Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from SSC

Someone here wrote that for patents do not count the truth and that any thing can be patented, even objects that can not work. This is a silly thing. Many patents on Cold Fusion were rejected precisely because the Examiner felt that the phenomenon upon which the operation of the described object was based had not been recognized by mainstream science. If IH filed that patent it is because they knew they had a worth technology and an IP that they did not want to lose.

You are wrong on several counts. In US patents the specs in a patents are not tested or ruled on by the PTO as being true or not. They do not have either the skill, expertise or resources to proof facts. They must take the information as given. The specs are to define terms and give an embodiment of the invention and show that it has some use. In this case, for example, in testing samples to see if they can produce excess. It does not say that the measurement taken are correct.

Also if you read the claims of the patents in question, you will find that the one filed by IH on behalf of Rossi, et al did not claim excess heat or power. The claims only covered a vessel for placing an active sample. The granting of the patent does not imply that the heat discussed in the patent was as reported. Much like getting a driver's license does not imply that you own an operating car.

Granting the patent in question only says that the items claimed are useful in some why (such as testing a sample). It did not claim excess heat so the PTO made no ruling on excess heat in any way.

Quote from MikeDunford

Yeah, I forgot about the counterclaim. IH are arguing that their inability to get the thing to work suggests that Rossi didn't turn over all the IP. There are enough alternate explanations (incompetence, failure to exactly match, the entire Rossi device is a rainbow-fart powered fantasy, etc) that it's a stretch to say that it proves that Rossi didn't turn over everything, but it's relevant to that.

Maybe not just the counter-claim. If Rossi did not turn over IP then he was not compliant with the contractual terms before the GPT or GPT payment. Which, I have a vague idea but you no doubt will be clearer, if true would void any subsequent contractual duties of IH, like teh $89M payment.

@MY,

From ABD:

"The Rule is cited and the Rule includes such reasons as client attempting fraud, but the Rule's reasons include obvious simple reasons, if the attorney is "discharged" they must withdraw unless the court prohibits it, and an attorney may withdraw on own initiative with no reason -- if it will not cause harm to the client. In this case, court documents were being filed by Annesser & Chaiken already, and PBY&A noted that those attorneys had left their employ and that the client (Rossi etc) followed them. They were discharged, and this is neither positive nor negative. We may speculate about things that the lawyers will never reveal. The request to withdraw seemed ordinary to me and I was wondering when we would see it."

Quote from SSC

This dark past is a figment of your imagination.

My imagination?? Have you read the news reported by Sifferkol?

Sifferkol? Okay, I rest my case.

Quote from SSC

The heat exchanger was dismantled at the end of the test: it is not invisible,

Photographs taken during the test show no pipes going to the mezzanine, and nothing in the mezzanine window except glass. As Smith described, photos taken of the mezzanine after the exchanger was reportedly dismantled show that no such equipment was or could have been installed in that room. There would be wires and marks left. No one can remove every trace of such heavy equipment.

Quote from JedRothwell

Photographs taken during the test show no pipes going to the mezzanine,

The photo was cut off so that you can't see the bottom part of the doorway. The pipes, according to Rossi, entered the mezzanine at the bottom portion of the doorway. Even IH's attorney during the deposition lamented that the photos available didn't show the whole doorway.

Quote

and nothing in the mezzanine window except glass.

Except for the panes where there isn't glass.

Quote

As Smith described, photos taken of the mezzanine after the exchanger was reportedly dismantled show that no such equipment was or could have been installed in that room. There would be wires and marks left. No one can remove every trace of such heavy equipment.

There were marks on the floor. In fact, they even correspond to what appears to be a large box of some kind once resting on the floor. There are lots of other marks all over the place. There are clean elongated areas on the floor near the door where pipes apparently would have been.

Quote from AlainCo

one point about conservation of energy.

LENR does not (AFAweKnow) violate CoE.

in fact many excuses against LENR calorimetric evidences violate TD laws, as many LENR theories.

The reality of LENR came from CoE.

TD laws, as Jed state well, requires that huge energy are produced in some LENR experiments, and the only way to respect CoE is to assume it come from nuclear energy, not chemical energy, as there is not enough chemical energy free in the system.

CoE argument is typical for dogmatic armchair physicist who just don't want to admit their beloved science which pay well is younger than thermodynamic and chemistry.

What LENR violate is the known mechanism of nuclear reaction. LENR is just an unimagined phenomenon, not an impossible phenomenon. there is much enough energy that can be freed in D and even in many heavier nucleus, to explain LENR calorimetry. few body quantum physics is just not compatible, as a butcher's axe cannot be used to do brain surgery. Voodoo is not better at brain surgery (message to Voodoo theorists).

Anyway, as someone explained here, Smith explains well that 1MW produced in the dream of Rossi, had to leak and be observed, and was not at all observed.

The Penon report in itself is a joke, and that it is supported without amendment, show there is a deep problem.

I don't take wrong report, wrong measurement, as evidence of anything, but I take the absence of corrections as a serious evidence of a deep problem.

If Lugano's E-cat test , Milano's Defkalion demo, Penon reports, would have been seriously corrected, I would have eventually considered them seriously... but they have not been improved, and this says more than the errors they contains.

Rossi is not LENR, but I'm afraid he have damaged the domain, and led many courageous people to losing much time and money. I just hope I'm wrong, and that from the evil will came the serendipity.

Display More

In his interpretation of his experimental results, Holmlid goes further than nuclear reactions in explaining the source of the energy generated in the reactions that Holmlid sees. This energy yield is greater than what can be explained from nuclear reactions such as fusion and fission. The binding energy that holds nuclei together is too weak to account for the power seen in the reactions produced in the reaction energies that Holmlid detects. These reactions that propel subatomic particles and atomic fragments to nearly the speed of light must come from the binding energy that bind subatomic particles together, the binding energy that is fundamental to maintaining the particles themselves.

Holmlid:

Quote

"Further, similar particle velocities are obtained also from the laser-induced processes in p(0) as seen in Figs 4, 6 and 7 etc, where no ordinary fusion process can take place. Thus, it is apparent that the particle energy observed is derived from other nuclear processes than ordinary fusion."

Quote from WMartin

Rossi sued IH. As plaintiff, he has the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence. Where are his pictures or even purchase receipts? Why was the exchanger only mentioned after an unfavorable heat dissipation analysis? Why has no person except Rossi seen this exchanger?

More fundamentally, if the heat was to be used by the fake company, why did they need a heat dissipation device?

WMartin and @WW,

There is no evidence available so far that no person other than Rossi saw the heat exchanger. From what we have available so far in the deposition record, it appears that nobody other than Rossi was even asked the question. I suppose this issue will be fleshed out during trial.

You need to dissipate heat, because 1MW is a lot of heat. Some would be dissipated by convection through the ceiling and into the cement walls of the warehouse. Most would be carried in the form of steam to a heat exchanger, and dissipated as heated air out of the warehouse, presumably out the window (although this is sharply disputed by some). Some might have been used in a chemical process taking place within the serpentine pipes shown in JMP's black box.

Quote from woodworker

More fundamentally, if the heat was to be used by the fake company, why did they need a heat dissipation device?

You need a heat dissipation device whether it is used or not. Otherwise the room would be so hot it would kill the occupants. It would be a giant oven.

Heat is never "used" by anyone, except in minute amounts. Most of it ends up as waste heat. For example, in a bakery, a very small fraction of the heat converts to chemical storage in baked bread, which has slightly more potential energy than the raw materials. The rest goes out the vents into the atmosphere. Then it radiates out into space and the cosmos, increasing entropy.

Quote from woodworker

More fundamentally, if the heat was to be used by the fake company, why did they need a heat dissipation device

Because there are no industrial processes that could use that much heat without large shipments of goods (or water) in and out of the property. - Hence, the heat produced would dissipate into the downstairs working area, leading to dangerous temperatures. Some IH expert witness (correctly) proved how much temperatures would rise (but then 'misplaced' his calculations*) - Which lead to the 'need' for the upstairs heat exchanger.

* Or didn't fancy answering questions on the finer points of CFD/FEA modelling in public...

Quote from JedRothwell

You need a heat dissipation device whether it is used or not. Otherwise the room would be so hot it would kill the occupants. It would be a giant oven.

Heat is never "used" by anyone, except in minute amounts. Most of it ends up as waste heat. For example, in a bakery, a very small fraction of the heat converts to chemical storage in baked bread, which has slightly more potential energy than the raw materials. The rest goes out the vents into the atmosphere. Then it radiates out into space and the cosmos, increasing entropy.

Thanks, this is why I should avoid scientific questions/comments.

@WW,

What, a thanks to Jed for his explanation, but not to me for mine?

Well, humph, I guess we know where you are aligning ideologically on this case.

Quote from JedRothwell

You need a heat dissipation device whether it is used or not. Otherwise the room would be so hot it would kill the occupants. It would be a giant oven.

So, the point made by Murray and Smith was: Since there was no heat dissipation device, there could not have been 1 MW of heat. Rossi admitted they were right when he came up with the lie about the invisible heat exchanger. I suppose that fact alone should torpedo the trial. I recall it was the gist of one of the motions to dismiss. In other words, it is an uncontested fact that without an exchanger Rossi's claims are wrong.

Apparently the judge did not dismiss the claim on that basis. I do not know why because I did not read the ruling and I cannot understand legal jargon.

I hope the Jury understands this issue.