I'll bet all of my Quatloos that you are right. I think the jury might look at all involved parties with exasperation, just as we have, the two judges have, and the overall LENR community has.
Yes I agree, but what about the IP?
I'll bet all of my Quatloos that you are right. I think the jury might look at all involved parties with exasperation, just as we have, the two judges have, and the overall LENR community has.
Yes I agree, but what about the IP?
RR - you'd have more luck with Eric there if you'd given some evidence for where I was wrong - even speculation...
I'm sure there are possibles!
This is not the only thing I do. Haven't got time to write them all down.
Yeah, can be i didnt look for the right keywords. Still maybe you overestimate his contributions?
There is nothing else than Deweysays for the dummy incident. The ICCW is quite obvious and the "we wont settle" fact is .... well .... consistent.
We won't know about the "settling" question until we do, or don't.
I wish Dewey didn't blatantly flaunt the rules here. In this case I suspect Dewey is wrong about the identity of ele, Ahlfors, and others, in addition. But I'll only warn people if I intend to follow through with further steps if there is subsequent misbehavior. Rightly or wrongly, I put Dewey in the same category that I would Rossi or Fabiani, if I thought they were posting here under some account. Because they're close to the action, they get more leeway, even if I'm not happy with the result. It's a tossup: do you warn and then ban someone who has interesting information because his behavior is problematic and chase away a source of information, or do you hold him to a different standard than people who are not as close to the action? So far I've been defaulting to the latter, which I think makes sense. But the result is an uneasy double standard that is hard to justify and explain.
Eric, there is nothing interesting about Dewey's information, his behavior or even Dewey himself. All of his information is at the very least biased if not downright dishonest. His behavior is totally objectionable in any case. As for myself I could do without anything he has to say. Just my 2 cents worth thank you.
That is true
But I do say when I'm speculating. All the things I say about Rossi, for example, are documented non-speculative. It is generally others who speculate that because of Rossi's motivation one thing or another is not possible...
In other words I'm right, I know I'm right--even if I'm wrong.
Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric
Surely this kind of retort is a distraction as well?
It was a fitting reply to your remark that "But we don't need you to tell us that," which also did not add to the discussion.
In principle, neither! But in practical terms, somewhat anti-Rossi, since he has not brought any sustained, credible evidence to bear on his claims, and he has done much in addition. But I'm always grateful for and will listen to a good argument from either side of that whole divide.
Come on Eric be real. You're totally anti-Rossi, which by default makes you pro IH.
Wyttenbach: it is always helpful to think these things through.
The scenario here is that Rossi/Fulvio provide Vaughn with reactors, a complex test setup, and instructions on how to run the tests. Vaughn is certainly capable of following these instructions, but not of knowing whether (for example) power measurement is correct or wrong.
All we know is that in this way a COP of 9 was measured. Not, as I've pointed out, surprising.
We also know that a reactor showing Rossi-type COP (I'm not sure whether it is confirmed this was COP=9) was run in a test with a whole load of other reactors, all showing the same high COP. One of these reactors was however a control, with no fuel. From which TD, without any tech knowledge, could deduce that Rossi's test setup measures an electric heater as having whatever high COP (perhaps 9, but I'm not certain this has been confirmed) was measured.
Now: in what way is that difficult to understand?
How do we know IH didn't screw up the calibration and measurement?
Rossele - you wouldn't believe the things that we know. I see that you only chose to address a couple of the Fabiani related adventures that you funded but while we have your attention we'd like to know something. Why did you go and buy 10+ condos in Miami with IH money when you could have reinvested in the greatest invention since powdered sugar and changed the planet? Now you want us to believe that the ecat wasn't good enough and that you needed to iterate and commercialize with the quackx? (with a 1MW quackx in the mix nonetheless - that makes me howl with laughter every time you mention it)
Packing your bags for your next batch of dupes yet?
You're right...We wouldn't believe you. Not a chance.
If Rossi eventually succeeds in a useful device it will not be IH that will have a bad legacy, it will Rossi. He has had five year+ to do good reliable measurements and use under contract to transfer the technology to others but he could not.
Even now, if he had what he claims, he should be able to quickly make a good reliable modestly sized system that could withstand scrutiny but instead he allegedly pulls out critical material, bars others from examining the systems, removes instruments others look to for information, and destroys parts. It is legacy that will be in jeopardy.
He claims caring for children with cancer, but how many children in the world are suffering from lack of a simple power system to supply clean water or to keep them from freezing on a cold winter night. If he has what he claims and cares as he claims he would do what is good for others not just try to enrich himself. .
This is interesting. It seems that a lot of Rossi detractors are now using the word "if" when referring to the possibility that he may have something after all. The significance is that up until now they seemed to all be certain beyond a doubt that he has nothing and the whole thing was just a bald faced scam. Could it be they have decided to hedge their bets in light of recent legal developments? It seems apparent now from the legal disclosures that at least some evaluation of the performance of the 1MW ECat will happen during the trial, unlike other recent predictions that it would be only about the contract and its validation. We may find out yet if this thing really produced or not.
and about 20-30 on ECW!
Not only believe him on this, but the QuarkX and it's many wonders, the existence of any customer he states, robotic factories, certifications, purchased platinum sponge, industrial production, the existence of any consultant he states and that he will soon give an "independint confirmation test"!
The above will also easily return the verdict that IH is evil, Darden a liar, Murray incompetent, the heat exchanger DID exist, the pipe was DN150 (wait... perhaps DN200 now), Bass was a qualified chief engineer, the Doral event WAS the GPT, that the eCat works exactly as Rossi states and that "big oil", the "powers that be" and greedy capitalist are all conspiring to cheat poor, frail, honest, saintly Mr. Rossi from his Nobel worthy IP!
Rossi says = Absolute truth (in the end anyways. He is totally justified in stretching things a little now and then due to evil IH and their scheming ways!)
Yup, that pretty much sums it up, except for the remark about capitalists, I kinda like capitalism in fact.
If IH people were certain they could not consider the Doral test to be the GPT because of the lack of a signature, why did they promise Rossi to pay him in any case if he had achieved positive results? (See for example 254-04). It seems that their intention was not to pay him at all, since the promise was only oral, so retractable even at the last moment.
How do you know that there were not (or are not) pre-existing agreements still in force covering the relationship and flow of IP between Lugano testers. IH and Rossi that allow for the exchange of information and material samples for scientific purposes? The answer to that is of course, that you don't. Nor me, btw, but I'm not shouting about it.
An excellent question Alan. IMHO there are far too many iron clad conclusions being espoused here, while only based on speculation, and often only on innuendo. Even with the extensive depositions and court filings there is still much more we don't know here than we do. Reminds me a little too much of the speculation by the liberal main stream media in their efforts to brand Trump a liar, traitor and buffoon based only on liberal bias and speculation.
Alan - I have very little respect for the Lugano guys. If they got their feet burned and are silent now because no longer involved it is bad enough, but understandable. To be claiming new results in the same area without correcting such an egregiously wrong report is a poor show indeed.
I'm very confident that they do not have clear excess heat. (If they did the requirement for silence would mysteriously change).
This sounds eerily similar to a lot comments I heard in the early 1990's regarding F and P and the University of Utah and it eventually drove them underground for an extended period. Oh wait, that seems to be exactly what the Lugano group has done. Strange, very strange.
I do not hold it against the businesses themselves. Few can survive without dealing with govt. That is where most of the money is. Not their fault they have to get their hands dirty. It is the corrupt bureaucrats, politicians, and public unions that leave them no choice, that are to blame.
If it makes you feel better about them...most hold their noses when having to do what they have to do.
Which is exactly the argument I used in an earlier post in defense of Rossi's actions. Both government and big business seem to adhere to a different set of ethics than most individuals are held to. I believe that everything that Rossi did, good or bad, was simply trying emulate and play the so-called game by the same rules as IH held itself to. Only as an individual he gets tagged as scammer, fraud, liar, schemer and charlatan, while IH acting through its myriad shell companies is just behaving normally, as any good business would.
That is no way to do scientific research. They made that mistake during their long test at Lugano. They should have consulted with experts at every stage. Heck, they should have consulted with me -- a non-expert. I would have asked them "what color is the reactor incandescence?" I think it was orange, not white, which means their conclusions and their entire report are wrong, and they wasted months.
I asked them that after the report was published. They never responded. They invited technical questions but I do not think they responded to any of them. That's is an outrageous violation of academic norms. People who do things like that are bound to make stupid mistakes.
And all this time I thought you were and expert.
When will Alan reach Peak Stupid?? If that is even possible, it cannot come soon enough.
RiRi - You ran out of bullets long ago - the race card is not yours to play.
Are you so young that you don't know the negative racial relevance of "step-n-fetch-it?"
For the first point, perhaps. But (in our hypothetical scenario that the QuarkX is more than an LED) I don't think that precludes IH from asking Rossi to transfer the technology under the terms of the license so that it can commercialize it. (And from suing if this doesn't happen.)
Please elaborate on why you think the QuarkX is likely not to be a further development of the E-Cat IP. The license agreement (doc. 001-02, sec. 13.4) is extremely broad in what it stipulates is covered under future improvements.
Yes it is broad and it is too soon to be sure, but at this stage the science behind the QuarkX seems to be totally different than the ECat, and also its application. At the very least I think it could probably be challenged on this point alone.
Eric - I'm flagging Rends as an honorary Mayor on Planet Rossi. He has his turf with stepandfetchers who gladly obey.
Wow! That almost sounds racially motivated Dewey. A new low even for you.
I doubt it's that simple. A breach of the contract is not an all or nothing thing once there's been an exchange of money. IH have already fully paid the 10.5 million that was required for the IP, for example (by my understanding). And if the 89 million are extracted from them via the court case, they will then be fully in compliance once more if the court finds that they had been in breach. So even if IH had breached first and then must pay damages, the court case will presumably be bring the situation back to the point where IH have the license and are in compliance. And then IH would have full rights to the QuarkX technology, which Rossi will have to divulge in good faith. And Rossi will not be able to simply cut ties and pursue its development while excluding IH.
So unless the court voids the license, Rossi will not be escaping working with IH, even with the QuarkX technology, by this reading of things. I doubt the court will void the license if IH have to pay the 89 million dollars. I doubt the court will void the license unless Rossi pays IH the 10.5 million dollars back, as well as incidental costs from the Doral affair.
Someone who knows something about contract law may be able to chime in here and elucidate the matter.
(This argument goes beyond my assumptions in more than one way, but I'm just following a hypothetical.)
He'll certainly be able to develop and promote the QuarkX outside of IH license territory. I also think there is a likely case to be made that the QuarkX is not a further development of the ECat technology.
Potential jurors are asked if they have any knowledge of the case. If they have knowledge, they are not allowed to serve. If they lie, and they have knowledge, they get in big trouble. After they are selected the judge orders them not to look up the case on the Internet. Again, they get in trouble if they disobey the judge's orders and the authorities find out, for example during discussions when other jurors report them.
I served on juries before the Internet. Similar rules were in place. They have been updated.
Bear in mind that most people have not heard of Rossi.
I think today that is mostly wishful thinking. Its proven virtually impossible to deny knowledge in the age of the internet. I don't argue the point that a Juror might be slapped on the wrist are excused, maybe even fined (but not likely so) if he was stupid enough to admit to ignoring a Judges instruction, but remember, this is a civil action so sanctions would be pretty light in my opinion. I would also add that I have almost as little faith in American jurisprudence as I do in the honesty of big business, and were I chosen for the Jury neither hell nor high water would keep me from investigating further. Also, unless the Juror were stupid enough to brag about it, it would be almost impossible to find out one way or the other.
I am old enough to remember the O. J. Simpson trial and due to the Real Estate recession at the time I sat at home and watched the entire trial on TV. It was the first ever, and also the last criminal murder trial to be fully televised live, in real time. We at home got to see virtually everything that went on in the court room, even when evidence was considered to prejudicial for the sequestered jury to see or hear. It was a real eye opener how arbitrarily the Jury was kept from seeing what in my opinion was extremely exculpatory evidence. My judgement is that had this evidence been allowed for the Jury he would have been even less likely to be convicted than eventually proved the case. It was similar in civil cases where I was involved.
Again Dewey, personal attacks like this will not play well with the Jury. I also think you are failing to take into account the average persons (Jurors) access to the internet. Hardly anyone is isolated from this type of knowledge today and any admonishment by the court to avoid it will only make the Jurors more curious about it.
Para - R denied all alias implications to the court.
Rends resorts to using a very familiar pattern for information insertion and attempted opinion shaping.
Which Rossi's attorneys will also do.
Staying with the theme a bit longer (for grins) - Rossi is getting the truth rammed up his snout along with his natively biased S.Ps and R'meister disciples who troll / moderate this joinck. The broader implications and prospects of trial testimony should have R's Euro-network more and more concerned. Oh yeah - and lastly, that gold trafficking / money laundering stash is suddenly not looking so secret / secure these days.
You know Dewey, you should hope that none of the Jurors end up reading your posts on this forum. If they did your objectionable, snide and snarky way of expressing yourself could alone sway them in the direction of Rossi. Despite this I think you are an accomplished professional and, like Rossi, can probably turn this side of yourself on and off at will. But if I'm wrong and you carry this persona onto the witness stand you will probably effect the Jury in the same way. As such you will end up being Rossi's best hope for winning.
This is nonsense. First, the deposition says they are being paid. The amounts are listed. So there is never any question they are being paid, and it is never a secret. Second, if a licensed professional lies about a technical issue, he will be committing perjury and his license will be revoked.
Samuel Florman described cases in which licensed engineers knowingly signed off on false reports, evaluations and testimony, and had their licenses revoked because of this. It hardly ever happens because they lose their livelihood and a lifetime of high earnings.
You are convinced of this based on absolutely no evidence whatever, with no personal experience visiting them, looking at the tests, or reviewing the data. You are convinced of this despite the fact that if they had replicated, they would have been happy to pay and they would presently be spending hundreds of millions of dollars developing the technology. Instead of firing their technical staff and closing down the R&D, as Murray testified. Frankly, you are deluded. I hope no one on the jury falls for this nonsense.
@Jed I didn't mean to insinuate that anyone was hiding anything. Just saying that when someone is paid to say something, in court or otherwise, there is always the possibility (likelihood?) of bias. For the most part is merely the fact of expressing an opinion that leans toward the position of the party who is paying the fee. Using this fact alone a proficient attorney can almost always discredit an expert witness. In other words is the glass half empty or half full scenario. No license threatening lying or dishonesty is usually necessary to accomplish this, but in every case I was a party to the expert witness was usually of minimal value.
You're right. I don't have any factual evidence that IH lied about the failure to replicate, simply that they reported they had succeeded and then later, after the fact, conveniently changed their position. While this does not prove that they were successful, or otherwise, it does cast reasonable doubt on the situation. The fact is that when a poor, hard working, abused individual inventor is forced into combat against a large multi-billionaire corporation, most ordinary people (typical Juror) will side with the individual. My best example of that is the Preston Tucker Trial in the early 1950's. Personally I don't trust for a minute that IH would pay the 89 mil if they could find a way out of it. I think it is likely that they confirmed the technology and figured to push Rossi into settling for a much smaller amount, but he then surprised them with the lawsuit.
And remember the verdict must be unanimous in the Fed court. Just one sane one who is not taken in by Rossi says.
During Jury deliberation there is extreme pressure to come up with a unanimous verdict, so unless that one sane Rossi hater has an unusually assertive personality he or she will probably bow to pressure and cave.
This is again a classic RossiSays. All Rossi needs to have done is get a quote for 10kg Pt sponge. No deal. No evidence of anyone at Johnson Matthey wanting or being able to get a deal. And it can be twisted by him or you in this manner. Rossi is past master at creating semblance with no reality. I think in a Trial he will be held to account for the many claimed semblances that are provably not real: after a recital of these his latest efforts, like the 10kg Pt quote, are not likely to wash. They clearly work here with his fans: but would a randomly picked Jury be that?
As an obviously intelligent person you must be aware of the problems with proving a negative. It's nearly an impossibility so the Jury will be left with making a judgement based the character and the believability of the witnesses.
I actually agree with Rends here.
Rossi's best chance is:
- Ignore facts
- Ignore fact that e-cat does not work
- Hope sweet words and broken Italian English can convince a Jury of his Rossiesque fantasy
The trouble with this is cross-examination - against which Rossiesque twisting of truth is unlikely to hold.
Also, however convincing Rossi is with a friendly audience we know that when people do not believe him he gets angry and storms out with obscenities (examples: Krivit, NASA, IH, I think possibly Mats Hydrofusion). how is that going to play with a Jury?
Remember it is not likely that any Jury will come with the pre-existing idea that Rossi's devices work, and which drives most of his fan club here...
I've come to believe that Rossi's volatility is simply a tool he uses to intimidate and control people. It seemed very effective with Darden and IH, and I believe it is something he can turn on and off at will. In the depositions he seemed in complete control of himself and came across as honest and sincere. He was challenged many times and seemed to remain calm and collected through it all. My guess is that he will do the same when he testifies in court. At risk of being banned from the forum again I'm not going to get involved with with the details of the depositions are filings. I don't have the time or the inclination to do that. Instead I will only express my over all impressions from having read most of them and IMHO that is exactly what the Jury will do with all the testimony.
It's worth repeating; if Rossi had COP greater than 6, steam or no steam, whether 1MW or only a fraction of that, which I believe is easily demonstrated, and if the Jury decides that the test was actually the GPT, which I think they will, then it is game over for IH. As far as lying or dishonesty its my impression that everyone involved is equally guilty, and that whole issue will probably be canceled out by the Jury as a fact of big business. Of course this is just a game for us, but for the principals of the suit it is way more important. Also, unless the Jury is sequestered and deprived of smart phones, tablets or computers, each and every one of them will spend time on the internet researching LENR or Cold Fusion. As a result many of the will wind up here and on ECW.
If I were a Juror reading the voluminous detailed and technical posts here from the likes of Jed, Sigmoidal, THHuxley, Paradigmnoia and others I think they would come across as boring, self rightious, opinionated nerds who were writing simply for the purpose of seeming intelligent and above it all, sort of like one speaks so as to be impressed with the sound of his own voice. On the other hand the posts of IHFanboy, El, We-Cat-Global, JoshG (and others) are for the most part succinct and to the point, which makes them come across sincere and honest. Again, this case will not be decided on voluminous boring technical facts, but on whether the testimony comes across as sincere.
Russian replication report of Searle generator is probably most close to your wish (YouTube). Compare also Otis T. Carr's machine. Searl Effect generator (SEG) is a system invented by Prof. John Searl in 1945, it was intended to generate electricity by initially applying external power supply to operate magnetic strips of rotors, during the first tests, the uncontrollable rotation of the SEG reached a state where it uplifted from the ground, disconnected from the initiated power source and flay disappearing upward into the space.
V. V. Roschin and S. M. Godin managed to develop SEG further, in their modified SEG the Magnetic-Gravity Effects, which during an experimental research shows the following characteristics:
- At critical mode (between 550-600 rpm), the system start supported itself through a self-generation.
- At clockwise rotation, anti gravitational force is attained at 550 rpm, decreasing the weigh of the platform by 30%.
- Counter-clockwise rotation produces force in the direction of the gravity at 600 rpm, increasing the weigh of the platform by 30%.
- High e.m.f. is produced at specific terminals.
- When operated at speed greater than 590 rpm, a whistling sound is heard.
- Vertical concentric magnetic “walls” are observed around the installation.
- Abnormal permanent magnetic field was detected around the converter within radius of 15 meters.
- The detected zones of increased intensity of magnetic flux of 0.05 T located concentrically from the centre of the installation coincided with the direction of the rollers’ field vector.
- Blue-pink glowing luminescence is observed around the converter's rotor.
- On the background of luminescence glowing on rollers' surfaces, a number of more vigorous strips of white-yellow color around the rollers were observed.
- Ozone smell was detected.
- Anomalous decrease in temperature by 27.3% - 36.4% in the vicinity of the converter, along the magnetic wall.
This sounds incredible and very interesting. It seems to hint that if a more durable machine could be built to accommodate much higher RPMs that perhaps an effective anti-gravity device could be produced eventually. It's hard to believe this has not been pursued further. I could not discern the date on this document. How long ago was the test done. There are dozens of replications on Youtube, but nothing of this sophistication that I could find.
Yes, there are emails between Rossi and Johnson Matthey. An order for 10kg of platinum sponge was apparently placed, or at least negotiated. You can check the record as it is open to everyone now. I'm sure we have only seen the tip of the iceberg so far as evidence goes. We'll see more at trial.
From those emails and the depositions it appears that a deal was sincerely discussed but never came to fruition. That seems a little different to me than intentional misrepresentation.
That is untrue ele. Many people with vapourware (let us not get into the matter of deliberate fraud or not, irrelevant to your point here, and to be settled in Court this Summer) have patents. Take, for example, EEStor with a patent for a magic capacitor with energy density higher than a lithium battery that never existed. It is one way that they convince people they have something. In any case Rossi has no granted patents for E-cats. He has a patent for a novel water-heater power source unspecified.
If that "hot water heater" supplied a COP greater than 6 (steam or no steam) and the Jury concludes that the test was GPT (which I think they will) then it's game over for IH.