to

9 any explanation that had been provided as to why the

10 E‐Cat may not have worked?

11 A. Yes. It is indicating that they may have

12 had a slight difference in the fuel.

13 Q. In fact, I believe in this email dated

14 November 21st, 2014, from Mr. Darden to yourself,

15 Mr. Vaughn, and Mr. Dameron, Mr. Darden states, "I was

16 hopeful, but also worried due to the change I made to

17 the fuel based on the material supply issue."

18 Was it your understanding, sir, that the

19 fuel was not the same as Dr. Rossi's fuel, based on

20 that comment?

21 A. So I ‐‐ yeah. So apparently, based on that

22 comment, I would say that, yes, that is not

23 necessarily exactly the same. So yeah. I ‐‐ I ‐‐ I

24 take the face ‐‐ comment at face value.

25 Q. Okay.

Page 113

Now, did Industrial Heat ever make

2 arrangements to send back another unit properly

3 fueled?

4 MR. BELL: Objection to form.

5 A. They never sent us another unit, no.

6 Q. (By Mr. Annesser) Okay.

7 And let me ask that in a different way just

8 based on the objection.

9 Did Industrial Heat ever offer to either

10 send fuel that had not been changed by Mr. Darden for

11 the E‐Cat?

12 MR. BELL: Objection to ‐‐

13 A. No.

Rends,

I wouldn't say Boeing's test engineer's (Jamie Childress) deposition is useless--it it quite fascinating to read, and he never dismisses the e-Cat outright. In fact, he admits that his interest in it continued to the point that he was even building reactors on his own using parts previously purchased by Boeing... and months later was still interacting with Dameron even after his Boeing funding for the initial test had dried up. He comes across as a curious engineer and one who doggedly wants to know whether the e-Cat works.

What is also interesting is how sensitive Boeing's attorney is about Childress discussing or sharing any LENR related information that Boeing might be privy to outside of the specific test that was conducted for IH. On multiple occasions, Boeing's attorney cautions Childress to stay on message. It seems quite apparent from these interactions that Boeing has a broader interest in LENR.

@MY,

This trial will not result in a dispositive determination whether the e-Cat works as claimed, unfortunately. I had hopes that it could at the initiation of it all, but as I've scoured the record, it became apparent to me that we will unlikely be able to definitely discern that from this dispute.

Irrespective of the outcome, the e-Cat story will live on.

Darden said in an email to the Boeing engineer, referring to the different fuel used in the reactor given to Boeing: "I was hopeful, but also worried due to the change I made to the fuel based on the material supply issue." (326, p. 112).

One now wonders whether the fuel Darden personally inserted into Murray's modified reactor was same as the altered version of fuel used in Boeing's reactor due to the apparent material supply issue. There is only one person in the world who can answer that question.

Quote from [email protected]

1) How do you get a COP of 9 out of an empty cell? If this is the case then we can explain away so much of LENR as a miscalculation artifiact, apparently even with seasoned scientists.

You get that COP with really, really rotten calorimetry. Fortunately, for most experiments the calorimetry ranges from meh to superb. So we don't have to worry. However, there are other experiments that I do not think are valid because the calorimetry is wrong. It isn't wrong by a factor of 9.

Quote from [email protected]

2) If the Penon report is so irrefutable proof of fraud and it has been entered as evidence in the case, why wasn't the case summarily dismissed in the motion for summary judgement?

I suppose it was not dismissed because the judge did not understand some the technical issues in the Motion to Dismiss, such as the part about the invisible heat exchanger.

I know little about the law or trials, but I do not think cases are often dismissed because exhibits are scientifically flawed. Rossi's assertions violate the conservation of energy and many other fundamental laws but the case is moving forward. Apparently, the jury will have to understand that the Penon report is garbage. I worry that it may not understand that, because so many people here from Planet Rossi do not understand that.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

That does seem to be a flaw in Jed's "irrefutable proof" argument. I do suspect that Jed is one of those who requires a working commercial unit to be convinced.

Are you suggesting that I do not believe cold fusion exists? Have you read any of the papers and books I have published on this subject?

More to the point, have you read the Penon report? If you do not find it indefensible and you do not see that it is irrefutable proof of fraud, then you are technically incompetent and you should not try to evaluate any machine more complicated than a pencil sharpener.

Perhaps you are like Axil and you have avoided reading it so that you have an excuse to support Rossi. What Nixon called "plausible deniability." That's also known as willful ignorance, or refusing to face facts.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Jed, I have lived in three countries ( four if you count 9 months in Poland) and heeded engineering for large companies in each them, before starting a consulting company with clients including the World Bank, EPRI and GRI.

When this first started I asked you to specify exactly what "irrefutable proof of fraud" you found in Penon's report and I have yet to see an answer. At the time you said it was confidential and you couldn't repeat it.

one item might be when the system was down and apart, the report still showed excess. That doesn't seem right.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

When this first started I asked you to specify exactly what "irrefutable proof of fraud" you found in Penon's report and I have yet to see an answer.

If you cannot see the problems in the report without my help, I think you are a lost cause. However, I listed the major problems many times and so did Murray and Smith. So, I suggest you read Murray's Exhibit 5:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…6/11/0029.5_Exhibit_5.pdf

If you believe in the conservation of energy, read Smith:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0194.01_Exhibit-1.pdf

Or you can read Rossi's own deposition where he claims there was an invisible heat exchanger in the mezzanine that did not show up in photos. That was an outrageous lie, even by his standards. He came up with it because even he now realizes that the Penon report is ludicrous because of the heat issue (and for many other reasons). It was a last minute attempt to patch up the report, after he first floated the idea of a few grams of magic endothermic material that absorbs a megawatt of heat for months.

If you totally disagree with Murray, and you do not think he is making any valid points about the data being too regular, or the temperature in the building being too low . . . then, as I said, stick to pencil sharpeners. You have no business trying to judge technology more complicated than that.

The Penon report is an excellent method of triage. Anyone with an ounce of technical experience will see it is bogus, and it violates the conservation of energy and much else. Anyone who does not understand why the report is a problem is either incompetent or mesmerized by Rossi. Anyone who refuses to read it, such as Axil, is willfully ignorant.

@Jed,

Any argument about the violation of conservation of energy is an ignorant one among the those in the LENR community. Once IH chose to go down that path, they lost credibility among those who follow LENR (except apparently with you). There is no violation of conservation of energy with LENR.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Any argument about the violation of conservation of energy is an ignorant one among the those in the LENR community.

You are completely wrong. Cold fusion is predicated on calorimetry. Calorimetry, in turn, is the original and best proof of the conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics. The only way to prove that cold fusion does not exist is to show that energy is not conserved, and that heat can of itself go from one body to a hotter body.

Martin Fleischmann and many others pointed this out.

I do not know a single cold fusion researcher who doubts the laws of thermodynamics.

As has been the case for years, arguing with people who believe Rossi is wasted effort. Logic, common sense, and the laws of nature do not enter into their world view and therefore have no value in persuading them of anything. And, as a result, long after Rossi and his nonsense have faded into well-deserved obscurity, they will still worship their hero.

Considering that anyone can build an IR-measured "COP" of 3 to 4 device with an empty ceramic tube (why the heck is no one doing this ???), using the Lugano IR protocol and alumina tables, a "COP" of 9 is only just another measurement ****up away.

(OK, the IR camera is expensive... but still, there are many that can get ahold of one. Scanning across the tube , with an IR spot gun can work well, too, if not quite as effective. Good enough for proof of concept...)

If water was used for the "COP 9" experiment, simply avoiding boiling but thinking it did boil could net an easy (mis-measured) "COP" of around 15.

Quote from MikeDunford

Rossi's allegation is essentially that the defendants fraudulently induced him to enter the contract by representing that IH was for all purposes Cherokee. There is apparently some evidence to support that count, since IH did not receive summary judgment on this claim. I currently have no view on the strength of that evidence or the likelihood that Rossi will win on the count at trial.

Quote from MikeDunford

I'm not sure how relevant tests showing that the e-Cat doesn't work would be to this case, so I'm not sure I would expect to find such tests in the record in this case, or necessarily see them produced during the trial. ¹

There are a few bells and whistles (like the fraudulent inducement claims) thrown in, but the core of this dispute is a contract dispute.² If you want to win a contract dispute, there are four things you have to prove:

1: Formation. You and the other guy had a contract. ³

2: Performance. You did what you were supposed to do under the contract.

3: Breach. The other guy didn't do what he was supposed to. ⁴

4: Damage. You were hurt because of the breach.

If you prove all four of those things, you win. If you fail to prove any of them, you lose. ⁵ I'm not sure that any independent test IH did (or did not do) would be relevant to prove any of those four elements. The license made no provisions for testing outside the two specified tests. If the e-Cat worked in those two tests, IH probably has to pay Rossi - no matter how many other times it failed. Independent tests might be relevant as additional proof that Rossi faked results, but that's about the only reason I can think of that they'd come in. There are possible reasons (like preserving trade secrets, not opening people up to cross-examination, etc) that IH might want to leave them out. And there's a substantial amount of other evidence that there was something hinky going on with the testing.

So I don't think it's reasonable to assume that such test results would definitely be part of the record if they existed.

1: I'm taking no position on whether or not I think there were tests.

2: The contract in this case is the IP license; all licenses are contracts.

3: This is the element where the dueling fraud claims come in. If you can prove that you only agreed to the deal because of the other guy's fraudulent inducements, you might have the option to void the contract.

4: The failure has to be substantial, not merely technical. So I don't think IH necessarily wins just because the 24-hour test was actually run for only 23.5 hours.

5: Technically, you could be awarded "nominal damages" if you show that you were harmed but can't prove an actual amount of harm, but you still have to show harm.

Display More

Mike

Performance. The license agreement states that Rossi must transfer IP to Rossi after the $10M payment and (chronologically, given the timeframe) well before the GPT. There is a dispute over whether he has done this - IH claim that his devices never worked when tested by him (though initial results were encouraging using test setups mandated by Rossi). I think perhaps whether the IH devices provided by Rossi ever actually worked might be relevant to this since if they in fact do not either Rossi did not transfer the IP, or his devices do not work. You might perhaps argue that the GPT device is the single one that does, miraculously, work, and that IH have the IP, it is just that they have not yet hit upon another such occasional working device. That seems a difficult argument to sustain.

@THH,

Given that Darden admits that he altered the fuel due to a materials supply shortage before loading the Boeing reactor, one has to wonder what Darden was putting in Murray's modified reactor. We know Dameron's reactors were working, at least based on the information we have on the record. No contemporaneous test results or emails refute Dameron's results--quite to the contrary, all of the contemporaneous emails that we have access to support Dameron's >1 COP results.

Quote from JedRothwell

Perhaps you are like Axil and you have avoided reading it so that you have an excuse to support Rossi. What Nixon called "plausible deniability." That's also known as willful ignorance, or refusing to face facts.

This lawsuit is not a means to gain knowledge or a path to establish facts, it is a waste of time devoid of any truth, a wasteland of emotion, perverted by the profit motive. I look forward to the day when the lawyers tire of this game and seek their pleasures at other places.