Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from SSC

    There is photographic evidence that there was no heat exchanger on the day the photo was taken. No photographic evidence can prove that the object was not there the day before.

    The photos were taken while the reactor was being used. If the heat was real and you removed a 1 MW exchanger while it was being used, you would kill everyone in the warehouse. Even Rossi admits this, so you should not deny it.


    The heat exchanger was NOT there. It was NEVER there. Rossi made up the story of the heat exchanger long after the bogus test ended. If there had been a heat exchanger, people would have seen it and it would have shown up in photographs.


    Quote from SSC

    How can you say that windows have been there all the time?

    Google street view showed the windows were there while the reactor was being used. If the windows were there even one day while the reactor produced 1 MW, it would have killed everyone. Google is not conspiring to frame Rossi. There would have to be massive equipment hanging out of the windows to for an air-cooled 1 MW heat exchanger. There was none.

    Quote from SSC

    There is photographic evidence that there was no heat exchanger on the day the photo was taken. No photographic evidence can prove that the object was not there the day before.

    How can you say that windows have been there all the time? Were you in charge of cleaning them daily?


    The tiresome, insipid, droning of the Rossi antiScientific Method: Prove the negative of every exhortation, while expecting nor providing any positive proof (regardless of how easily positive proof could/would normally be provided for said exhortations).

    guest111


    It is one of the subtleties of this argument. For those coming to the story without an axe to grind, on balance of probabilities, it is settled (Rossi fake customer, lies to Hydrofusion, fakes heat exchanger, etc, etc). For those with an a priori idea that Rossi is mankind's saviour, things get twisted.


    Rossi has been preeminently good at never allowing true tests of his stuff, and yet spinning the story that it is disruptive new technology.


    The nearest to this we get to a true test is Lugano, where he (with Levi) could influence the testers to use the wrong (but difficult for a non-specialist to realise wrong) IR calorimetry, and to cut short what would have been a control experiment. Only COP = X3. I rather guess, but will never be able to know or prove, that there was another X3 or so on input mis-measurement sort of planned that got detected. Why the weird change from Delta to Wye configuration? In Lugano the data collected was so complete that re-analysis with the correct methodology shows no excess, and as internal self-validation of the (correct) methods, the claimed change in COP between the two active tests vanishes, with COP stable with 0.5% between the two.


    For me it is wonderful that his scientific spoofs are so inventive and the lacuna of them so well hidden. Rossi chooses testers well as those who cannot (or perhaps do not) do a good job. An example is Penon not saying whether the V and A measurements in an early IH test were taken with average or true RMS meters. In that case the use of average meters would exactly allow as false positive the claimed COP = 2 or 3 results. But this gets even stranger - the story from Rossi long after the test is that the Report released, signed by Penon, was written by somone else.


    We go down a labyrinthine maze in which Rossi so controls all information, and vets those who provide it, that any casual and naive reading of the technical details looks OK. If not naive (even if you have 10% of MaryYugoitis) you note that information control and lack of methodology. If technical you note the real and classic measurement mistakes. But those can never be known. We cannot be sure Penon used average V and A meters in that test, because the test report omits the critical detail of what instruments are used. We only catch Rossi doing this for sure (source, Mats' book) when he is testing for truly independent, critical, and technically competent third parties. On that occasion Rossi refused to accept he was wrong and argued heatedly.


    Will any of this character complexity come out in Court? Rossi as the pre-eminent control freak? I don't know. One thing that makes this Trial for me fascinating.

    • Official Post

    Adrian,


    Rossi's expert Dr. Wong visited Doral. He concluded that without a mezzazine HE, the first person to die would be in the control room (air conditioned container next to 1MW plant). Wong did not see the HE...because Rossi supposedly dismantled it, and instead went only by what Rossisaid. He did however, study what was there and found the building as it was during his visit, lacked sufficient ventilation to exhaust 1MW.


    So no matter E48's opinion, all that matters now is Wong's. In other words, Rossi better prove it (HE) existed, or his goose is cooked. :)


    Not that it matters; in the one door picture taken from inside the mezzazine, 48 points to a clean floor on the lower left side (right side when viewed from warehouse), where he speculated the piping entered. However, if you read Doc. 326, (Rossi depo -scroll about halfway down, pgs 130-135) Rossi describes the pipe entering on the left side of that door when viewed from the warehouse.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    ...But I definitely do not trust you guys to resist prodding such types, and it ends up taking a lot of time to move useless posts out of this thread.


    OK, I hate to say it, but I, for one, am guilty of some prodding.


    And I'm sorry for that. I'll work on being more intentional about focusing on the topic and quality of the content of the comment before pressing 'Submit'.


    I appreciate the moderation here. I would add that in general, I also prefer a variety of opinions and viewpoints, even if obnoxious at times (within limits), but that 'food fights' are uninformative and boring.


    Thanks for cleaning up.

    • Official Post
    Quote from SSC

    So according to you if Rossi believes that he is a victim of a scam attempt, he should forget about it because he knows he has a revolutionary technology in his hands? Don't you think that it would be normal for him to try and get back his IP or the money he deserves? Your reasoning doesn't seem so logical.....


    SSC,


    Well, according to you, Rossi is a victim of a scam! So, of course, he did what anyone would do that is being scammed...set up a fake company, rigged a test with the help of long time friends, destroyed equipment, data, and emails to cover his tracks, and tried to collect $89 million from the one scamming him -IH. :)

    Quote from Shane D.

    SSC,


    Well, according to you, Rossi is a victim of a scam! So, of course, he did what anyone would do that is being scammed...set up a fake company, rigged a test with the help of long time friends, destroyed equipment, data, and emails to cover his tracks, and tried to collect $89 million from the one scamming him -IH. :)

    Well, thats what I would do😀

    • Official Post

    I finished the rest of the Cassarino depo (326). He was Rossi's first investor, and formed Ampenergo (AEG) to deal with Rossi. No change in my opinion from an earlier post I made after reading half.


    One new interesting thing I read did fill in another piece of the early Rossi years. Pg 224-227 talks about the DOD TE contract, The contract was with a joint company (Leonardo Technologies). Cassarino confirms that there was a "small scale" proof of concept test done at the University of New Hampshire. However, when they scaled it up, due "thermal expansion", it no longer worked. There were actually 3 DOD contracts, and Rossi was not involved with one.


    Sounds like Rossi was just part of a team to me, and the effort was legit? Anyways, thought I would put this out for MY to read.

    With thanks to THH, Sigmoidal, Shane D, Jed and many others and with special regards to the moderators who have a difficult job.

    But, fascinating as this all is, don't you guys on the west side of the pond have some kind of celebration to be attending?

    Best wishes from the east side of the pond to all the forum members in the USA on this 4 July 2017.

    Quote from David Fojt
     

    As i'm not an expert i ask "all experts here" to light up my understanding. (Dewey and others).


    Is it possible that the judge decides a third way ? For example, plan an Independent expertise on Rossi technology to check validity ?


    I expect that a court must have a horror of deciding in a hurry, even if both parties are pressing to defend their cause ? No ?

     


    THHuxleynew basically nailed it.


    It seems that there are a fair number of Europeans here, so I think it might be helpful to touch on the role of the court in this trial. For simplicity, I'm going to be grossly oversimplifying most of the points, so this should be taken as a rough outline, not a detailed explanation.


    Most of the nations in Western Europe (the UK and Ireland being the major exceptions) have legal systems that have their roots in the Napoleonic legal reforms; these reforms, in turn, took heavy inspiration from the Code of Justinian. The role of the courts in these systems can be broadly described as inquisitorial, with the idea being that the judge is there to actively seek out the truth. It is common for a judge in one of these legal systems to take a very active role in questioning witnesses, etc. My understanding is that it is not unusual for courts in these systems to seek independent expert advice in a case.


    The common law nations (basically England and former colonies - US included) are an adversarial system, with roots in the king's role (originally in person, later delegated) as an arbiter of disputes. In an adversarial system, each side presents its evidence and arguments to the court (which includes the judge and jury). Courts in adversarial systems tend to take a more passive (and listening-based) role in the process. Judges and juries may sometimes ask questions of witnesses, but that will typically be in a supplemental role, seeking clarification of points already brought out by the lawyers.


    So there are probably places where the judge could order independent testing or evaluation of the technology, but the USA is not one of them. The judge's discretion is much more limited, as are the possible options. The parties have set out their claims. The judge narrowed those claims in preliminary proceedings. The jury will rule on each of the remaining claims after listening to all evidence and deliberating as a group to determine how to best interpret the evidence. Their ability to rule, however, is limited to ruling on the specific claims in front of them. They have no ability to go beyond that scope.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The nearest to this we get to a true test is Lugano, where he (with Levi) could influence the testers to use the wrong (but difficult for a non-specialist to realise wrong) IR calorimetry, and to cut short what would have been a control experiment.

    I think the test before that, by Levi et al., was better. They calibrated correctly and used a thermocouple to confirm the IR readings. As far as I can tell that was a positive result. I cannot explain it, but it looked positive to me.


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

    I am sure that MikeD will also answer, but my take, as a non-scientist and non-engineer, is that the outcome of this trial, whatever that outcome may be, should have no effect on LENR and associated research. This trial is not about LENR, it is a simple contract dispute.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I think the test before that, by Levi et al., was better. They calibrated correctly and used a thermocouple to confirm the IR readings. As far as I can tell that was a positive result. I cannot explain it, but it looked positive to me.


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf


    I can understand that. The Levi test looks more convincing, but is less well documented. It is really two tests and they have different (possible) issues. It is quite complex to go over them and maybe this thread is not the place.

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.