I would think that IH would want to take a deposition from the customer before the trial. That should answer a lot of questions for them so they will not get surprised at the trial one way or the other.
Turbo3
Member
- Member since May 24th 2016
- Last Activity:
Posts by Turbo3
-
-
The magistrate helps out with routine legal matters freeing the Judge from this type of stuff. Both parties must agree on what the magistrate can handle without getting the Judge involved. This is why you see the checklist. If both parties had checked "Yes" to the Motion to Dismiss then the magistrate would be handling it. But that would be a very strange thing for them to do so they did not. The Judge will rule on the Motion to Dismiss by allowing from zero to all the claims to be dismissed. It is very unlikely all counts will be dismissed but it is up to the Judge to decide. The Judge's ruling will be posted so everyone should just wait for it.
-
The checklist allows the just assigned Magistrate Judge (John J. O'Sullivan) to handle any Discovery disputes as noted on the checklist. Everything else is handled by the original Judge (Cecilia M. Altonaga). So no, the Motions to Dismiss is still in play. This is just a workload issue.
-
-
IH response has been submitted to the court. Who has access to it?
-
Axil - The Contract lists a payment of 10 million for a license to Rossi's IP. Rossi received 10 million from IH for said license. There are no provisions in the Contract to cancel the license which has been paid for.
-
Axil - They have a contract. The judge is just going to see the contract, lawsuit and MTD. Based on that it just look like a failure to pay. The other things you say will not matter to the judge.
-
If I were the Judge I would recommend the two parties sit down and try to negotiate a new test procedure of say a month or two to confirm the operation of the 1 MW unit using a truly independent evaluation person with the correct skill set (HVAC?) and using appropriate instrumentation. They can just dump the heat generated so they don't need a customer to make things simple.
If the shorten test meets the jointly established criteria then IH pays Rossi his $89 million and Rossi drops the lawsuit.
This still leaves open the question of whether IH has the correct IP from Rossi to duplicate what is in the 1 MW plant. But it would more things forward.
-
All I am saying is if you have 14 oz (414 g) of water just below the vaporization temperature and you add 1 MW/sec of energy it will all be vaporized in one sec. This can then be compared with what actually happened. If the 1 MW system worked then this is what was happening, based on the reported 36 cubic meter per day water flow number.
If the system did not vaporize all (any) of the water then the power generated would be less than 1 MW.
-
What difference would 103.9 C versus 100.1 C make? Almost all the energy is used to vaporize the water. Unless the pressure is a lot greater than 0 psig which would increase the temperature needed to vaporize the water.
It seems all that is important is that the water was vaporized to do the energy calculations. It is a given that the temperature was high enough to vaporize the water for this system to work.
-
I always wondered how the closed loop 1 MW system could maintain near 0 psig and vaporize about 14 oz/sec of water at 100.1 C given that one unit of water expands to 1700 units of steam.
14 oz = 414g and 414g x 2260J/g = 935640 J/sec which is very close to 1 MW. So the volume of water does seem correct.
This is all based on the reported 36 cubic meters of water flow per day which I believe is from a Rossi interview.
-
Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax's excellent posts might have had something to do with it.
-
If the water vaporizes how does the pressure stay at a constant 1 Atm in the closed loop?
If the pressure increased to 2 Atm water does not boil at 120C and will stay a liquid.