Posts by IHSupporter

Quote from Italianlawyer

Hi to everybody and sorry for my English full of errors. You know, Italians are not famous for they fluent English... 😂😂😂

I'm not a scientist or an engineer, but an Italian lawyer (not involved in this case nor in contact with any of the parties: I'm just exited for the trial and his outcome).

As reader of this thread, I respect people who think Rossi is a scammer, but respectfully disagree.

A scammer has a different "modus operandi". A scammer ask for money, doesn't sue big LLC, exposing himself to the risk of loosing his face...

I believe he really has discovered something and I believe in prof. Focardi, who was not a stupid...

By the way, the trial will force Rossi to prove his plant works. And we will have all answers we need.

I see most of people here are against Rossi. While some are in good faith, I'm not sure about the others... If a person has worked for IH, maybe he or she isn't an example of impartial observer. Some people seem to be to much interested in this story...

Display More

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.

Quote from LENR Calender

Paraphrasing Rossi's emails to IH:

"[...] something about the 1MW plant [...] I will direct the plant"

Then in his deposition he says that he meant he would direct the JMP plant.

direct the 1MWplant...... that could not be JM's .... they don't have a 1MW plant.

Quote from Roger

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.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Roseland67 ,

It has been a while since I looked this stuff up, but I thought the PCE clamps were Hall effect type.

Maybe they aren't. I am packing for a trip so I can't dig up manual at the moment.

Wyttenbach ,

It would be so easy to spin the water meter to whatever one wanted, if one were inclined to do so. Besides shooting a stream of water across the turbine, I think a drill with a magnet on a dowel could do it, too. One the water meter values are tricked out, any purported kWh could be faked.

Why anyone would let the benefactor of $89 million take the water meter readings the money is ultimately based on is beyond me.

Display More

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

Quote from ele

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.

ele-

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.

Quote from Nigel Appleton

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.

Quote from ele

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.

Quote from IH Fanboy

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.

Quote from JedRothwell

No, in the U.S. court system the burden of proof is on Rossi. The defendant is assumed innocent. You have to show strong evidence that the test worked, I.H. knows it, and it tried to cheat Rossi. I.H. cannot be found guilty if they have a legitimate difference of opinion regarding the test results.

Nope. Rossi would have to do that. I have never been in a lawsuit, but I have been in disputes over contracts. Unless there is strong proof the contract was fulfilled, the customer does not have to pay. The vendor can take back materials and refund the down payment, but he cannot demand payment when there is a dispute. (In this case, Rossi would have to refund the $11 million.) Consumer protection laws are strict about that. That applies to things like software as much as material things such as automobiles or a new roof.

This contract was predicated on the Penon ERV report. That is supposed to be proof that the machine worked. That report is a travesty. I would give it a failing grade in high school. To fulfill a research contract, you can't just hand over a half-baked report saying "it worked!" and expect to be paid. It doesn't work that way. You have to provide a professional report that experts agree meets the original design goals. You will not find any professional on earth who thinks the Penon report meets professional standards.

Even assuming I.H. agreed to let Penon be the ERV, that does not mean they have to accept a pile of slop from him. Again, business does not work that way. You might hire a distinguished architect and building firm, and agree to pay for a house they build. BUT, if a year later they deliver a rotting pile of lumber sitting in a hole in the ground filled with rain water and mosquitoes, you don't have to pay. Any business transaction is governed by common sense consumer protections. Rossi cannot trick people into paying by claiming there was an invisible heat exchanger, or by waving an idiotic report filled with elementary mistakes and impossibilities.

For those who have not read it, the Penon report is here:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf

I cannot imagine how even the most ardent Rossi supporter would think this report merits a payment of $89 million. As I said, I wouldn't pay 89 cents for it. It is the worst piece of garbage I have seen, and I have seen & edited many bad papers in cold fusion.

Display More

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.

Quote from JedRothwell

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.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@IHS,

I've never suggested that Darden gave away the secret fuel. He is guarding it like it is worth billions of dollars, probably because it is.

No but Rossi made that claim.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@Nigel,

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.

Quote from JedRothwell

Where did he say that?

Anyway, there are two possibilities:

1. There is resistance to the flow by something like a radiator.

2. The pipes above that end with a U, before the water goes down to pipe that returns to reservoir.

The flow meter would work if it were installed in a U, but it wasn't.

Display More

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.

THH do you know what day that was the Murray visited?

I can look up the weather for that day.

Wouldn't the AC at the control room just dump heat from the control room into the warehouse? Wasn't it just a container parked inside the warehouse?

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.