Posts by IHSupporter

    In the USA, a scammer is anyone who uses fraud in hopes of personal gain. (note Rossi did ask for money as in your definition) Here in the US, I doubt that the court will" force Rossi" to prove it works. That is not normally done and notice that Rossi has already destroyed parts of it. The case is- if the agreement1) to have a starting date signed or otherwise agreed to by all three parties 2)nd if the all the requirements of the agreement were fulfilled in the time window agreed to, and 3) and in a manner agreed to -were accomplished. The production of steam of the proper quality and duration and restrains on the input power are secondary to the legal case.

    I am confused by the Rossis (apostrophe left out intentionally :) ) claim that in June 2014 he told IH that he would direct the JM plant. After all wasn't it JMP that was the "customer" for that 2 years of steam? Was JM even in existence in June 2014? But I get confused by the Matthew xxxx Matthey changes, and the JM/ JMP changes.

    Even if Rossi directed a JM plant, did JM merge with JMP between June 2014 and Feb 2015?

    Sure seems like fraud to me. Remember that is misrepresenting facts or fraudulent pretenses for monetary gain in Florida law.

    I would think that representing that he could not do such and such or that he spoke with the director as a pretense.

    Ha, I guess that's why we have one group of people saying white, while the other is saying black. Rossi has working LENR machines vs. Rossi is a hypnotist conman having had nothing for 10+ years. "Reasonable interpretations of the information on the docket" ? lol

    As to the Doral customer, we've known for a while that Rossi's lawyer was the legal representant of the facade company. That changes nothing about whether or not Rossi's machines work.

    And concerning the 1MW-cooking-alive-people-in-the-warehouse FUD, nobody ever pretended it wasn't ventilated out or endotherm'd in. Guess what, court docs provide no hard facts about whether 1MW was produced, and how it was dissipated, if it was produced.

    Finally, once again, court docs provide no facts supporting the character assassination and FUD that's been liberally spread for 200+ pages. Neither do they provide hard facts supporting Rossi's machines delivering what he says they deliver.

    Remember the case is not about the reality of LENR or of Rossi's claimed excess. It is about if the contracts were followed. The customer is important since Rossi initially claimed that the Doral work was for a 2 year contract to supply a real customer with heat and it was not initially called or agreed to be the GPT.

    I view all the talk about the warehouse heat,endothermic events, pipes, meters, utility bills,...just a fall back legal position and for information needed for the counter suit. Since the defendant is assumed innocent until proven otherwise, Rossi will have to "run the table" - not likely. Rossi and/or IH may try to appeal or make other assaults but the bottom line is that Darden has deeper pockets than Rossi.

    It is also very easy to inject air into the water stream to spin the turbine.

    Try to be included in the team !

    As a matter of logic what sense have to collect a testimony under oath of Penon if his report was not valid ?

    Come on !

    I have seen his testimony but I do not see the "oath" reference within the court docs.

    Realize that Penon's testimony could be used in the counter-suit against him. You seem to ignore all possibilities accept the assumed position.


    As a fact is quite sure that IH has a signed copy and that Penon can prove to have sent that signed copy to IH.

    Otherwise all the case was surely all the case was dismissed at his starting. (remember the IH motion to dismiss ?)

    That is what I am asking. Where is the alleged signed copy? Please give me a reference to docs that have been entered into evidence. I have not found it yet. Why do you say IH has a signed copy. Are you an "insider" within IH?

    Unfortunately there is way too much assumptions with little evidence from the Rossi camp. If you are quite sure then give your evidence - Please. I would like to know what it is other than just a feeling.

    Yes new evidence can be introduced after discovery. How could it be otherwise?

    I know that exculpatory evidence can be submitted after discovery ( potentially benefit defendants)

    I am unclear as to what accusatory evidence can be submitted after discovery. especially in terms of documents.

    It does seem that evidence that existed at the time of a motion or trial but that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to a court ruling upon the motion or the trial's completion might be possible to be introduced. But I am unclear if the prosecution can "surprise" the deferent with new evidence that could have been discovered before the trial.

    You don't need to sign a report if is clear to both parts that the author is you.....

    Could you imagine Penon saying "No I had not written it ?"........

    Be serious. :)

    In legal issues that has 90M hinged on a verification and approval of a report,

    I don't think that a report posted by Rossi, having a place for a signature but not signed is going to have much weight.

    In the US, it is customary for the "engineer" to sign and give a certified stamp or bonding number.

    Can you imagine Penon never coming out and signing or saying, " yes I approve the report"?

    What proof is there (I may have missed it) that the Report is truly from Penon and not just something submitted by Rossi?

    At the least, I would think that Rossi would need to show something that what he submitted was indeed from Penon.

    IHFanboy - you seem to be keen on sworn testimony. Can you find where Penon signed or under sworn testimony verify that what we have is actually his report and that he approved it? I am still not even sure if Penon's deposition was actualy sworn to in a way approved by the district court rules (remember it was out of country). Discovery is over, so it should be in there somewhere if he really "signed off" on it.

    Right now, all I see is Rossi says.

    If I was IH's lawyer, I sure would directly question the legality of the report as evidence. That the report entered as evidence was actually from Penon and not just out of Rossi's typewriter. Perhaps it is in Penon's deposition (was that sworn to?) but I haven't found it yet - so many docs.

    I am not sure if anymore evidence can be given after discovery and not sure if Penon would show up out of "hiding" to appear in court for testimony. Without some proof that the report is really from Penon, Rossi would have a hard legal go at it.

    Remember the case is more about the paperwork than if things worked as claimed.

    And your concern is? That the ERV report did not come from Penon?

    It was submitted by Rossi. I would think that for the report to be valid it must be signed or endorsed some way by Penon.

    If you assume the test was the GPT. then an official report from Penon would be critical to the case. I see no signature. Perhaps it is in Penon's disposition somewhere, but I don't find it.

    Does anyone have a link to any evidence that Penon signed off on the report. I keep looking and find the report but nothing along the lines that he signed it. Perhaps he wrote it or perhaps Rossi wrote it and was to have Penone sign it. At any rate, I don't find a signature anywhere.

    I find it interesting that Penon does not seem to have signed the report. It make me wonder. Perhaps there is a signed report out there but I haven't seen it.

    Let me repeat that they told me about some of the technical problems. Nothing about business or contracts, or the fake company. It would be unethical for them to tell me that and I am sure they would not. I do not want to give the impression that anyone at I.H. betrayed company secrets, or revealed anything about contracts with Rossi or anyone else.

    The discussion was strictly technical. My impression was that Rossi was once again doing a sloppy, inconclusive test. The problems I heard about could have been fixed. I sincerely hoped he would fix them. As I have said here before, that is why I signed up for Lewan's symposium, which Lewan assured me would only be held if the results were positive.

    Yes, that is about what I heard.

    The problems could have been addressed and fixed.

    For some reason people think that things are black/white, either/or, now/or never. My understanding was that 1) IH did not take the work in FL as the GPT, 2) they hoped that Rossi would "get his act together" and correct the mistakes. They would love to be the ones holding the trillion dollar tech.

    If Rossi really had what he said, then why didn't he re-instrument and start again with correct protocol, open lab to IH instead of barring their engineer from entry, allow independent data collection,..... Answer their concerns and fix the instrumentation. (instead of throwing out steam pipes and barring views of the entire system fluid loop).

    He was warned early but went full steam ahead with his behind the curtain tricks. If I had 89 M on the line for a test, you bet I would make sure that the investors had complete unfettered access and would joyfully allow them to add their own instruments instead of discarding steam traps and instruments. I would also have multiply redundant measures of everything and backup data collection that they could directly access remotely in real time.


    Murray said that "Tom Darden was the keeper of the trade secrets.· Nobody else knew anything about the details of the fuel technology." And he emphasized throughout his explanation of what was happening with the e-Cat and his replication of it. That was the reason. And as late as Christmas 2015, Darden felt it extremely important to protect the secret of the scam fuel.

    yes, and that was done so the info did not "get out" It is strange that Rossi accuses him (see the court docs) of giving the secrets to China and the others. It is like the Rossi folks want it both ways. Darden kept it a secret but gave it away.

    I seem to recall Dameron saying that they had to raise the water tanks and it took a loot of extra work making a support for them, The tank could have been elevated compare to customer's pipes/pump. I don't remember seeing it in any of the pictures.

    so much pipe fun... notice 264-19 where Murray says the pipe had a DN40 valve with about 5 elbows on the inside of the container.

    Might be fun for someone to figure the impedance to the flow for that.

    I am not good at that, but I would think it would really put a drag on the claimed flow rates.

    Bob, I have seen no evidence (but I may have missed it) that Penon actually sent the devices to the manufacturer and got reports. I sure have not seen any results of such claimed action.

    The problem is that Penon took the devices and not just mailed them from Fl to the manufacturer (the best I can understand) In other words, even if some devices were sent to the manufacturer, what evidence is there that they were the ones used and that they were unaltered before sending them on.

    The issue is that Rossi, et all must provide evidence and I have seen so little of it from them.

    Most of these things would have been resolved if there were controls used and test runs to verify calibrations. I know it is hard to do control runs at 1MW but that is the region of operation they chose. If it was science instead of just a show, a pre and post test should have been done. And to verify that IP was transferred it needed to be someone else other than Rossi at the controls to show it was indeed transferred to someone else. It is a sloppy mess. If Rossi could not turn it over to IH to run then I don't see how he can claim that workable tech was transferred.

    Taking the instruments out of the country that may be evidence against you does not sound like a wise option.

    My understanding (?- though not to clear) is that he did not send them directly to the manufacturer but took them himself (delivered to himself). That is why tomorrow's spoliation hearing should be interesting.

    Can you imagine a person under investigation removing his gun from a scene and mailing to one of his out of country addresses? Not a good idea. How does would that sound to a jury as an analogy?

    I think it is perfectly reasonable, and expected, that the ERV would maintain custody of the instruments. Would it really be fair to either party for the ERV to have left the instruments with one or the other parties? Not understanding that criticism.

    a much better option was for him to put them in the shipping container and leave it there under seal so no one, not even he could alter them.

    I think it is perfectly reasonable, and expected, that the ERV would maintain custody of the instruments. Would it really be fair to either party for the ERV to have left the instruments with one or the other parties? Not understanding that criticism.

    but why not return them after he had the manufacturer checked them (that is what he had promised)

    I am still want to know how you or anyone explains why the pressure readings from April (the 30 minute ones) were all below atmospheric pressure for Miami on that day. They were IH's devices as I understand.

    Your argument above - why would Rossi destroy the plumbing and not leave it for examination.

    Was the pressure sender screwed into a blind hole where the pressure never changes?

    Interesting idea. And it is items like that which make the spoliation arguments even stronger. How can Rossi claim the results to attack IH if he destroys such evidence? In Penon's test plan the pressure gauges would have been outside the container and thus the pipe they fitted in were destroyed and he sent the gauges out of the country never to be seen again.

    Where was the temp sensor placed? Out side on the now destroyed plumbing?

    Reading the latest batch of docs, it seems like IH has a strong case for spoliation of the evidence. destruction of data and email, destruction of the plumbing, heat exchanger.....

    And then Penon took the instruments out of the country and never returned them so they could be checked by IH. I am not a lawyer but the argument is convincing to me.

    IF I understand it the judge could throw the case just on that alone or perhaps do the forced adverse interpretation of the info. related to the items. That would mean the jury would have to do things like assume the instruments were not correct, the heat exchanger was not sufficient, the emails were negative to Rossi's case and so on. We should know tomorrow

    Alan F - yes,

    but they are countering Rossi since he declared war on them. It may be nit picky but it seem like the Judge is a stickler for letter of the law and 23 hr 30 min is not what was agreed to.

    If you were 4 points behind playing football and you got to the 1 yard line in the final minute would you think you won because you were so close? Would the bookie pay as though you won?

    And take a look at Dewey's email in this latest batch (262-4) #3 pressure readings on inlet and outlet.... flows over a range of flow temperatures.... things that look like they were not done.

    We may look at it as trying to see if there is an LENR effect but to the courts it is if Rossi did what was agreed to and did not misrepresent anything to achieve gain (that is what fraud is). It is about sticking strictly to what is written and representing things correctly so that the one paying is not mislead.

    Again, IH may have been clueless but working with naïve innocent people is not a legal excuse for misrepresentation or fraud.

    In a civil trial it's supposed to be the "preponderance of evidence" that determines the outcome. That means 51% takes it. But how do you account for lack of evidence (no pictures etc) or even spoliation? For me it doesn't look very good for Rossi and after you factor in this it's even worse.

    Yes, it sure looks like IH had put up more evidence in defense that Rossi has in his attacks against IH.

    Most of what Rossi has presented were attacks on IH's defense issue and almost none on proving their primary positions. If just one or two items of Rossi's claims are found to be discarded by spoliation then it seems to me that it will be all over for Rossi.

    Preponderance- yes. Not only that remember that Rossi chose the Fed. court system which requires a unanimous verdict. Just one juror has to think that 50.001 % of the evidence looks good for IH.

    I am so looking forward to Thurs. (spoliation hearing)