Well then, according to that analysis, nothing IH or Darden, et al did in connection with Rossi et al was fraud either. After all, they haven't been charged or convicted and apparently, according to you, a settlement means that there wasn't a preponderance of evidence against them.
Yes I would agree with that. Any criminal fraud case against IH would in fact be more difficult to prove than Rossi, who has already spent time in prison.
After all, according to you, SSC, Kev and many others, he was going to show IH, Darden, et al, for the alleged corporate crooks they were
Uh, no . I said it looked likely that Rossi would lose. I wanted 25:1 odds to bet for him. For things such as this I have been tagged as part of planet Rossi. That's because the Rossi haters are so triggered that anything remotely positive said about the man sends that camp into a frenzy.
I always it was strange that Rossi claimed that IH didn't have the money to pay him and then turned around and sued them for the money.
Strange logic.
Did Rossi say they didn't have the money to pay? I thought it was that they refused to pay. After all, that's what the breech of contract lawsuit said.
Well, they declared in the contract that they had the money to pay him the $90M, so NOT having it was a breach.
In their investment letter they said they'd have to raise it quickly -- at just the time they said it was not the GPT.
(Not quite the same thing legally).
But yes, he sued them anyway ... so if they don't have it right now they'll have to pay it as they get it in (That for Darden and Vaughn individually).
Display MoreNeither party made any claims about the IP (that I can recall).
The claim and counter-claim are so intermingled (in terms of believing who did what) that it's hard to distinguish. So I'll assume one party wins both parts.
Rossi wins :
Rossi keeps the $11.5M
IH pays Rossi $270M plus Rossi's attorney fees ($5M?)
IH is out of pocket for everything they spent.
Rossi Loses:
Rossi pays IH attorney fees ($5M?)
Rossi pays IH "For compensatory and expectation damages and/or restitution in an amount to be
determined at trial" -- probably everything IH spent, including the $11.5M, the $5M (?) they paid AEG,
all the salaries and expenses etc etc ... say $30M (Doubled? Tripled?)
Ignoring sunk-loses/gains, and awarding triple-damages + fees to the loser, we have in the top lines:
(?? the forum won't let me add another table??)
Lower lines : WITH the sunk costs/old gains. IH lost $30M, of which Rossi got $11.5M direct and $0.5M (est) salary and expenses..
Rossi Wins IH Wins Rossi +275 -95 IH -275 +95 ^^^ upper lines ^^^ vvv lower lines vvv Rossi $11.5M + $0.5M salary + $5M atty + $270M triple = +287 -$5M atty - $90M triple = -95 IH -$30M sunk - $5M atty - $270M triple = $-305 M +$5M atty + $90M triple = +95 I'm not sure what game theory would say ... IH has the bigger downside, but in either case the loser is bankrupt!
(Sorry for the formatting)
Yes, you have pointed out in your laborious figuring, the simple fact that IH was incredibly negligent in due-diligence, and dealing with Rossi, and paying him $10M upfront to begin with (I've never heard of any technology development contract written like that, never), then (as sane people would) underestimating his gall to turn around and sue them (with the money they gave him, for nothing) after already fleecing $10M, thereby IH losing another couple million more on attorneys. However, with regard to Rossi getting away with his Ultimate Fleece (suing the people that he already fleeced for $10M for another $90M min, or for the Brethren here, his principled, just, deserved, compensation, retribution and protection of the noble small inventor and little people) he LOST, caved, chickened-out, folded like a cheap umbrella in a hurricane, skulked off with his tail between his legs, when his Ultimate Fleece bluff was called--so much for noble principled Rossi protecting the universe and giving "The Man" his comeuppance . He will have to wait to go down in the annals with the likes of Bernie Madoff (although a fleece of $10M with no legal ramifications, I must admit is pretty darn impressive) IH cut their losses, the $10M was blown, and counter-sued to up the ante on Rossi, who chikened out when his bluff was called. The "IP" is worthless and a moot point.
Display MoreSuch issues cannot be hashed out in court.
That's part of the problem. Some things like fingerprints took a while for the courts to accept but this kind of stuff will take a lot longer.
A court is not a valid place to establish the truth or falsehood of a scientific proposition. You have to use your own best judgement to decide which group you agree with. There is no magic touchstone to knowing the truth in such matters.
Since there is no such magic touchstone then you should probably refrain from saying that anyone who reads the Penon report and doesn't agree with you shouldn't have been allowed to graduate third grade.
No, it isn't. Whether they acknowledge their mistakes or not has no bearing on whether they made mistakes.
That is because we do not have a magic touchstone. Until we do we are stuck with the self-admission standard.
That question can only be resolved with reference to textbook laws of physics,
Feynman is right when he says that experiments trump theories. Progress in science is made when experiments "violate" the standard laws in place. A law is just an observation, anyways.
the instrument manuals, and other objective criteria. Their own statements or admissions should play no role in evaluating whether they were correct or mistaken.
All those skeptopaths who knocked down LENR said the same thing. They try to be high priests of scientific law.
In Mercato Veritas ("let the market decide") can play no role in scientific research.
I disagree. The Wright brothers flew when everyone else said it was impossible, and 5 years later they were the only ones In Mercato with any Veritas.
....
For example, if the Lugano gadget had some practical use, people could buy it, and if enough customers reported it works we would know the Lugano researchers were correct in their assessment.
If someone knowledgeable enough were to buy the Lugano gadget, they could reproduce LENR and knock out Rossi at the same time.
We could apply the Mercato Veritas standard. Unfortunately, it has no use and it has not been sold to anyone.
If you were Edison would you sell the secret to lightbulbs for $10,000? No.
So we have to depend entirely on the standards of academic science to evaluate it, and such things as the IR camera manual. If you do not understand IR cameras, you cannot evaluate it. Or if you do not understand that certain temperatures produce certain incandescent colors, you cannot evaluate it.
If you measure heat with a thermometer, it's a legitimate measurement. Your point has been lost in your meanderings here.
That is true of all cold fusion claims, just as it was true of all fission claims until 1945. Fission could only be evaluated in scientific terms, and you could only understand it -- or believe it was real -- if you understood scientific instruments and experiments.
You're using the wrong analogy. The Wright brothers flew their airplanes for 5 years before they sold any. During that time they were called frauds. They demonstrated it when there was some real interest in their product, interest enough that someone would buy airplanes if they demo'd. And sure enough, those "frauds" sold airplanes afterwards and whoever was calling them fraudulent was embarrassed.
In 1945, three dramatic, real-world, full scale devices were demonstrated. Two were demonstrated on the battlefield, not in the market, but it amounts to the same thing.
If the war suddenly ended for other reasons, the atomic bomb would be a rumor, like UFOs.
Display MoreI believe you are wrong about that. They are not locking up Rossi today probably because they are busy with other cases.
Proof is proof. If you hand an investigator proof of fraud, he has no problem with pursuing it even when he's busy with other cases because it is PROOF. So what you're saying is that the evidence in Rossi vs. Darden is NOT proof of fraud. If it's anything, it is proof he is NOT a fraud, and by your own admission it's not enough evidence for a busy investigator to take up in his busy caseload, so at the very least it is weak sauce.
His may be of such low priority they never get around to it. It usually takes the police a long time to arrest or charge anyone for fraud.
That's because they don't have proof. From what you and others are saying, there is proof right there in that docket of fraud. I'm saying the facts on the ground are proof you are wrong.
Rossi has been described to me by not one but two very knowledgable experimental physicists whose names are not connected with any of his pubic work. By one as 'incredibly intuitive' and by the other as 'able to go from A to E while I'm still working on B&C'.
I'll agree that he is apparently incredibly intuitive in some areas (fill in the blank for yourself), but basic physics, plasma-physics, mathematics, engineering, instrumentation, experimental design, thermodynamics, data collection and analysis are NOT some of those areas.
While it's true that some basic inventions can be done without deep skills in specific areas, relying on broad knowledge, feeding off previous inventions and knowledge (and sometimes stealing), etc. Single-highhandedly developing fusion and plasma-physics theories, apparatus and testing with none of the requisite skills is laughable, and while not impossible, as close to zero as possible. I worked early in my career with the person who was the pioneer of magnetic recording (and many semiconductor breakthroughs) -a theoretical physicist and mathematician who would work out his ideas on paper (using high level "mathematical smokescreens" (as the Brethren refer to that extraneous field) magnetics, and device physics) , had a good knowledge of engineering and semiconductor fabrication, and then would get with the engineers to actually build his devices, test, refine. A layperson (rudimentary knowledge of high-level physics, mathematics etc), is not going to "stumble" on plasma fusion breakthroughs, much less by doing crude "experiments" in rusty contaminated pluming fixtures, and I will wager anyone 10000:1 on that.
I'll agree that he is apparently incredibly intuitive in some areas (fill in the blank for yourself), but basic physics, plasma-physics, mathematics, engineering, instrumentation, experimental design, thermodynamics, data collection and analysis are NOT some of those areas.
Experimental physicists are just the kind of people you would expect to be no judge of skills in the areas you mention.
Experimental physicists are just the kind of people you would expect to be no judge of skills in the areas you mention.
As they say in science fiction movies, Rossi's work is beyond the combined resources of all the Earth's physical science. That statement should fire up the trolls.
about the game theory,
there is not only money.
there is timing too.
Rossi have nearly no money, all gone to attorneys, and cannot expect long time to enjoy his assets, as he is old.
He have no reputation, and maybe his only asset is keeping plausible debiability of fraud charges to the most gullible victims, so he can enjoy adulation and why not fresh money.
Darden have a long careeer, and big money at stake.
In a way as Jed said it is heavily asymmetric.
Rossi case is desperate, which is a force, and he can take suicidal risk, as he is already dead from rational point of view.
It is clear from the docket that either he is full fraudster, or simply a crazy inventor who screw his partners one after the others. You conclude that , not from opinion, but from his own evidence.
The problem is than jury can be unpredictable, and it can even predicted taht facing conspiracy theories they cut the baby, making Rossi have to pay what he can (nothing), and darden pay part of it (much). the current hate against big money make this falsely balanced issue quite probable.
IH, and Darden , have much to lose, not only dozens of millions until IH is banckrupt, but damage on reputation, for IH, for Darden, and for... LENR (maybe the most damaging if Darden believe like me in LENR).
The most damagin would be to give some credibility to Rossi, and about that point is is a damage control, not a victory or a defeat.
IH have nothing to win in a victory, and Rossi will refuse to pay, delaying until he expires.
I wanted the fraudster to be hanged, but justice today is crazy and they could have hanged everybody thinking it is fair.
A layperson (rudimentary knowledge of high-level physics, mathematics etc), is not going to "stumble" on plasma fusion breakthroughs, much less by doing crude "experiments" in rusty contaminated pluming fixtures, and I will wager anyone 10000:1 on that.
The same was said early last century about flight, and yet it was laypersons who "stumbled" onto the solution. Again we see the desire to bet that both sides have, I just don't see how to get it to work.
keV from #877
Proof is proof. If you hand an investigator proof of fraud, he has no problem with pursuing it even when he's busy with other cases because it is PROOF. So what you're saying is that the evidence in Rossi vs. Darden is NOT proof of fraud. If it's anything, it is proof he is NOT a fraud, and by your own admission it's not enough evidence for a busy investigator to take up in his busy caseload, so at the very least it is weak sauce.
That is just false. Civil proof is a much lower bar than criminal proof. IH stood a good chance of winning the civil case of fraud.
Also the trial, though Civil, carries certain criminal risks. Rossi risked, giving testimony under cross-examination and in the context of contrary evidence, his deceits being judged as perjury (I'm not sure what the chances of that are, but were I him what i said about the heat exchanger under oath would weigh on me).
Whereas when the case goes away that risk vanishes.
More generally - does anyone notice how many of the Rossi-side arguments here rely on false dichotomies? Proof or no proof?
The one most often used relates to what IH think about the IP. If you consider their situation, they never knew what it was worth, because even at the beginning they were not sure, given Rossi's scheming and dishonest past, whether he had anything. Against that, he had worked with Focardi. Scientists (some of them, as AF here says) felt that he was highly clever and intuitive. For IH the possibility that he had taken a real Focardi LENR effect and by some combination of trial and error and flair turned it into a working invention must be real and they bet on it.
As time continued, with more evidence of Rossi's IP delivered to them as claimed working reactors indeed working when tested by Rossi or Fulvio, but not working when tested by IH, their confidence would decrease. When they got in decent technical expertise able to understand why some tests were just wrong (e.g. the Lugano IR stuff), that confidence would sink to pretty well zero. Even so, they would be reluctant to give up for nothing the whole corpus of Rossi IP in the US, just in case there was something, perhaps from Focardi, that was real.
I've no idea why this progression from being confident enough to bet on seeing Rossi's stuff, through to being pretty well sure he has nothing, is so difficult for IHFB etc to understand. Note that no-one can accuse IH of being irrational skeptics (the word skeptopath is sometimes used here) and therefore they would never be in a position of being sure Rossi has nothing. LENR, after all, is not something you can be sure about. Also the IP protects them potentially against future frivolous law suits from Rossi.
So for them to give up their half of the IP would be something they would rather not do, but equally given the major distraction and money sink of a Trial followed most likely by an Appeal (a lot more money and time) it is strongly in their interests to settle. it always was.
For Rossi being able to say that he has gained the IP (whether this is true of no) is a real propaganda coup. he can claim this is all he was ever interested in - obviously false when his desperation to get his hands on that $89m was clear to all in Discovery.
The case for the IP not in any sane world being important to Rossi is simply that even without it he is free to find marks licensees throughout Europe. No partner, looking at the US restriction, would worry if they seriously felt that nevertheless they could exploit European disruptive energy technology.
The same was said early last century about flight, and yet it was laypersons who "stumbled" onto the solution. Again we see the desire to bet that both sides have, I just don't see how to get it to work.
Great story Kev, I enjoyed the read. I'm pretty sure once we have some markets up on Augur that we'll have the same problem--that is, nobody to take the other side of our wagers, not at 10,000:1 and probably not even at 1:1.
Quote
QuoteI was looking forward to the evidence in Rossi vs. Darden to come out, one way or the other. Then you get to say that it has been "proven" at least in a legal sense. But it was never hashed out in court, so we have guys like you saying the Lugano report was thoroughly debunked and other guys saying that's a bunch of bullshit.
If you really believe that, simply watch Rossi some more. In the next few years, there will be nothing but Rossifictions and bad demos done non-independently or if they are independent and properly done, the results will be negative-- just as EVERY Rossi project EVER has proceeded.
QuoteRossi has been described to me by not one but two very knowledgable experimental physicists whose names are not connected with any of his pubic work. By one as 'incredibly intuitive' and by the other as 'able to go from A to E while I'm still working on B&C'.
OK, so Rossi flummoxed two more scientists. Scientists tend to trust too much and can be easy prey for con men. There is a long history of this. A typical Rossi example is Dr. Brian Josephson, a long time Rossi supporter who even made a video favoring Rossi's "work". So tell us, did these august scientists approve of Rossi's tests, all of which were performed with his participation and without adequate calibration and blanks? If so, they actually know squat about scientific method. Are they aware of all Rossi's lies about cheap isotope manufacture, robotic factories, mysterious anonymous "customers" and all the rest of his silly drivel? Are they aware that every time a truly independent third party was allowed to test a Rossi device, the ecat was found not to work? if not, they were not following his progress sufficiently.
The same was said early last century about flight, and yet it was laypersons who "stumbled" onto the solution. Again we see the desire to bet that both sides have, I just don't see how to get it to work.
There is no comparison between a mechanical device readily interpreted and tested using simple observable experimentation, ordinary physics, and phenomenon, versus plasma fusion, atomic and subatomic physics theory and experimentation. That comparison is like saying that the Wright brothers could also have developed the first nuclear bomb.
Great story Kev, I enjoyed the read. I'm pretty sure once we have some markets up on Augur that we'll have the same problem--that is, nobody to take the other side of our wagers, not at 10,000:1 and probably not even at 1:1.
You're still on, even at 1:1 on your original offer (versus your generous 10:1)---we're waiting, any time, or 10,000:1 that Rossi will have any commercialized plasma fusion device in 5 years (again, of course determined and vetted by sane people, not Rossisays).
The same was said early last century about flight, and yet it was laypersons who "stumbled" onto the solution.
Not at all! The Wright brothers never "stumbled" onto anything. They had "a low tolerance for guesswork" as one friend put it. They were superb engineers. They measured everything first, developing the best wind tunnel and data in the world. Then they worked out the physics in a series of notebooks, with advanced engineering equations that no one today would try to solve without a computer. Their analysis of wings, center of mass, and in particular propellers was brilliant. Their propeller worked within ~5% of the efficiency they predicted. They got more thrust with a 20 HP motor than others got with 50 HP.
This NASA website has an example of their data tables and graphs, from 1901, two years before they flew an airplane:
https://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/results.html
After they worked out the details in theory and hard numbers, then they built aircraft (gliders). They tested them methodically, went back and did more engineering, and finally arrived at working aircraft. If they had tried to do it any other way, they would have killed themselves.
See:
