Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • @ sigmoidal,

    I see that you wish to continue the confrontation on this subject. So, let's go on.

    You seem really confused by insisting that Melich can only be 'a functionary of the DoD'. He is a research professor at a US Navy Graduate School. [...] He is not limited to being only 'a functionary of the DoD', though.


    I can't understand your objection. He acted in the Ecat affair as "someone" of the DoD. In fact, he appears in the Board of Advisers of JoNP as "Prof. Michael Melich (DOD - USA)".


    You can also rely on his own words. A few weeks after the first and most famous demonstration of the Ecat held in Bologna on January 14, 2011, the ICCF16 started in Chennai, India. In that occasion he said (2): "the reasons that I am involved in this at all derives from my responsibilities as a federal employee who is frequently approached and Rossi and his partners approached us". If you wish to know who "us" were, you can read the "Overview of the ICCF16 in India" written by his wife (3): "Melich described the involvement he has had with Rossi’s efforts: “Rossi and his partners approached us at the Navy …""


    So, there is no doubt that he was acting in the Ecat affair as an employee of the DoD.


    Quote

    He could have paid the $20 registration fee himself out of pocket.

    This doesn't matter. As shown above, he acted in the Ecat affair as DoD employee, and therefore he should have had some authorization or mandate to do that, also because he could have incurred much higher expenses (for instance all the travels with Rossi). Probably he had a budget at his disposition to manage this specific assignment, and the modest registration fee could have been included in some lump sum for minor expenses.


    What does matter is that, if Krivit's allusions are true, he registered the JoNP site as a federal employee of the DoD involved in the Ecat affair, therefore, in such a case, Rossi is writing since 7+ years on a site put at his disposition by the DoD.


    Quote

    So let's go with your assumption that Melich was the original registrant of journal-of-nuclear-physics.com . Melich is a professor. Maybe (unrelated to any knowledge of Rossi) in the middle of the night he got inspired to start an online Journal of Nuclear Physics, …

    Your funny story is interesting, but for sure the incipit is false. The assumption is not mine, it's a clear allusion made by Krivit. I have no means to support it. I can only rely on the fact that Krivit, contrary to me, lives in the USA and knows very well the CF/LENR circle and its protagonists.


    Quote

    Melich could easily and reasonably have done that without any input, endorsement, or any other connection to the DoD.

    No, for his words at ICCF16, he was acting as a federal (ie DoD) employee.


    Quote

    So under your assumption that Melich was the registrant, does it not seem likely (or at least plausible) that he simply gave (or maybe even sold for a small fee) the URL to Rossi because he wasn't interested in pursuing it and/or he wanted to help a colleague out?

    Again, it's not my assumption, see above. The rest, sorry, are nonsense, especially if he had the minimum doubt that Rossi could really have the Graal.


    Quote

    But do you even have any proof that Melich registered that name? Because the current registrant is named as: 'EFA SRL' located in: 'BOLOGNA, ITALY'. So my question to you is: Why do you think that a website clearly controlled by Andrea Rossi and registered in Bologna Italy has any connection to the US DoD (other than possibly that a US citizen who happens to be employed by the Navy as his 'day job' also has helped him get it started)?

    As already said I base myself on what Krivit strongly alluded in 2010. I'm confident that he checked the registrant name on the whois site and found that it was "A web site registered in California by a secret entity", as he confirmed in January 2011. So when the JoNP was largely used to disseminate worldwide the fake calorimetric results of the January 14, 2011 demo, it was owned by a secret entity based in California. There are not so many candidates for this role.


    Presently, whois indicates that the site is owned by EFA, but it also reports that there have been at least 2 registrants. So the ownership changed after the January 2011 demo. Maybe it changed only recently. I have no idea when and why. But it would be also interesting to know the date and the reasons for this change.


    Quote

    And please consider that one way to interpret the fact that Krivit hasn't responded to you is that he no longer is interested in his speculation regarding the JoNP board of directors that you have become so interested in.

    That's the reason I showed you the jpeg ( http://i.imgur.com/yoshHoI.jpg ) with date and hour of all our comments on ecatnews.com. Do you think that he lost interest in just one day?


    Quote

    Or maybe there's some super secret conspiracy that's so complex that it doesn't make any sense to outside observers. We can never completely rule that out, can we?

    Conspiracy is not my hypotheses, but for sure the Ecat affair is so complex that it's not possible to jump to any conclusion about the role and the responsibilities of whoever protagonist of this intricate story.


    (1) http://faculty.nps.edu/vitae/c…earch_results&last=melich

    (2) http://www.newenergytimes.com/…elich-on-Rossi-ICCF16.pdf

    (3) http://www.infinite-energy.com…s/pdfs/MacyICCF16IE96.pdf

  • Quote

    Rossi settled for obtaining the 1 MW plant and for the IP, which will allow him to sell every E-Cat model around the world.

    Oh, right! I forgot about that. So Rossi is going to sell his megawatt and IP just as he did for the six years he's had them BEFORE the deal with IH. Oh wait... even WITH the deal with IH, he could have sold reactors to something like half the world. But, OK, SSC, it's win for the kids with cancer. Soon.

  • AbD's been grumbling about me ... " because he has continued with other face-palm stupidities. "

    AbD : AF


    ... for rounding numbers ($90M vs $89, $270M vs $269 ) ... but (unless you're writing the check) rounding is often better.|Heck, I shoulda rounded $89M to $100M and $267M to $300M.


    .. for not giving references (Hey, this is a blog, not a court case).

    See Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED] referencing docket 214-23


    I said : In their investment letter they said they’d have to raise it quickly — at just the time they said it was not the GPT.

    IH said : If Rossi is on track to earn his $89M success fee, then IH may seek up to an additional $150M as early as Q3.


    [Culpa mea : AEG got $4,200,000.00 -- is THAT precise enough ? -- in cash, some $500K (intentionally rounded) more in equity. So I should round down IH's payment to $4M. I don't think they mentioned an amount in their email to Rossi about the $89,000,000 GPT tranche. [ No, I'm not going to hunt down the reference]


    .. for saying the parties represented they had the funds to back up their contract. I thought it was in the license, but I know it's in the docket ... somewhere.


    AbD did send me an email on the Prominent project, which I'll take note of.


  • Alan, you and IHFB (and many others) see this issue as significant. It could be. IH might have over-egged Rossi success prospects to attract more funding.


    That is always a possibility with VCs where they are hawking a bet to others and for obvious reasons they need to be honest with those who buy in. But that matter is governed by VC info to priviledged investors type rules and if they get it wrong all that happens is that as VCs Darden et al get a bad reputation with other (less early stage) VCs. If they do it too blatantly then they get prosecuted.


    I'd hardly think that matter is relevant to the IH vs Rossi vs Rossi debate. From IHFB's POV it is bad finance types he is suspicious of behaving badly to other bad finance types he is equally suspicious of.


    But, here is why I believe you have no evidence to suggest Darden et al have been improper in that way. Though no-one could ever rule it out, and over-egging investments must always be a temptation.


    I think the bit Abd does not like is lack of precise timeline (backed by references). I don't like that either, because I never remember the timeline here and it matters. For example, how long do you reckon it takes them to generate this Investment Letter? How quickly do you reckon it will get changed in response to some key new technical information that alters IH views about Rossi long-term IP potential. I see them as getting more pessimistic with lack of secure replication but still buoyed by hope due to the tests that did go well, then when murray comes in and does a much more authoritative job of crushing the tests they go darker as Murray's crushing progresses. Not sure whether i'd call lack of timeline a face palm.


    then, my beef, you'd need to distinguish:

    (1) Do Darden et al believe the Rossi IP might have some near-Term value?

    (2) Do Darden et al believe the long-term test is the GPT?

    (3) Do Darden et al publicly (or even privately to Rossi) denounce the long-term test as not the GPT?

    (4) Do Darden et al intend to pay Rossi $89M (or whatever is necessary to buy him off) if his IP has some near-Term value


    I think you are wrapping these all together into two binary choices: "IH know Rossi's stuff does/does not work" and "IH treat the long-term test as GPT or non-GPT".


    Abd, whatever his sins, is good at seeing fine distinctions and making them explicit. I'd like some of that here.


    For example: IH could properly think:

    (1) The long-term test was not (and could never be) the GPT

    (2) The Rossi IP might have some near-term value - but this is not clear

    (3) Although Rossi clearly wants the long-term test to be the GPT and will expect $89M at the end, we should defer judgement on how much to pay him till we know for sure that his stuff works. If it does work, then we can bring in big money and pay him off. If it does not work, then we have the legal get-out that this was never the GPT in the case that Rossi delivers fake test results as he has done in the past.

    (4) If we make this clear to Rossi in writing he will blow up because he will treat that as us not trusting him and the test. We want to keep him sweet while there is still possibility his stuff is real, so let us go along with Rossi's pretence.


    I see (4) as a mistake. I don't know whether IH did this deliberately, or whether the lack of discoverable communication saying this was not the GPT is just carelessness combined with an instinctive "be polite to the inventor" attitude that you'd expect. Whichever, (4) led to a lot of grief for IH.


    I don't see (1), (2) and (3) as a mistake, nor them saying they might need $150M as wrong. They are duty bound to keep open the $150M option until they are 100% sure Rossi's stuff does not work.


    Morally: I think they don't owe Rossi a cent in this situation because he clearly misrepresented the operation of his device, and supported it by many spoofed tests which convinced a few scientists.

    Legally: I think Rossi's fradulent behaviour at the start of the test absolves them - but they remain exposed in the way that they were.


    Did they need the long-term test to attract money? Not at all if Rossi's stuff works in-house. They can easily get signed and sealed definitive third part evidence that will cause investors to gather as bees to a honey-pot. No good engineer would view the long-term test as indicating reliability or validation. However, if there was a real big-name customer, that fact would have PR value. Did Darden et al represent to any investor that JMP was a real customer? Possibly at a very early stage, before the inconsistencies became clear.

  • THH - R was "under'egged" after reality dawned on us. The investors were fully informed and risk factors remained draconian as they were from the onset.

    The spin from Planet Rossi is going to continue unabated. Thank you for your skilled and honed engagement with those guys - they never had a chance.

  • I see (4) as a mistake. I don't know whether IH did this deliberately, or whether the lack of discoverable communication saying this was not the GPT is just carelessness combined with an instinctive "be polite to the inventor" attitude that you'd expect. Whichever, (4) led to a lot of grief for IH.


    I agree. Your point (4) is suggestive of a total breakdown in communication. In order to clear it up, IH would have reasonably anticipated Rossi blowing up and severing ties after their position on the matter of the GPT was clarified. The likely severing of ties would have made the decision a difficult one. In retrospect, this is what was needed. IH would however probably have faced a lawsuit whatever they did, short of completely acquiescing in Rossi's storyline.

  • Abd is an amazing soul. He actually makes me feel important. I've never had someone else write so extensively about yours truly. He probably even outranks my mother on that front.

  • AF : Well, they declared in the contract that they had the money to pay him the $90M, so NOT having it was a breach.

    AbD: Alan doesn’t point to actual evidence. The “contract,” i.e., the License Agreement, didn’t say what he claims. Such a statement would be rare.

    OK ... I knew I'd seen it somewhere : Complaint 1.0


    COUNT VI was NOT dismissed (24.0 Order) , so this accusation was still in play.

  • mea culpa, mea culpa,
    mea máxima culpa.


    I thought it was in the contract, but it was in the complaint. What's hallucinogenic about that?

    The investors letter implies it was NOT in place. Sure it has weasel words "If .. then .. may .. as early as ... "

    If Rossi is on track to earn his $89M success fee, then IH may seek up to an additional $150M as early as Q3.


    Access to all the funding needed was / remains in place.


    I guess that's true .... since you didn't think the GPT was the GPT then you didn't need the $89,000,000.00 in the bank.


  • Alan - you are truly being ungenerous here, and using weasel words.


    Funding in place is a vague phrase. Had Rossi's devices worked as in the various acceptance tests you know as well as I that funding from Woodford and no doubt others would have been available. And given they did not work you cannot expect IH to pay Rossi the 89.5M, or accept large additional funding. Just because IH say this in their letter does not mean that funding from Woodford was not arranged contingent on need. It alerts investors to the fact that the investment asked for in the letter may be added to at a future imminent date, which they need to do because it is relevant investment information.


    I am disappointed that people here like you and (possibly) the other Alan go on poking at this. All I can think is that your thinking is influenced by some ulterior idee fixee (such as for example that we fervently believe Rossi's technology works) and try to bend all facts to fit it.


    It is apparent to any unbiassed external observer that if Rossi's technology had worked things would have turned out very different, with a happier outcome for all.

  • Oh, right! I forgot about that. So Rossi is going to sell his megawatt and IP just as he did for the six years he's had them BEFORE the deal with IH.

    First of all, I don't think Rossi would want to sell his IP, since he accepted the settlement just to be able to get it back. As for the 1MW plant, Rossi had shown it years ago to IH (in its first version) and had started to make an agreement with them, which obviously provided the exclusivity for IH. Now that the relationship is closed, Rossi has the chance to sell it to whoever wants it, and maybe he will do it after finishing his study (he is dealing with the analysis of each reactors of the plant, some of which did not work as it was expected to do).

  • Did they need the long-term test to attract money? Not at all if Rossi's stuff works in-house. They can easily get signed and sealed definitive third part evidence that will cause investors to gather as bees to a honey-pot. No good engineer would view the long-term test as indicating reliability or validation.

    Perhaps the engineers don't care that a plant works for a long time, but it certainly concerns an industrialist who buys it to put it in his own company. Anyone wishing to buy the 1MW plant would surely pay it a lot of money, he should adapt his company so that he can exploit it and then have to base his future production on the certainty that that plant supplies the necessary energy with continuity and safety. Would you do this for an object that was only tested for a few days or a few months? Or would you like to make sure that what you are buying will work for at least a year? And this guarantee, who can give it to you, if no one ever did a long-term test on that product? These are basic concepts, don't you really realize it?

  • Had Rossi's devices worked as in the various acceptance tests you know as well as I that funding from Woodford and no doubt others would have been available.

    Rossi said (and the unbiased narrative of the docket supports that) the problems in the relationship began when IH started propping up Rossi's competitors. What IH did not foresee was that Rossi was Fred Flinstone and could tweak the box so it wouldn't work without him in place.

  • Perhaps the engineers don't care that a plant works for a long time, but it certainly concerns an industrialist who buys it to put it in his own company. Anyone wishing to buy the 1MW plant would surely pay it a lot of money, he should adapt his company so that he can exploit it and then have to base his future production on the certainty that that plant supplies the necessary energy with continuity and safety. Would you do this for an object that was only tested for a few days or a few months? Or would you like to make sure that what you are buying will work for at least a year? And this guarantee, who can give it to you, if no one ever did a long-term test on that product? These are basic concepts, don't you really realize it?


    SSC - you need here to join the dots. I don't think you can be an engineer. At least not an experienced one.


    IH could happily do a long-term test themselves. Indeed, i'm sure they did, and got stable results over time. The problem is that those stable results were positive only on spoofed Rossi/Fulvio tests and COP=1 on genuine independent tests.


    The Rossi 1MW test was useless for this purpose since it was not properly documented. Rossi was there tinkering with things, mending non-working reactors, etc, etc the whole time.


    For commercial reliability measures you need to document failures, and investigate failure modes. All of which IH could do (and had ample time to do) in-house. None of which was done in the long-term test.

  • The main problem with all these Ecat results is they rarely show what the results were during calibration, non-active runs. There have been at least three examples I can think of where the "excess heat" claimed during an LENR active run was the same when expert scientists came in and performed an inactive fuel free run. For example, IH might have initially claimed a positive COP when they ran the Ecat using the Ecat people's setup. Then, the expert scientists they brought in showed that roughly the same "excess heat" was measured whether or not fuel was present. Hence, A COP of 1.

  • Those 2 statements are internally inconsistent.


    First of all, I don't think Rossi would want to sell his IP, [....] Now that the relationship is closed, Rossi has the chance to sell it to whoever wants it, [ and maybe he will do it after finishing his study]


    Not at all, I was not referring to the IP! Read back again:

    "As for the 1MW plant, Rossi had shown it years ago to IH (in its first version) and had started to make an agreement with them, which obviously provided the exclusivity for IH. Now that the relationship is closed, Rossi has the chance to sell it to whoever wants it

  • The Rossi 1MW test was useless for this purpose since it was not properly documented. Rossi was there tinkering with things, mending non-working reactors, etc, etc the whole time.


    For commercial reliability measures you need to document failures, and investigate failure modes. All of which IH could do (and had ample time to do) in-house. None of which was done in the long-term test.

    Rossi has certainly collected a great deal of data during the test. Most likely he made measurements and took several notes. We don't know if he shared this data with IH at the beginning, but it is likely to be, since Barry was always present and was an IH man (how hide to him any problems or system failures?). Then, when Rossi began to be distrustful of IH because of the investments made on the competition, perhaps he even began to hold much information for himself. However, if the relationship between the two parties remained good until the end, it would have been IH to start the production of the reactors and therefore could certainly take advantage of all the data collected by Rossi because it would be a common interest sharing them.

  • Rossi has certainly collected a great deal of data during the test. Most likely he made measurements and took several notes. We don't know if he shared this data with IH at the beginning, but it is likely to be, since Barry was always present and was an IH man (how hide to him any problems or system failures?). Then, when Rossi began to be distrustful of IH because of the investments made on the competition, perhaps he even began to hold much information for himself. However, if the relationship between the two parties remained good until the end, it would have been IH to start the production of the reactors and therefore could certainly take advantage of all the data collected by Rossi because it would be a common interest sharing them.


    Do you mean the data Penon deleted? Or something else no-one has ever seen?


    There is no certainty about that test except that the customer was fake and the test system re-engineered by Rossi to some spec far from the test plan.

  • Quote

    New AR companies, death or alive.

    Although sometimes legitimate companies have reason to generate other corporations, most often this sort of thing is done by crooks, trying to hide from the tax and licensing authorities in a maze of different entities. Having once worked for a regulating agency, I can tell you it really does complicate the work or bringing criminals like Rossi (and probably his attorney is one also) to justice.


    Rends What is REFC Real Estate? Rossi too?