Posts by oldguy

Quote from IH Fanboy

@sig,

As I recall, NI was working with Rossi. And their modus operendi is to initially provide the equipment without payment for initial testing to LENR outfits. The NI reveal was big news at the time. NI would even talk about it openly at first, for example, in conferences. I remember watching NI's CEO do this on more than one occasion. NI eventually got cold feet and backed out. They have their reasons I'm sure, but most publicly traded companies are wusses when it comes to LENR. Anything that rocks the apple cart must usually be pursued by startups and outsiders.

I was on the floor of Nat. Inst. Week when Defkalion was to originally to present. Ni blocked their submission and barred them for exhibiting. I got an ear full of complains about how Rossi was NOT affiliated with NI. Yes Ni has helped some LENR researchers but that did not extend to Rossi to my knowledge. I believe Sig that Rossi never purchased anything from NI. However I will say that IH and their other research groups have. I have seen them in the labs.

In Defkalion's case, NI sent some of their engineers to help but quickly found that the way the measurement were made was totally wrong. Notice we hear much about them anymore.

I again ask for something other than Fanboy says that Ni was working with Rossi. Give your reference and proof, or is it just another one of your wild unverified claims. I sure would like to see you proof. (oh but then you never give actually proof)

ele " Rossi technical claims have been proved correct by the USPTO"

You really need to read more before you says such things. Just imagine all the patents for rockets, subs, space stations....

do you think the USPTO "proves" them before a patent is granted. Do you think they have the ability to prove nuclear bombs, new virus drugs, .....

You are falling into a deep deep Rossi hole of twisted illogic.

Quote from IH Fanboy

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.

By that "logic" I must be in negotiation with General Electric, Ford, IBM, Microsoft....to support my work and build factories and they will buy anything I invent since I bought something from each of them. I have bought Pt, Pd, and Ni from Johnson Matthey but I am in no ways in negotiation to build a factory or supply they industrial factory with their required power. You are not playing with a full deck if you think it is.

And I do not believe that a order for 10kG was actually placed. Perhaps a quote but not an order for that much. You are grasping at straws. I think you will find there was never an order placed for more than a few grams. Show your reference that an order for 10Kg was actually placed.

Quote from ele

A scammer also don't have granted patents.

I totally agree with you. Here The Voice of IH is quite loud and quite well organized.

Rossi technical claims have been proved correct by the USPTO . I see that you don't trust US Justice and probably you don't trust USPTO also.

Display More

You don't know what you are taking about if you say "proven correct by the USPTO"

The issue of a patent is not a verification that a device works.

there are even procedures for revoking patents

http://www.lexology.com/librar…b5-4148-b3f6-b2a89a447492

Here is an example"Monsanto's fraudulent tomato patent revoked by patent office

http://www.naturalnews.com/048…atents_tomato_plants.html

Quote from IH Fanboy

oldguy,

Private entities can't file a criminal case against another private entity. IH could "press" for charges, but it would be a justice department that would need to file any such criminal charges. And in a business dispute such as this one, the chances of that happening are next to nil.

Excuse my terms. As I say I am not a lawyer and gave such notice in the post. They can file a report for things such as theft of instruments and devices or file a robbery report or distraction of property that could result in a legal criminal case. Perhaps that is a better way to say it.

By the way did you ever find any evidence that Rossi actually negotiated with Johnson Matthey and it was not a "never seen by another" thing (like the heat exchanger) or the claiming of being a director of Johnson Matthey (JM) when it was really just JMP.

Since you seem to like having things over and over again (as you did to Jed with the temps) I thought you like me to ask again for your evidence of that it is not must Rossi says with JM negotiations.

It may be a civil suit now, but my understand (as faulty as it is) is that IH could file a criminal fraud case later if they win the counter suit - based on fraud or even theft or destruction of materials. But I think that would be under the state system not the feds.

Quote from THHuxleynew

RR

Your argument has some merit: asking lay people to judge science issues is difficult. All you need is two experts apparently saying opposite things and they go on who has the best haircut / says their bit in the most assured way.

It is difficult for any engineer to lie in Court, or to sound honest supporting something they know is wrong. So, for example, when Wong is challenged on his air speed and tube diameter independent "heat transfer coefficient" which he references from many sources, and asked whether in the light of more accurate calculations it could possibly be correct, he will crumble. The matter at issue is clear: single one-size-fits-all coefficient versus more accurate calculator and a lay Jury can follow it well enough. I'm less sure about the rest of the technical evidence where as we see here it could get sticky. OTOH Rossi has no other experts on his side! Why do you think that is?

Putting the technical evidence to one side, I think IH has a very strong case, for the reasons you carefully avoid which will however convince a lay Jury.

Rossi misdirects, and has misdirected this charade from the start lying about the failure of his previous Hydrofusion test (compare Mats' account with Rossi's e-mail to IH) and then again, repeatedly with a web of subterfuge, about the identity of the customer. That makes the worth of a RossiSays about zero, and Rossi's case depends on Rossi Says:

• Vanishing heat exchanger (Wong) - all RossiSays
• Excuses about customer - RossiSays
• Penon Data - hopelessly contaminated with RossiMakesTheEquipment and RossiSendsTheResults
• Rossi thought this was the GPT and is a hard-working inventor deceived by IH - RossiSays
• ECat works - RossiSays (there is no supporting evidence from a cross-examinable person on this - the Lugano authors don't seem to want to be expert witnesses)

Then there is the missing evidence. Read 299 from the Court Docket:

• Penon - not a third party - key figure - vanished to a country where he cannot even be subpoenaed
• Fabiani - selectively destroys raw data and e-mails after being told it would lead to legal action if he did

None of this stuff is technical, and while you can take select points in a Rossiesque style that appear positive for Rossi, the whole thing examined carefully is damning. Have you done this? I get the impression from your posts that you are believing the Rossiesque explanations without joining the dots. Individual jurors may, like you, not do this, but a whole Jury in deliberations almost certainly will.

Both sides make their points in the MSJs and the Spoliation in limine documents. See here and search summary or limine - Abd's site lets you locate individual documents by title easily. Remember that for each document there may be 3 or 6 versions from the various sides. The difference is that Annesser's points in service of Rossi nearly all rely on bizaare and often Rossieque interpretation with no hard evidence.

The points above (to take a sample that we can see) all rely on hard evidence.

I'd like to understand how you process this. I don't expect you to agree with me on the technical stuff - which we both agree may not be relevant to a Jury anyway - but a close reading of the documents shows the above to me. Which documents, read in context, do you think support an alternate view? For example, read the Annesser MSJ, or the 3rd Party in limine arguments. They sound very convincing, but when compared with the other side's counter-arguments they largely crumble because their validity depends on unsupported interpretation - and often on Rossiesque misinterpretation contradicted by context. They make sense only if you ignore other evidence. A good example of this is Rossi's: "I told IH I was the customer" as examined above, or the false claims of secrecy preventing IH from inspecting the non-existing customer-side equipment.

PS - you note Jed's financial and personal links with IH - such as they are - Jed may wish to correct you. Do you also acknowledge E48's stronger financial and personal links with Rossi?

Display More

I think that the technical stuff will mainly only be useful in the counter suit against Rossi et al and not as much in the Rossi against Darden was it a legal fulfillment of the written agreement part.

But then I am not a lawyer.

Quote from IH Fanboy

oldguy,

I suggest that you follow the conversation a bit closer. Jed was referring to the smart meter, as was I.

And I was referring to your general approach to being questioned.

You seem to just avoid answering when asked direct questions and do not give direct links or references and never clearify things for others but make vague comments like I already covered that or that was decided (yea right) before.

Do you Care to explain the Johnson Matthew claim of Rossi that you put forth in 7774. I sure would like to see some collaboration instead of just Fanboy says Rossi says.

Quote from IH Fanboy

No, I've provided links and articles about this in the past. If you want to see them, read my past posts.

The reason is that the links you give before are not to the point unless you twist them are believe in things just because Rossi says so. I will ask you again to give a direct collaboration of negotiations between Johnston Matthey that is anything but Rossi says. If you cannot, the you cannot use that as an excuse to say Rossi was dealing with IH in good faith about the customer.

I find it interesting that Rossi's supporters tend to gloss over the difference between being a director of JM (Johnson Matthey) which Rossi claimed to have a working production plant that had to immediately have an answer about working together and JMP which is just a empty company run by Rossi and Johnson and appears to be falsely claimed to be a UK organization.

IH Fanboy

and no one has explain why the only short term pressure reading (for April) were all below atmospheric pressure and that the pressure readings never showed any variation due to barometric pressure changes.

Quote from IH Fanboy

In fact that is what IH essentially did when the various IH shell companies were deposed. Companies are persons: legal fictions. And people who own different companies often refer to them as such, as if they were separate persons. And that is okay.

But I never heard of someone saying I talked to the director and he said.... when they were referring to themselves.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@oldguy,

I believe the "misrepresentation" began in good faith with initial contacts with Johnson Matthey, and to persuade IH to get the test underway. Even Vaughn says in an email that Rossi persuaded IH to have the plant moved to Miami so that the "test" (i.e., Vaughn's word) could be performed. What began in good faith then seems to have taken on a life of its own when the relationship with Johnson Matthey faltered. But the initial impetus was not to defraud, but to get IH-drag-our-feet moving.

I see nothing in evidence yet that collaborates Rossi's claim that he negotiated with Johnson Matthey. All I see is Rossi says and perhaps an email from Rossi warning IH not to contact Johnson Matthey to check on his claim of negotiation,

I would think that IF he really did negotiate with Johnson Matthey, he would at the least produced emails or even a contact name of those negotiation to collaborate his story. So far I have seen none.

It sound to me that it is just a wild Rossi claim with no independent verification.

Quote from Italianlawyer

I understand your point of view and respect it. But the possibility to inspec the plant is irrilevant, if we assume the test was "real". The core fact is: was the test a real test? If measures were rights (substantial excess of heat) and the erv did a good job, IH should pay.

Because IH acted as that was the gpt.

I would say that Rossi used "dolus bonus" instead of "dolus malus". I mean he used an innocent deception about his control over the client. According to me, it's not enough to say he is a fraudster.

The situation could change in respect to the test itself. Someone states that the Doral test was totally fake. This would mean the report has been deliberately manipulated. That the Plant was not able to produce excess of heat. Well, I think the trial will show the truth, let's say in the next 2-3 months. If the test was manipulated, Rossi will lost. If the test was duly conducted, he will win.

It's clear Rossi didn't trust IH. He didn't comunicate data and details about the physic principle which allows his plant to work. You can interpret his conduct as a scammer conduct. Or, maybe, as the desire to not comunicate info that would had allowed IH to replicate "Rossi effect".

Again, sorry for my English.

Display More

Your English is good.

The first hurtle that Rossi must jump is that if the test fulfilled the requirements of the contract. That required that there was a signed approval for the start by all THREE parties. for the start of the Guaranteed Performance Test (GPT) and that the work at Doral was not just another general test or as Rossi originally claimed a two year sell of heat to a "customer". He might be able to get around that IF it is found that some other approval was given.

The technical matters of what was done at Doral are secondary to the case. If the argument for the GPT fails, then the technical issues only matter for the counter suit against Rossi et al.

The issue of him not giving information about the working of the plant seems to be a requirement of his transfer of the intellectual property he sold to IH. If he did not give the full intellectual property required of the technology to IH then he would be in valuation of his previous agreements which specified technology transfer to IH.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@oldguy,

I believe the "misrepresentation" began in good faith with initial contacts with Johnson Matthey, and to persuade IH to get the test underway. Even Vaughn says in an email that Rossi persuaded IH to have the plant moved to Miami so that the "test" (i.e., Vaughn's word) could be performed. What began in good faith then seems to have taken on a life of its own when the relationship with Johnson Matthey faltered. But the initial impetus was not to defraud, but to get IH-drag-our-feet moving.

That is hard for me to believe, since Rossi and Johnson continued to identify the fake JPM company as UK owned and that Rossi continued to refer to the director in the third person, and Johnson signed that he was not related to anyone in JMP while being its "president". Sure seem like a lot of turns and twist to not represent JPM as a simple company set up by Rossi, operated by Rossi and not producing any real commercial product that we know of (what product was sold to whom). Sure "smells" like misrepresentation of ownership to me.

Quote from Italianlawyer

A misrepresentation is not a fraud. A misrepresentation is a misrepresentation. In order to have fraud - in all civilized countries - the misrepresentation should be linked with an illicit gain.

I mean, the real ownership of Jp is irrilevant. Maybe the owner of Jp was me (I'm joking). Who cares? The only relevant thing is if the Rossi's report was "real" or fake.

don't you believe that Rossi would have any gain? The seems to have misrepresented the customer for the purpose of setting up something that he could later claim to be the GPT for the purpose of a gain of $89M - sounds like gain to me. In the US you do not have to obtain the gain only have a purpose to get gain from the misrepresentation.

Quote from Frederic

BobHiggins wrote:

So the Rossi-positive outcome would be Rossi gets the $89M and everything he has developed and all of its derivatives are licensed to IH

If IH loses the case it will go bankrupt because probably unable to pay this amount plus fees.

What happens to its IP in such an event ?

IH declares bankruptcy- That is what I have been saying all along. It is clear that IH does not have the money now and would not get it if it lost. I am not sure about the personal liabilities of Darden and Vaugh. It would likely take another suit to de-convolve the liabilities of the companies and the people. But I don't think that Darden ever promised any personal money directly to Rossi and only risked any personal money only that of IH (I would bet and apostrophe and a biscuit on that).

As the song says= all the gold in California is in a bank in some else's name.

The only good outcome I can see (but it would never happen and doubt if the iMW is real) is that Rossi drops the suit, uses his money not to pay lawyers but to build a good plant of a few 10's of kW but with clearly visable/traceable parts/wire, uses multiply redundant measures, has several engineers/scientists run it and he stands back and let others run it and verify it and never touches it while under test. I do no doubt that IH would or deep pocket person would do that.

@sigmoidal 

Thank you that is just like what I recalled. No direct mention of ROssi being the "director of JP" just like he never mention directly that what was going on in Doral he would later call the GPT.

I think that the Florida law (at least what I looked up) is clear that fraud included misrepresentation of future claims. That you cannot set up something now to confuse and misrepresent for future activates of gain.

I haven't found the email's from June that Rossi alluded to. Perhaps someone here can direct me to where they are in the docket. I just don't remember Rossi saying he was to be the director to the JM plant. I just remember him saying he was going to be director of the Doral plan which I though just means the "test site". But hay, they don't call me an old guy for nothing,..... I don't have the memory I once had. We have so many documents these days. Wish they were searchable.

Is it worse to call some one a scammer or a snake. Personally I think it is worse to call someone less than human and low to the ground.