Posts by PeterMetz

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Peter Metz ,

See: Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

That's what I was thinking from the picture. So there are 2 4 lite windows to the left of the entrance and one 6 lite window over the entrance for a total of three windows on the second story. The Wong exhibit window looks like the one on the right closest to the door not above it, the one you and Rossi are calling the middle window. (The lawyers had Rossi circle the window so there will be no confusion in the trial.)

So then the Google Street View from April 2015 clearly shows that there are no fans on the lower lites of the middle window. The window is intact. Wong testified that all the lite panes were removed and that there were two fans in the lower panes (194-06, pg 102). Even the window behind the tree is partially visible and it doesn't appear to have any fans.

Am I mistaken?

Edit: Cleaned up window references.

Rossi's facility in Doral had 3 second story windows. Rossi claims to have used one of those windows with fans in the lower two lites to vent hot air out. The address of the facility is 7861 NW 46th St, Doral, FL 33166.

Wong's expert disclosure http://coldfusioncommunity.net…7/01/0233.3_Exhibit_C.pdf Exhibit A-2 shows a picture of this window. Rossi claims this is the middle window. Wong claims the picture is the window from which the hot air was vented and that in the picture it doesn't have any panes of glass in the window because it was being repaired.

Attachment 1 is a Google Street View from April 2015 of those three windows. Attachment 2 is a Google Street View from April 2015 from a different angle.

Which window do you think Exhibit A-2 from Wong's expert disclosure shows--the window behind the vegetation or the one to the right of it?

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Note : I'm not saying the numbers are real. I'm just saying you can't use them to prove they are fake.

It depends on what you mean by prove. But accountants and law enforcement look at fake financial data all the time and reasonably conclude that it is fake. See also Benford's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law

No doubt Rossi had a lot of time to think about the numbers. He also had his hand on the controls (in fact the entire system) and probably could force whatever numbers he wanted. And Rossi and Penon could just sabotage or randomize some numbers and claim instrument error etc.

Well I found something I was interested in, which was the water usage by the facility. From Rick E Smith PE conclusions, page 21 of the PDF: http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0215.02_Exhibit_B.pdf

So the theory that Rossi was flushing hot water down the drain and replacing it fails on this point as well. The referenced report says the plant would need to replace water at about 4047 gallons/hour to do this.

But even 2-3 old guys can't keep a toilet running at 4.6 gallons of water per hour 24/7 so Rossi must have had quite a few leaks or something.

Quote from Bob

There is writing... It is the 2nd agreement that WAS signed by three parties. IH, Rossi and Ampenergo. It is what sets forth the payment of $89 million dollars.

Are you sure (Amendment 2)? From the exhibits it was only signed by IH and Rossi. Darden testifies that Ampenergo for some unknown reason refused to sign it. Furthermore Darden testifies that Darden told Rossi that Ampenergo refused to sign it so the GPT was off (lapsed).

Amendment 2 was strange. Nobody owns up to writing it in the depositions. Darden does not remember when or where he signed it. Nobody knows who sent it to Ampenergo. There is is no date (October <blank> 2013).

Quote from Bob

That is what the "Summary Judgment" phase of the trial will consider.

Rossi brought the lawsuit -> IH answered

IH brought counter suit _> Rossi / Third Party answered

Discovery phase then occurred where "everybody asked each other what evidence they were going to bring to trial"

There were dates set by the judge on this and it was over several months.

Summary judgement does not happen until after discovery has been closed and the involved parties request it.

Discovery has been completed now and IH has asked for summary judgement on either all or part of the claims, I am not 100% sure.

I think we will see Rossi's suit thrown out shortly, but that is my layman's opinion. And it has so far been asked because of spoliation of evidence from IH.

IH may be "holding back" the signed contract as a fall back, but that is speculation. I would have thought it the number one defense.

If the judge does not rule in summary judgment that the case is without merit or evidence, then the judge will dismiss the case. If they do not rule that, then

the lawsuit will go to a jury trial.

Display More

@Bob,

Thanks for the great summary. I know that some of the claims were thrown out early. Perhaps those were done on a legal basis while the GPT issue is more evidence based.

Quote from JedRothwell

Again, you misunderstand. If electric power input goes down, the overall heat from the system must go down by that amount, at first. The cold fusion reaction does not instantaneously jump to a higher level. It does not do this any more than a burning pile of wet green wood will instantly increase in power. These reactions have built-in latency, or "memory" as Pons described it. They are not stable but they tend to return to the same power level. The reaction might increase gradually as some control parameter is exercised.

Imaginary example for an e-Cat scaled device:

In the morning you have 20 kW input electricity + 20 kW anomalous heat = 40 kW total heat

Input power is reduced to 10 kW. Anomalous heat remains the same. 30 kW total heat.

Perhaps, for some reason, anomalous heat increases. After a few hours it is 30 kW. Total output is then 40 kW again. However, the total energy for the day will be lower. There will be a gap in total energy.

That is, unless Rossi has solved the control problem to an extent far better than anyone and he can instantly turn a reactor output higher or lower. And his control parameter has nothing at all to do with input power. (In other cold fusion reactions, input power is an indirect control parameter. Turn it off, and eventually the reaction peters out, after some latency delay.)

In some of his earlier tests, the reaction seemed to be real and it seemed to be on the verge of going out of control. That looked to me like a real cold fusion reaction. In the 1-year test, the machine produces incredibly stable output and an absolutely steady flow, which looks impossible to me. It looks fake to me. I doubt the instruments showed anything like this.

The flow is another problem. As Murray pointed out, given the geometry of the system, with some reactors shut down, there is no way the flow could be the same. The flow of water is cut off to reactors when they are being taken apart or replaced. There would not be EXACTLY the same flow every day to the nearest ton of water in these circumstances.

Display More

JedRothwell,

I've always been responding to Murray's statement in Exhibit 5 as has Wong. Here it is:

I'm not disputing anything you've said about LENR reactions but I fail to see how it is even relevant (or even possible to discuss since we don't have that data with regard to Rossi's reactors). Murray is talking about Penon's data. Wong is talking about Penon's data. Penon's data is over an entire day and multiple reactors. You are talking about LENR reactions. And I will repeat, I do not see any problem with Penon's data with regard to the COP changing inversely with the amount of input power for the reasons I've stated. I could be wrong but I haven't seen any convincing evidence including yours to change my mind.

Quote from Bob

I am not a lawyer either, so I am speculating here about as much as I would be on deep mathematical equations!

However I think, that you would be correct if the contract was only between Darden and Rossi, and Darden led Rossi to believe the test was the GPT, that Rossi could possibly claim estoppel. But the contract clearly states three parties are involved and that all must sign off. So I do not believe estoppel can be claimed unless both Dardin / IH AND Ampenergo were both culpable in leading Rossi to believe it was the GPT. We have seen absolute no evidence that Ampenergo did this and only interpretive evidence about Darden.

I am not a lawyer, but from what I understand, this is a show stopper for Rossi. I do not think he can claim that any impressions from Darden override the contract's explicit requirement that Ampenergo sign off as well. They did not. In reverse, since Leonardo Corp. was one of the parties to the contract, Rossi cannot simply "make it the test the GPT" without Ampenergo's sign off either. It works both ways, if I understand correctly.

To be honest I don't even understand "estoppel" other than the basic concept. The Wikipedia page is quite involved. My question is why then hasn't the courts ruled out Rossi's claim that it was the GPT? If it were so cut and dry this would have happened by now I would think. Maybe because almost $300M is riding on this and the lawyers haven't gotten their share yet?

Quote from sigmoidal

Oh, your post caused me to recheck, and somehow I missed that I made sifferkoll's list of co-conspirators too! Well, another res ipsa loquitur.

As Shane D. observed, if conspiracy theories are your game, sikkerfool sifferkoll's the name.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Display More

If I reply to you with any substance it might confirm our conspiracy so I'll say nothing.

Quote from Bob

It needs to be remembered, that the GPT had to have Ampenergo sign. Darden could not verbally create the GPT by himself anyway, even if he wanted to.

The GPT (2nd license agreement) stated it was to be the six unit design, which it was not, and it had to have Ampenergo sign off on it.

So it does not really boil down to testimony. Darden could not create the GPT by himself. Rossi could not create the GPT by himself. It was in clear, legal contract that the GPT was for the 6 unit plant and that all three parties had to sign off on it. They did not.

"No Other Chances. Except as expressly provided herein,, the Agreement remains in

full force and effect and is ratified and confirmed by the parties to this Amendment."

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0207.15_Exhibit_15.pdf

Display More

I'm not a lawyer but I was going on the understanding that estoppel would allow for the GPT under a different form and time frame despite all the issues you point out. What you say regarding contracts etc makes the most sense to me but Rossi is making the claim that it was the GPT despite the obvious contractual contradictions so maybe there is a legal basis for this?

Quote from joshg

The big problem for IH is that there is tons of written and third party evidence for estoppel and only Darden and Vaughn's word for saying they told Rossi no dice. I think they know that and that's why they're so worried.

Given I don't know the date, it may refer to the GPT as contracted or not. If this was after the GPT "expired" and the author used the term "success fee" I would think it refers to the test as the GPT since it's a fee but that connection is very tenuous IMO. Darden claims in his deposition they told Rossi on more than occasion that the GPT had lapsed but IH would pay Rossi something if he could demonstrate the GPT in some form not strictly according to the License Agreement and this could be a reference to that. Darden, I believe if my memory serves me well, claims in his deposition that IH told Rossi more than once that the GPT had lapsed, including once in a heated meeting. If there is no documents for this it would boil down to testimony by the meeting participants at the trial.

Quote from ZenoOfElea

Hurrah I'm on a list.

This is hilarious. But also slightly scary, I have never been on a conspiracy theory list before.

Not sure what I did, but then it's all in Sifferkoll's mind so WTF.

I mean any moron can get 2 + 2 = 5.

Not that I think Sifferkoll is a moron, I just think he has too much imagination and not enough discrimination.

How about if Sifferkoll is really working for Rossi.

Or perhaps Sifferkoll really is Rossi.

Or perhaps Sifferkoll is really working for IH by planting really, really stupid theories to make the Rossi side look bad.

Meanwhile in the real world, if the IH/APCO team were any good then its not working too well is it?

On their side they have;

Dewey - who supposedly can supply some actual inside information, but lately he's been mostly making a bit of a pratt of himself with "Planet Rossi" and "bring it on" and "Rossi is going to get what is coming etc".

IH not looking too clever with giving Rossi $10 million.

And worse, rather than keeping it quiet it's all coming out in a public trial.

And yet Sifferkoll thinks this is all a well managed conspiracy.

You know of course that Rossi could blow all this "well managed conspiracy" up in the air at any point by actually proving that he has what he says. Wonder why he doesn't do that?

Ultrasure, any ideas?

Display More

I asked to be removed from this list. Sifferkoll complied but he then said “maybe you’re only victim of FUD spread by Jed and TCHuxley…” It's his blog but I think he has issues.

Quote from LENR Calender

Ah thanks to you I was able to locate the e-mail between APCO and Rossi.

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0214.30_Exhibit_30.pdf

Interesting how APCO was giving "mantras" to Rossi.

Also, the APCO associate director wrote to Rossi: "I spoke with Tom today, and he reported that the 400 day test is about to commence"

The only other place where I recall a 400 day period to be mentioned is in the licence agreement in relation to the GPT.

Another clue that Darden considered it as the GPT, IMO.

Display More

I'm not sure if this is mentioned before but in Document 214 - Exhibit 23 page 8 of the document, Darden says "If Rossi is on track to earn his $89M success fee, then IH may seek up to an additional $150M as early as Q3 " in his "18 Month Business Plan", (7MB file),: http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0214.23_Exhibit_23.pdf I cannot find the date that this document was written and so it might actually refer to the GPT.

Quote from sigmoidal

Res ipsa loquitur, as they say, regarding the data. (Latin for 'the thing speaks for itself').

There is no way to make any sense of the provided data. Jed's two main points from the data 'speak for themselves': zero bar pressure and power production when the unit is not operating.

In research, when results with flaws like this are provided (or published), we say 'the results are uninterpretable'. Because they are uninterpretable. Except in this case I and others (strongly) suspect actual malfeasance (which is extraordinary in research). So in my view, the only rational 'interpretation' one can do in analysis is whether or not the data supports or contradicts malfeasance. (Since it clearly cannot be interpreted regarding Performance).

So I agree with Jed: trying to interpret this data with respect to E-Cat Performance is a waste of time.

But maybe I'm too cynical on this. If you are able to find anything that seems to make any sense, that would be great.

Display More

There have been a number of issues raised with the data, one of them being that the COP cannot go up if the input energy goes down. Even in the context of what Jed has said about the behavior of cold fusion systems he's familiar with, I still do not believe this is a problem per say. It's true that if there is enough issues with the data is makes no sense to draw too many conclusions from the data--garbage in, garbage out as they also say. But my arguments have been somewhat general (as has Jed's claim that for all LENR systems if energy input goes down so would COP) so I think it's still a valid point of discussion. I think looking at the data from the perspective of many reactors working together also helps in interpreting some of the daily data.

Quote from JedRothwell

If this were real cold fusion, the reaction would probably go down with reduced input, but it might remain stable or go up. Input power has no direct or linear effect on output power in cold fusion. However, we know for sure the cold fusion heat would not instantly leap up to cover up the change in power the way Rossi claimed. That never happens.

Penon's data is bullshit from start to end. No instrument would produce those numbers. It is all made up. You cannot draw any conclusions from blatantly fake data.

There is no conflict. You missed my point, and Murray's point. (You missed his point because the lawyer would not let him finish explaining.) The point is, the "COP" would not instantly change to keep overall energy output stable. As I said, you would have difficulty keeping the balance this close even with combustion. With actual cold fusion, the ratio wanders all over the place. It is not a COP at all in the engineering sense. There is no direct connection, only second and third order connections, such as heat from input power, or hydride loading from input power.

For the sake of argument, if this is real, Rossi has discovered something completely different from cold fusion. That would violate McKubre's conservation of miracles. This new effect can be controlled with pinpoint precision in mysterious ways unlike any cold fusion experiment. It works even when the machine is turned off and disassembled! Components such as the heat exchanger pipe are invisible. It is a miracle indeed.

The COP in the report is defined generally to be Energy Output / Energy Input over the entire day for the plant. The plant consists of multiple (many) E-Cat reactors, each probably with it's own (different) performance characteristics such as energy output and COP. Even if the performance of each of these reactors might vary at any instant, it might be possible for Rossi to enable or disable various combinations over the entire day such that 1MW output is achieved. I would expect the aggregate average COP over the day to also depend on which reactors he used over which times. In fact this might also explain the anomaly I pointed out. This is perhaps why IH has been after the raw data which gives presumably a much finer time stamp and on a reactor basis for some of the data. If you start out assuming that the data is bogus there is no sense in having a discussion about the data.

Quote from JedRothwell

If this is the cold fusion effect, what Rossi claimed is impossible. I saw that immediately when I read this exchange. It reminded me of the graph in Mizuno's book showing heat after death (Plate 19). Let me explain --

Output heat is input power plus anomalous heat. When you reduce input power, total output has to fall. Cold fusion does not instantly ramp up to compensate for the loss of power.

On the other hand, as Stan Pons pointed out, like many other physical effects such as fire, it does have a "memory" meaning that it "wants" to go back to the same temperature. So, by degrees, over many hours, it might gradually increase to some level close to where it was before you subtracted some input power. You see this happen in Mizuno, Plate 19 as well, although in that case it does not go back the highest temperature recorded before. In this case there is no input at all, but the temperature gradually recovers in two or three discrete steps over about 100 hours. It falls a little between each step. This is how real cold fusion heat looks. It is not stable, and it does not instantly turn on, turn off, or respond to control parameters.

For Rossi's claim to be true in this instance, he would have to have pinpoint control over the reaction such that the moment he reduced input electricity, he instantly increased anomalous heat enough to compensate. You couldn't do that with combustion, let alone cold fusion. There would have to be some fluctuation as the second source of heat turns on and ramps up.

I am sure that Murray understood this, but the lawyer who was questioning him did not let him explain. That lawyer is a nitwit who does not understand the difference between power and energy, and who admits he slept through science courses. His questions are idiotic and he does not understand the answers. On the other hand, he is an apt representative for Rossi.

Display More

JedRothwell

Thanks for your reply. My view that COP could go up in conjunction with a reduced input was more in line with the efficiency of the reaction. If you look at Penon's data the COP varies from about 50 to 140 give or take. The system is composed of multiple disparate reactors and Rossi's control system is varying the stimulus (and energy) in such a way to maximize COP. Given this (and assuming the data is correct) I don't see an inherent conflict and indeed would expect that the COP could go up if the input energy went down given the inverse relationship between COP and input energy. I don't see an inherent problem here. I think MagicSound's comment about it being a non-linear system may also apply.

That said there may be limits to how much of a change you can make to the COP given a change in input energy or other variables. I can change the MPG of my car depending on how I drive it but only up to a point. That however is a big unknown although your experience with LENR system behavior certainly holds sway. I think my analysis on day to day changes may be more interesting, but I guess not

I hadn't read the Wong Report (197-01, report Exhibit A-1) before and I've only skimmed it at this point. (There is just so much information there that it's taking me a while to work through it).

I did question Murray's statement that he finds that the COP goes up when the input power goes down to be problematic. I find Wong's explanation more convincing however based on the inverse relationship of Input Power to COP.

When I was looking at Penon's data via Malcom Lear's spreadsheet I did find an interesting relationship between Energy Input and Energy Output. I'm not sure if it means anything. I was looking for statistical oddities.

What I looked at was the correlation between Energy Input versus Energy Output. My hypothesis was because of the high COP, whenever we see an increase in energy input from the previous day we should see likewise a increase in energy output over the previous day and vice versa. Remember the COP is 80 and the effiiciency of the plant shouldn't vary too much from one day to the next. This is what I found:

........................I vs O................................ I vs O..................

U= Up, D= Down, E =Equal (the same). For example, UU of 57 means whenever Energy Input went up Energy Output went up (as expected) a total of 57 times. [There are two columns of data, ordered slightly different based on U/D/E but the numbers should be the same.]

Note that there doesn't seem to be a strong correlation. For example, UD when the input went up, the Output went down almost as much as they were correlated (UU) . I'm not going to hang my hat on this but I thought it was interesting and may have relevance to Wong's statement that the "output of the plant is approximately constant" given the high multiple of Input to Output. Maybe someone smarter than I can comment.

Sorry about the poor presentation. I hope it's understandable.

Quote from SSC

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?

SSC - Do you have the entirety of what IH said to investors?

I didn't think so. Don't make stuff up--it doesn't help your argument.

Companies, be it oil companies doing exploration in new fields or medical companies doing research on new drugs, always tout their products but also provide the usual caveats. Investors know this.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Folks, I think we all need to take a breather, step back, and let's look at the big picture. This is a historical moment for LENR and the events unfolding now will reverberate for many years into the future. It is too important for us to immediately dismiss each other or dismiss the evidence without very good reasons for doing so.

It is perfectly clear now that Rossi was running the operations and financing for JMP. The evidence reveals this. There are few questions remaining on that front. Rossi has essentially explained the scheme in excruciating detail during his testimony. If you think Rossi is lying about this in his deposition, then you would be more of a Rossi supporter than Rossi himself. He knows it looks bad. He knows IH will use this to their fullest extent. He laid it out on the table because he knew he had no other choice. He is human, and he messed up. He probably wanted to try and help IH attract the funding it needed to consummate the $89 million deal. Greed probably got in the way.

IH has also been less than forthcoming. On April 7, 2016, IH said: "Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success." But prior to that, JT Vaughn wrote: "After receiving the components from various suppliers, we proceeded to build the control equipment, heating elements and reactors, which we fueled. . . . They appeared to operate similarly and we believe they produced significant excess energy, though we do not want to report specific multiples until we have reviewed the data thoroughly and conducted tests using at least two thermal cameras to ensure the data is accurate." (emphasis added.)

Before you criticize my position, which is still neutral at this point, please absorb the documents and evidence as I am doing now. If you are the type of person that goes straight to the end conclusion, and perhaps just reads the brief, then don't even try to grapple with me. If, on the other hand, you are interested in gaining a complete understanding of what happened, and what is happening, and want to dig in as I do, then I welcome you to engage with me.

Display More

IH Fanboy

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.

To me what is important is that after three years they have concluded effectively that Rossi's IP as provided to them does not work and that, as you point out, Rossi has engaged in significant fraud throughout his association with IH.

And I have to say your words belie your statement that you are neutral. Case in point is you nick and the statement you just made.

The License Agreement allows for Rossi to use "commercially reasonable best efforts to cause Guaranteed Performance [GPT] to be achieved." Even if a case can be made that this was the GPT and that the Guaranteed Performance was achieved, is Rossi's 16-hour 400 day involvement during the test reasonable? I don't think so and so the test, if it indeed were the GPT, fails on this point alone.