I appreciate Dewey Weaver's periodic posts about the trial and the work by others in interpreting the court documents.
Whatever happened to the reactor/fuel that was used in Lugano?
Also a legal question: what if a) Rossi withdraws his suit, or b) the judge throws out his suit. Does this end all the "important information and evidence?"
I was referring to September, 2013 through January 2014, the time prior to the Lugano tests. This is the only possibility.
I disagree with your interpretation. Darden did not say "we have not seen dramatic evidence of energy production." He said: "we had not seen dramatic evidence of energy production." The word have versus had entirely changes the meaning. As far as I know, Darden was trained as a lawyer and knows very well his grammar. By using the words "had not seen," he is indicating that at some point, they did see dramatic evidence of energy production.
Compare "we had seen previously during our testing" with his later statement "but we had not seen dramatic evidence of energy production."
I believe my interpretation is correct--he was referring both times to the same time period prior to the Lugano tests.
You are also appealing to authority in place of an actual argument.
From Tom Darden' Email:
Prior to beginning work in Switzerland, we saw results that were more compelling than
we had seen previously during our testing and development period, from
September, 2013 through January, 2014. Similar results were reported to have
occurred in Italy, before we were involved, but we had not seen dramatic
evidence of energy production.
If I might paraphrase this: initially we did not see much. Right before Lugano we saw some interesting things like explosions that were more compelling than before and such as was reported in Italy before we got involved. But so far we have "not seen dramatic evidence of energy production."
This in pretty much parallels MFMP's experience. Tantalizing signs (explosions, neutrons, possible excess heat) but not definitive. There is no claim of excess heat in Tom Darden's email.
On the GPT, here is my view: everyone acted as if it were the GPT, including hiring an ERV, paying the ERV 50/50 IH/Leonardo, and all. I think that will carry the day with the jury. On the other hand, if the JMP situation is as IH has made it out to be so far, then that will work against Rossi before the jury.
It's amazing to me that the GPT does not seem to be mentioned anywhere with regard to the 1 year test. Of course we do not have all the data especially correspondance and emails. One would think Rossi would have said at some point this is the GPT (and indeed he may have) and could easily release such information in the court documents. Penon's test plan however refers to running 350 days which exactly corresponds to the GPT requirement so this *could have* alerted IH that this was intended to be the GPT even though it wasn't explicitly stated it was.
I once went through Rossi's blog with regard to the characterization of the 1 year test. It was very interesting to see how it changed in terms of what its purpose was. Nowhere does Rossi state that an important project/payment milestone depends on this test. Also Barry West said something like he only found out late that it was the GPT.
All in all, given the formal requirement of this test and the $89M riding on it, if the GPT was not mentioned anywhere then it would be hard to argue that it was the GPT.
No, of course not. But on the whole, I have found Rossi's statements to be more consistent than what is made out here.
Rossi has said very little. And it has been my observation that there has been a lot of mischaracterization of what IH has said leading to strawman arguments. 
Display More
I think in the exact opposite fashion.
Rossi has already stated in court filings that the appropriate taxes were paid. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have stated that there if it wasn't the case.
My guess is IH is going to fight tooth and nail not to allow Rossi to see Dewey's communications with IH. I bet they appeal the order.
The judge left that open. I'm sure they will appeal as that seems to be the standard operating principle here.
So you believe everything Rossi says? This whole case is about fraud. Adding taxes into the mix would not be surprising. I would think that the federal crime element regarding taxes would be enough to deter Rossi but who knows. It's unbelievable what has transpired as it is.
Re Doc. 170, looks like Rossi gets access to IH/Deep River Ventures communications, and IH gets access to Leonardo's tax returns. Seems like a fair swap.
If Rossi's taxes are still fair game, I would think that Rossi has far more to lose here don't you think? A condition of the license agreement was that Rossi was paid up with his taxes and that he would report and pay all taxes derived from the license agreement. Failure to pay not only would invalidate the license agreement but probably be a federal crime as well. Both sides no doubt are looking for dirt but I think Rossi stands to lose more if any is found on his side.
Darden et.al thought they were superior clever and that they could spare a lot of money by gathering the complete intellectual property with some amateurish chess moves. My feeling is, if you take greed into consideration, that both heads of Cherokee Investment had (maybe just for a single moment) lost all of their self-control and made wrong decisions, just because they are greedy!
Greed, arrogance, and good intentions--the usual suspects!
What qualifications in this area does Murray have?
I don't know. I haven't seen his resume have you?
Peter,
Good point. It was not spelled out that way in the Lugano report authored by Levi either. He was very clear that this was independent in the true sense of the word. Nor did he (Levi) mention the Swedes would be dropping in from time to time. He also wrote in the report that Rossi was only there to start it up at the beginning, and came back at the end to assist draw the fuel sample, but we now know Rossi/Fabiani, were there maybe the whole time.
One would think with the huge importance of this test, were the Hotcat to be proven real, that Levi, and those that signed the report, would have been much more careful in describing the roles of all. Especially Rossi's, considering the controversy over Rossi's participation in the first Hotcat Ferrara test, and their saying it was "independent", when it was not..
Shane,
Things may have happened as described in the report but according to Darden Rossi/Fiabini was supposed to be there during the entirety so there is at the very least a disconnect here.
Despite what we might think, Rossi's lawyers did make a big deal out of the contacts with Dewey Weaver and Dewey got questioned about it. And this act may have prejudiced these potential witnesses. Whether it amounts to anything we shall see. I hope not.
I am not impressed with Tom Darden's hands on involvement with the E-Cat. He is out of his element despite his eloquent evaluation of what is happening. Ditto for Dewey. There should be technically competent and knowledgeable people evaluating LENR technology including Rossi's E-Cat IP. Outside of Murray I do not see any real engineering and scientific know-how within IH. Things may have changed--I hope so. Murray probably would have shut down the whole 1MW plant test before it even started. Things never would have gotten to this point had that been done. Of course I have to say I only know what we find out here but from Darden's letter it strikes me as he (or Vaughn) was not managing things well. I'm just calling it as I see it.
If I read Darden's status email correctly both Rossi and Fiabini were to be present for the 3rd so called 'independent' test (Lugano) the entire time with the other professors showing up on occasion. This is getting to be too much.
Yes I think you have it. It's all a bit of a stretch and given what we know there is is no harassment, bribery, coercion etc. But it does seem to indicate that Levi is tied at the hip with Rossi, no?
On the other hand, and I'm no lawyer, once the case started, it probably was a mistake for Dewey Weaver to contact potential witnesses outside of the discovery process. The possibility of what the plaintiffs are claiming is one reason why.
I can't wait till June 26th when the trial starts.
Peter Metz - you're an expert and you've been asked to monitor, assess and report on a system with $89M at stake based on whether you say a system works or not. In fact, you're portrayed as a brilliant nuclear engineer / expert and highly touted as the best possible person for the job. Lets say that hypothetically - this is a test that requires an expert. As part of the basic expectations around this report, wouldn't you expect to have any pressure gauge / flow meter make, model and part numbers included along with pre and post test calibration / certification data as part of the report? We're talking about $89M and none of that was considered relevant by Penon / Rossi. In addition to all the errors, typos and useless diagrams, Penon didn't bother to mention any of that in his report. Questionable and curious or status quo on Planet Rossi?
At one time I was involved in developing large software systems. Testing occurred at all levels and included extensive test plans, test procedures, test reviews, configuration management, quality control etc. Subcontractors with expertise in testing were brought in. Any divergence from test procedures and configurations followed a strict and controlled process especially final acceptance testing.
I find that what constitutes testing here, from both IH and Rossi's perspective, to be almost incomprehensible. Granted not everything has been disclosed but from what has, it is still beyond belief that things have gotten to this point. It's difficult to not fault IH for some of this based on what I've seen. To put it more colloquially, "What were you guys thinking?"
That said, I'm still curious about water usage by the plant and the customer (JMP) and the "leaks." Does IH have this data? Is it relevant? Thanks.
Flowmeter evidence in hand IHFB - Planet Rossi is going down down down down down.
As in down the drain? Did IH ever get water bills for Rossi/JMP? Is this where the leaks went?
Also it seems clear from Exhibit 5 that the steam pressure was 0 barg (gauge pressure). I know it says 0 bar (absolute pressure) in the ERV report but I hear that it's common to specify gauge pressure as bar. This is Penon/Rossi after all. Industrial applications deal with gauge pressure.
Paid consultant, investor, what's the difference? We all knew that Dewey Weaver had a financial stake in this matter. I happen to value his statements about the trial. There is insider information there for us outsiders although you do have to work to separate the wheat from the chaff. (There is also entertainment value in his inimitable style.) I have no stake in this at all other than as an outside follower of Rossi's saga for the past 6 years. My biggest fear is that there is an out of court settlement and we never find out what happened. So far I am pleased that IH is continuing with this despite huge costs and I hope they do not settle out of court. I want to know if the E-Cat works.
@Bob
Based on the data, it looks to me that the off days were Sunday and Monday. Maintenance or repairs for the 1MW plant commenced on Tuesday. I believe that the FPL data was for the entire unit and included the 1MW plant, the front office space, the customer area, and the second shipping container housing Rossi etc. I also believe that the FPL is probably derived from hourly usage data. Things don't quite line up for me although I believe that the data in Malcom Lear's spreadsheet is correct in terms of sync with the ERV data and FPL data and is what I used. (I call it ERV data but I really mean Penon data).
Display MoreI just had a look, and Malcolm's data looks pretty good, and has skipped the extra first day, so it should map correctly to the ERV data.
My first 4 ERV days of FPL kWh values are:
372.4
401.6
427.7
528.5with a 483 occurring on the additional first day (that Malcolm did not add).
So I will look closer and see why my weekdays don't seem to behave vs kWh dips. The weekdays do match up to the dates, so I will double-check my X axis for any funny business.
What are the dates for those values? It sounds like they are the same (2/24-2/27).
Peter, feel free to use and/or adjust anything in that speadsheet and post with your own filename. I think Paradigmnoia is correct and Fabiani's measurement lags for a while and maybe slightly different values as well, suggesting the shifts were not whole days.
I'll have to look at it later. When I was doing it I only looked at the FPL data and assumed that Day 0 on the graph <-> Day 1 on the ERV tables. I'll cross check this tonight.
