SSC Member
  • Member since Nov 8th 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by SSC

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from joshg

    I don't think this is correct. Rossi's initial complaint was filed on April 5, 2016. The test finished up in late February, and he has testified that he dismantled the heat exchanger soon after the test was completed. So he had a little over a month to dismantle the exchanger before IH failed to pay and well over a month before the lawsuit was filed. You could make an argument that dismantling without documenting its existence was stupid, but I don't think you can say it was destruction of evidence since there was no legal filing at that point.

    Good point. Before the lawsuit was filed, Rossi was perfectly entitled to make changes to the Plant and to move tubes from side to side. Those objects were not evidences at that time, so it makes no sense speak about spoliation.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Darden's strategy is clear: taking money from investors in order to keep them!

    We're not talking about a risky investment, to which surely Woodford is accustomed. We're talking about an investment where Darden no longer believed. Rather than stop the test and ask Rossi for clarification, Darden has called Woodford and has scraped together a substantial sum of money. Certainly he did not speak of his concerns about the test, otherwise it would never have got that amount. Having already decided that the Doral test could not be the GPT, it was already clear to him that he should have not given to Rossi the agreed money. But even so Darden asked for money, obviously to keep them for himself.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from sigmoidal

    We now know that all those written claims that the super secret customer wouldn't let IH or anyone else see the JMP side were fabrications of Rossi.

    Could you please tell me why you feel so sure about that? I have not read all the documents yet, but I have read number 207-41, where you can find this email from Rossi to Darden:

    "Today I got the solid hope that after 3-4 months of good operation they will make an official outing. As a matter of fact I was not supposed to give you their name. [...] I am sure after 3-4 month they will put another CEO if the plant will go well, and that they will disclose themselves. Now NOT. There have been no way to obtain this. It is necessary we send them by the next week the agreement signed, otherwise they will go on without our plant: as a matter of fact, they do not need us. [...] Your Customers and investors can come when you want, under NDA, and they will see a plant in operation in the factory of a Customer which is anyway real, makes a real work in a real factory, really not owned by IH directly or indirectly, and will confront themselves with the director of the plant of JMC."

    So Darden was informed about the fact that JMC was a newco created to represent a Customer who wanted to be unrevealed. I think that most of the objects that were in the JMC side of the Plant belonged to this Customer, who took them back at the end of the test. So there was no spoliation made by Rossi.

    Quote from sigmoidal

    We now know with near certainty how Rossi defrauded IH: by circulating hot water and making it appear that it was steam.

    As IHFB has said few pages ago, the state inspector has testified that he observed a steam leak, so I would not use the words "with near certainty".....

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from Bob

    According to depositions and documents submitted, Darden stated very early on that the GPT time had expired and Ampenergo did not sign.


    Then ROSSI , not Darden, brought up the idea for the Doral facility as a sale of heat and rental of the 1MW plant. There WAS a signed contract on this Doral event and it was signed by both Rossi and IH (Vaughn) So there is nothing to speculate about nor wonder. It was all in legal contract. I do not know where you find the "he testified is was all word of mouth".

    I did not speak of the contract, that is a written text. I was referring to a proposal that Darden has made orally to Rossi and that you can read below:

    226-03

    Q.· ·So after that conversation took place did

    20 you say, "Hey, listen, Ampenergo didn't sign.· The

    21 license agreement says you guys start the test as soon

    22 as you get -- as soon as the equipment arrives;

    23 therefore, you're in breach"?

    24· · · · A.· ·Yes.· We said, "We don't owe you -- you

    25 know, sorry.· You missed the date.· They don't agree to

    this so what are we going to do."· We said to him, "We

    ·2 would love to pay you some more money if we had

    ·3 technology that worked.· So why don't you think of some

    ·4 other kind of test that we could do.· We're willing to

    ·5 pay you money if you -- if we can build devices and we

    ·6 can operate those devises.· We don't care how long it

    ·7 is really."· I mean, we care a little bit but, you

    ·8 know, we're willing to be very malleable about that.

    ·9 "Let's build some devices.· Let's get something

    10 operating."· You know, but, I mean, the agreement

    11 speaks for itself.

    · Q.· ·Did you put that -- that subsequent offer

    13 in writing?

    14· · · · A.· ·I don't know.· I mean, it was -- did we say

    15 to him in writing somewhere, "We can't build these

    16 units.· We want to build these units.· Help us build

    17 these units.· Let's get something going."· I don't know

    18 but we -- I'm sure that we said to him, "Andrea, the

    19 problem is not money.· We're happy to pay money if we

    20 have technology that works.· We don't have technology

    21 that works.· Help us get some technology working

    22 somewhere and we're happy to pay you some money."

    23· · · · Q.· ·Right.· But did you ever say in writing,

    24 "Hey, listen, the time for the test has now come and

    25 gone.· We need to reach some other arrangement.· We're

    happy to pay you money, but it's got to be under

    ·2 different terms"?

    ·3· · · · · · · · · MR. BELL:· Objection to form.

    ·4· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't remember

    ·5 specific writing about that.· You know, we were in the

    ·6 same office so we talked about a lot of this.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from JedRothwell

    As I said before, they had good people before they hired Murray. He's world-class, but they had other good people.


    You should not speculate about things you know nothing about, especially when your speculation leads you to make serious accusations of misconduct.

    Serious accusation??

    I'm just saying things that emerge clearly from the reading of the documents. IH initially have achieved positive results, and referred about them to investors, otherwise they would not have paid. In the interview of September 2015 Darden still called himself optimistic and spoke well of Rossi. Only after the suit we have heard about the complaints of IH.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from JedRothwell

    No industrial endothermic process absorbs more than a tiny fraction of the heat.

    No process in your knowledge ..... In fact the side of JMP was hidden to visitors for a reason. You take for granted that no one could get in because it was a fraud, you don't even consider the fact that perhaps no one could get in there because in that part of the Plant it took place something new, protected by trade secret.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from barty

    If Rossi's IR measurement was part of the replication protocol it's obvious that they may have measured similar values.


    As I understand it, IH came to the negative conclusion after using a less error prone and more reliable measurement method (calorimeter).


    But indeed, it's strange that they did not use some simple thermocouples just for reference, during their first tests as well.


    Maybe they didn't came to negative conclusion, considering that they used a more reliable measurement method.....maybe their previous results (COP 5, 9, 11) were the right ones. It's clear that after the suit those results have become troublesome and so it was more convenient to declare that they were measurements errors.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from Bob

    A contract for $89 million dollars is not going to be changed by word of mouth! Just like the bank cannot change your car payment loan that is only for a few thousand dollars by word of mouth. Anyone should realize this!

    I agree with you. Indeed I wonder why Darden asked Rossi to continue with the test, after having declared that the GPT was unrealizable because of the time lapsed, and promised him money in case of good results, without writing a new contract. He has testified that this proposal was said by word of mouth. Perhaps he considered useful the fact that in this way they were no longer bound by a contract to respect?

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from joshg

    IIRC, they hired Murray after the 1MW test began, and one of the things they had him work on was rigorous testing of a Lugano-style reactor. So clearly they had not exhausted their own efforts before letting Rossi proceed. In fact, Murray was quite dismissive of Dameron and IH's capacity prior to hiring him to assemble an engineering team. That was in Spring/Summer 2015. So their efforts up until then apparently left a lot to be desired. Cassarino's (Ampenergo) testimony supports his view.


    So they first collect money from the investors and show them the Plant, and only after that they bother to verify the proper function of the technology and hire an expert.....such a due diligence!!

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from sigmoidal

    The reason for this is that we now know (from the exhibit that Rossi just posted, 226-03, with an excerpt of Darden's deposition) that Darden is stating that he told Rossi multiple times before the move of the 1MW Plant to Doral, that all options for Performance on Rossi's $89 Million GPT had expired.


    For Rossi to prevail, he has the burden of proof to show that in fact there was a remaining $89 Million GPT Performance option. And Rossi's testimony is insufficient. It is insufficient even ignoring the clear evidence of his demonstrated purposeful deception, because this would just be a 'he said, she said' argument which can not prevail with a contract of this magnitude. Any Judge (and that includes a Judge giving instructions to a jury) will state that for a contract of this magnitude, hearsay is not sufficient evidence of an agreement. Add to this Rossi's character burden and it is just not realistic to believe that Rossi has a possibility to prevail without stronger written evidence of an actual signed GPT or at least some evidence that Darden or Vaughn explicitly (in an email or somewhere) stated to Rossi that Doral was an official GPT.

    Darden's word is the absolute truth while Rossi is right only if he can demonstrate something in writing? What kind of reasoning is this?

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    That is a good question. The answer is, an assorted set of errors, of the sort you get if you try different setups, measurements, etc, rejecting the ones that don't work and persevering with the ones that show high excess power.

    IH spoke of Cop 5,9,11 ..... so they are so clumsy ...... has not been able to make consistent experiments and perhaps that's why they did not get the same results as Rossi

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from JedRothwell

    They reviewed the data thoroughly and decided that their earlier conclusions were incorrect, and there was no excess heat after all. That's all there is to it. In experimental science this happens ALL THE TIME. You act as if it was evidence of double dealing or a crime, or as if there is something unethical about a careful reexamination of data. You don't know the first thing about experiments or R&D.

    Mistakes are common in scientific experiments, but it is difficult to get a COP 11 by mistake! As long as IH had to make a good impression with investors, their tests gave COP 5, 9 and 11, then when it was time to pay, there were these experimental errors. Don't you find it a little too convenient?

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    IH's men seem very determined when they accuse Rossi of fraud, but as soon as they are forced to swear, they have strong amnesia. Murray does not remember the position of the flow meter, although it has been able to create a "reconstruction of the Plant":

    215-3, page 236

    "·1·Q.· · Could it have been lower?

    ·2·A.· · Could the?

    ·3·Q.· · The flow meter have been lower than --

    ·4·A.· · Yeah.

    ·5·Q.· · -- the pipe entrance?

    ·6·A.· · Possibly, yeah.

    ·7·Q.· · Okay.· But you don't know one way or another?

    ·8·You're speculating?

    ·9·A.· · Yeah, just working from memory, yes.· I don't

    10·know.

    11·Q.· · Okay."

    And Darden does not remember why Ampenergo did not sign the contract ..... but who can believe him? A failure to sign makes you jump a contract worth $ 89M and you do not remember the details? They look really amateur .... maybe just for convenience .....

    226-3 pages 4-7

    Q.· ·And did they [Ampenergo] ever explain to you why they didn't want to sign this?

    A.· ·No, we were -- we were confused about that.

    Q.· ·Is there any reason that you're aware of today as to why they would not want to sign?

    A.· ·I don't remember the conversations around I think J.T. might have been the one talking to them.

    _____________________________________________________________________________

    207-21:

    Q. Was this the test plan to your knowledge that

    would result, the ultimate plan, that was created from this

    discussion, that would result in either the payment or

    nonpayment of $89 million to Dr. Rossi?

    A. It's hard to say because there were emails going

    back and -- I mean, you're not showing me a test plan. I

    mean, this is not a test plan.

    I don't know is my answer.

    Now, I will say that I'm sure there's some

    document somewhere that outline a test plan that probably

    they sent to us and probably that they said, you know,

    here's a test plan. And whether or not that test plan is

    perfect, I can't say. I don't know.


    JT here above seems confused, yet it is the most important argument, on which the whole process is based. Really he can not say if the Doral test was the GPT or not? However, JT talks about an exchange of emails, so it is likely that the subject has been treated in writing, although Darden believes they have only told verbally to Rossi that the Doral test was not the GPT:


    226-3 pages 4-7

    Q. Did you put that -- that subsequent offer in writing?

    A. I don't know.· I mean, it was -- did we say to him in writing somewhere, "We can't build these units.· We want to build these units.· Help us build these units. Let's get something going."· I don't know. But we -- I'm sure that we said to him, "Andrea, the problem is not money.· We're happy to pay money if we have technology that works. We don't have technology that works. Help us get some technology working somewhere and we're happy to pay you some money."

    Q. Right. But did you ever say in writing, "Hey, listen, the time for the test has now come and gone.· We need to reach some other arrangement.· We're happy to pay you money, but it's got to be under different terms"?

    MR. BELL:· Objection to form.

    THE WITNESS:· I don't remember specific writing about that.· You know, we were in the same office so we talked about a lot of this.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote

    From the ERV Report:

    "Consequently the ERV certifies that for a period of 350 days, not consecutives, the temperature of the steam produced by the plant was greater than 100 C, and the plant consistently produced energy that is at least six times greater than the energy consumed by the Plant".

    So at least one requirement of the GPT (the most important one, that is COP over 4) has been achieved. And that is a fact. Moreover at the beginning of the test there was a contact between Rossi and Johnson Matthey for providing platinum sponges, and that's another fact. And when JT was asked about his knowledge of the fact that the ongoing tests was the GPT, his answer was " It's hard to say because there were emails going back and -- I mean, you're not showing me a test plan. I mean, this is not a test plan. I don't know is my answer". Yet Planet IH finds that everything is evident and clearly in favor of their side...

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from PeterMetz

    I don't see an issue with IH making statements that they are seeing positive results only to conclude that they could not validate Rossi's technology. Even the quote you provide from JT Vaughn says "until we have reviewed the data thoroughly and conducted tests using at least two thermal cameras to ensure the data is accurate." Initial results may be positive but upon further analysis or repetition they may be negative. There is no conflict here.

    Also remember that many of these communications are to investors and potential investors. They are trying to indicate as positive a picture as possible. If you listen in on any CC for company you will see the exact same thing. Whenever IH claims possible positive results they always provide the usual caveats about the results.

    So IH said to investors that the Plant worked well in order to collect money and considered that the Plant was a deceit when they had to pay for it....and you find that it is a fair attitude?

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from JedRothwell

    It is all Rossi's fault. I.H. has done nothing to deserve this.

    Do you really think that IH is a victim in this story? They have been so naive as to allow Rossi to make a test that had many features in common with the GPT which they were waiting for but they never imagining that this was the GPT? So naive as to not ask to Rossi why in his blog he talked about an ERV concerning that test? If Darden is so correct, why he sent a person wholly ignorant of the facts to speak in his place? You see only the haloes on one side and the devil's forks on the other ..... the world is so black and white only in fairy tales.