Posts by JedRothwell

    It is about the intentions of both parties. And since IH's intentions are very clear, especially by the evidence of them showing third parties, that might or might not be asked to testify,

    That has nothing remotely to do with the lawsuit. There is not a word about that in the suit. In any case, I.H. was completely normal and within its rights showing third parties anything they wanted.


    This lawsuit is not about whatever you people on Planet Rossi imagine it might be.

    This experimental write-up was fascinating to read. As always with Rossi work you need to look carefully at what seems odd to detect the likely error.

    I think you mean "a likely error." Not "the" error, because you cannot be sure there was an error. Even now, after all that has happened, it is possible this test actually demonstrated real excess heat. Not likely, I will grant, but strictly on scientific grounds you cannot rule it out.


    As I said before, I thought this test was pretty good. I still think so. I was distressed to see the follow-up Lugano test was worse, not better.

    This trial is not about a missing signature

    Yes, it is. This is about business. Legal issues such as signatures are more important than thermodynamics. If a contract is not signed, it is invalid and you don't have to pay.


    That doesn't mean I.H. can keep the IP, scot-free. If Rossi's gadget worked, and I.H. did not pay, eventually he could force them to give up the rights to the IP. He could probably sue them for a lot of money, once they start selling the technology. But he cannot sue them today, based on that contract for an ERV test, because the contract wasn't signed properly.


    They also do not have to pay because the test was a sloppy mess. As I said, consumer protection laws say you do not have to pay for a failed product. That applies to non-tangible products such as software or a physics test as much as it applies to new houses that collapse, lemon automobiles, leaking swimming pools, etc. You sign a paper promising to pay for your new house, but if it falls to pieces and the builder is at fault, you don't have to pay. Even if I.H. agreed beforehand that Penon would be the arbiter, when all expert witnesses say Penon's report is invalid, I.H. is off the hook. You will not find any expert witness who says Penon's report and this test was valid.

    Following your reasoning, you think that is more conceivable that if I betray my wife, instead of confessing my action to a friend of mine I run to her telling everything...... How can you think that since IH told you their doubts then they should have done it also with Woodford? Did you gave them 50 million dollars too?

    There are three reasons why I am sure they told Woodford:


    1. The Internet works in the U.K. too. Woodford surely found out all about Rossi. How could he not know that Rossi is a huge risk who has been accused of criminal conduct and lying?


    2. This is business. If you do not reveal something like that, Woodford will find out and then demand his money back. If you don't return it, he will sue. That's how business works. You don't hide critical facts from people who invest $50 million. That would be a crazy thing to do.


    3. They told me and several other people. Why would they not tell Woodford? I never heard from him. In fact, I had never even heard of him until recently. But I expect he has heard of me, and of others in the cold fusion field. I would be surprised if he did not consult with researchers. Any researcher would tell him that Rossi's reputation is poison and his claims are questionable.

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

    A quick search of legal opinions indicate that it can be introduced in some cases, but not others. The Cornell Law School says:


    "After-Discovered Evidence

    Definition

    In a civil or criminal case, 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. Upon later discovery, a losing party may assert after-discovered evidence, a.k.a. newly discovered evidence, as grounds for a court to reconsider a motion or order a new trial."

    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.

    I was going to comment that this seems like a trivial matter. Who cares whether Rossi wrote it or Penon did? Penon seems to consider any information from Rossi true. He is Rossi's lap dog, as I said.


    However, I think what you are saying is that one of the main issues in this trial is whether I.H. agreed to the test ahead of time. As I recall, by mutual agreement Penon was designated as the "ERV" -- a sort of impartial observer. So, if he did not write the report, it wouldn't be the ERV report, and it doesn't count. That would be yet another reason to reject it.


    I suppose Penon has to come to the courtroom during the trial and say under oath that he wrote the report, and it contains his own professional evaluation. If he doesn't do that, I suppose the report would not be allowed as evidence. If Rossi wrote it, it wouldn't count because I.H. would not agree to let him be the judge of his own test.


    Perhaps Penon would not have to come. Would a signature alone suffice? I wouldn't know. I have not seen a signature on the ERV report itself, but perhaps there was a signed cover letter from Penon. I wouldn't know about that, either.

    @ JED: That's the problem. They got quarterly Penon reports and didn't complain (about the travesty.. defect pressure meter..) until they got the final one.

    They did complain. Loudly. Often.


    And complain means: "In written words signed and sealed with an attorney!"

    Legally all burden is on IH. The law is very clear. If you don't complain in time, then the hurdle is very, very high.

    Who told you they did not do this? Where did you get this information?

    I'm certain that if the Judge needs an Expert they need e.g. from MIT regarding LENR or any other University for general Engineering.

    The judge cannot call in an expert from MIT or anywhere else. The plaintiff or the defense has to do this, and they have to pay the expert. I.H. called in Smith, who is a superb expert witness. They are paying him, as noted in the deposition.


    In some cases, courts can appoint a "special master" but I do not think this case merits that. The technical details are not complicated.

    I do agree that the legal system and its reliance on so-called experts for evidence can get so flaky that it is conceivable that Rossi could possibly win.

    I hope not! I think the jury would be flaky in that scenario, rather than the system.

    As for forcing independent testing, if it happened, it would probably have to originate with IH. They would ask for it, offer to pay the costs and noting that testing thus far was open to question and that the stakes were huge.

    I believe the lawsuit documents show that there have already been independent tests. I don't know which documents. I have not read most of them carefully. That is what other people who have read the documents told me.

    Unluckily the burden of proof is on the IH side. They signed a foolish contract...

    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.

    Thus you can repeat it a thousands more times that Rossi hasnothing, IH did see any positive COP etc..

    To end this cheating game IH must make the first step for a newtest. Otherwise they will have to pay.

    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.

    No one with any knowledge of engineering in general, much less technicality of thermodynamic measurement, would suggest using a an IR camera for calorimetry.

    That is incorrect. I have seen it used in industrial calorimetry. It works well on a large scale. If you calibrate it and compare it to thermocouples, it works reliably.

    One can only hope that the court will eventually require such a test, perhaps with experts of its own choosing, perhaps from a prestigious government lab like Sandia or ORNL.

    I do not think the court has the power to do that. I have never heard of a court doing anything like that. Anyway, this is trial by jury, so the judge will not decide anything. Her role is to keep things fair and within the law.

    @AN: You just forget, that all useful reactors were built by IH...

    Rossi claimed that he built some. He claimed they worked. I.H. tested the ones he made and the ones they made. None of them worked. But, anyway, if Rossi has one that works, he can have it tested independently. If it works, I.H. will pay up. Or, if they don't pay up, he can easily win the lawsuit by citing the independent replication. Either way it is in his interests to have the claim confirmed independently.

    IH certainly will not allow any further (complete independent) tests until the trial is over.

    As Nigel Appleton has pointed out, Rossi is free to commission completely independent tests any time he wants. Nothing prevents that. His agreement with I.H. only covers commercial sales.


    If the machine worked as claimed, it would be very much in Rossi's interest to commission independent tests. He should have done that before filing a lawsuit. If the tests worked, I.H. would have paid him. No one would be happier than I.H. to see the thing really works.


    (Okay, I might be happier . . .)


    Many people would be willing to test the machines. He would have no trouble arranging an independent test.

    the biggest mystery of all in this "drama"---WHY supposedly experienced investors would fork over $10M with no due-diligence (I'd want my money back if I were an "investor"), notwithstanding anyone's hair on the back of their neck should stand up to someone hawking the greatest invention of the century with a bundle of crude pipe, hidden in insulation and a couple of thermocouples and heaters.

    I do not think I.H. was convinced by Rossi's crude experiments. My understanding is that they were mainly convinced by Levi's experiments. These were less crude. More professional. The first one was impressive. I still think it might have shown real excess heat. The IR camera readings were backed up by a thermocouple. The second set of experiments at Lugano were a big step backward. They were worse. I find this baffling. Usually, when a group of scientists do an experiment the second time, they do a better job.


    The initial evaluations of Lugano were lukewarm. Many people later decided there were significant problems with it. I do not know the timeline or the details, but I believe I.H. paid Rossi mainly because Lugano was positive. There may have been another test. I have not read the lawsuit documents about this, and I have not discussed it with I.H.

    In my opinion, these organizations are slightly at fault. Madoff deserves most of the blame, but they deserve a small slice.


    First, because they should have known better. They had a fiduciary responsibility to check into the claims more closely, and consult with experts.


    Second, for a more subtle reason. As the saying goes, "you can't cheat an honest man." The decision makers at these organizations thought they had an inside edge. An advantage over the rest of society. They thought they were getting a special deal -- an extra high return on investment that an ordinary Joe putting his money in the bank could never dream of getting. That is slightly unethical. Okay, that's capitalism. In real life wealthy people do often get inside information and an inside chance to make more money that ordinary folks do not get. But when the opportunity is apparently as wonderful as what Madoff offered, and supposedly risk free, if it had been real, I think it would verge on unethical. This is what the Marxists call rentier capitalism, and I think it has a bad smell.


    I do not find it unethical when wealthy people risk their money and get a large return. That's what I.H. was doing. No one knows better than I how risky cold fusion is! But when wealthy people think the risk is low and yet the return is gigantic, they contribute to the growing inequality of society and justified resentment against capitalism. They are knowingly playing in a rigged system. They shouldn't do that. They should insist that such opportunities be made available to all people, including middle class and poor people with a little money to invest. That is how public stock markets are supposed to work. That's the whole point of the stock market. Originally, anyway. Nowadays it is just computers trying to outwit other computers.

    "Gullible" Juries out there ?

    Did you understand that you are insulting the US Justice system ?

    Yes, I do realize that. Many people insult the U.S. justice system, and various other government institutions. In some cases they deserve to be insulted.


    But you should note, I am insulting some juries, in some cases. Not all juries. There are millions of trials and juries, so there are bound to be some stinkers among them. So . . . What was your point again? Are you trolling, by any chance?

    You "occasionally read" and then you know more than all a Jury ?

    I know more than some juries.

    We have been over this one loads of times. It is at term that is certainly used by European power plant engineers etc as a way of describing the continuous output rating of a system (or systems) as distinct from its peak power capability.

    Yes, I know. But it seems a little odd to use this to describe a laboratory experiment, the way Arata does. Plus, he does not use it to describe a discrete set of events occurring over 1 day, or 1 week, which is what I think the power company people do.

    What was Bernie Madoff's?

    I think Madoff must have been somewhat crazy. He was wealthy by legitimate means. He was widely respected and influential with inside connections, which meant he had many opportunities to become more wealthy. Yet, at some point, he launched a Ponzi scheme. Such schemes always fail in the end. It seems like a crazy, self-destructive thing to do. He must have realized he would end up in prison.


    Rossi also strikes me as somewhat crazy. It is hard to judge.

    Nobody can rightly say that POTUS is honest but he is recognized as a first class businessman.

    Not by me! For as long as I have known about him from mass media accounts, I have considered him a con-man and a thief. He has a reputation for stealing from vendors and business partners. He lost money in the casino business, of all things. Running a casino is like having a license to print money.


    I did not pay much attention to Trump before last year, but I never thought of him as a first class businessman.

    he is embroiled in a completely idiotic but very expensive law suit which he can not win,

    I hope you are right about that. I know little about lawsuits so I cannot judge. There are gullible juries out there. In the news I occasionally read about lawsuits that seem unjust.


    I know a lot about the facts of the matter here and I am sure Rossi deserves to lose. But, on this subject, let me say that you have to be cautious about judging lawsuits. There are cases in which it seems a judgement was unfair or frivolous, or the outcome was a miscarriage of justice. The mass media has sometimes played up such stories. In some cases, if you examine the facts closely, you find that is not true. A dramatic example was "The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case." This was widely distorted in the mass media, making the plaintiff look bad. The plaintiff, S. Leibeck, was nearly killed by severe burns from dangerously hot coffee, through no fault of her own. Leading mass media pundits accused her of driving while drinking coffee, which was not at all what happened. See:


    https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

    Rossi has demonstrated that he DEFINITELY DOES NOT have good engineering skills in any traditional sense.

    I strongly agree.

    laughable - He doesn't even know how to multiply by 1 see watt hours/hour and then there is a claim of endothermic chemistry that can mysteriously soak up 1MW for a year unnoticed. (of course he change that when he got caught)

    Yes. What was with that? Did he actually expect to fool anyone with such a weird claim? Ditto the invisible heat exchanger in the mezzanine. Apart from IH Fanboy and a few other people on Planet Rossi, no one would believe that. You can see in the photos from Penon that there are no pipes going from the pretend customer site up to the mezzanine. No sane engineer would put a 1 MW heat exchanger inside a building. You would put it outside, of course.


    I hope he is not able to persuade gullible members of jury with this kind of nonsense.


    However, regarding "watt hours per hour," Arata and a few other elderly Japanese scientists use that expression. I don't understand why, but they do.

    One of the pressure sensors failed very early in the test, aswritten I an AR e-mail to all IH people. But all instruments weredoubled – also the thermocouples.

    They were not doubled as far as I know. People who saw the test equipment did not tell me there were redundant instruments. They are not shown in Penon's schematic. Perhaps Rossi said this on his blog, but Rossi often lies.

    Why Penon still used the failed one is a mystery. In the same AR'se-mail, he writes about a COP of 33.


    Look at Penon's data. It shows 0.0 bar for every day for the entire test, including the first days. The pressure gauge did not "fail"; it never worked in the first place. Not from the first day. Either that, or Penon's pressure data is fake.


    My guess is that the data is fake, because if Penon showed the actual pressure, everyone would see the water was pressurized liquid, not steam. The temperature is so low that even a little pressure would ensure this.

    I would ask everybody to reevaluate their statements based onthese facts...known by IH!

    These "facts" are not true. But suppose they were true. Suppose there is a record of the actual pressure. Suppose also that the test was actually legitimate, and all of the problems can be explained. The question remains: Would you pay $89 million based on this report?


    Do you think this report as written is good enough to justify paying eighty-nine-million dollars? Given the problems such as 0.0 bar, no explanation of how 1 MW could be dissipated, and no mention of critical components such as mezzanine heat exchanger and the extra pump, don't you think a better report is called for? If there is a true record of the pressure, why wasn't it included in this report? If there were redundant instruments, why didn't the report say this?


    I would think that even the most enthusiastic Rossi supporter would see that this is an amateur report, full of obvious mistakes. It leaves out critical aspects of the test. A professional scientist seeking a multi-million dollar payment should do a better test and write a better report.

    [Rossi's] energy level and work ethic have left former colleagues both amazed and exhausted at times

    Yes, I have heard that from people who worked with him, including people who now despise him.


    He is one of the strangest people I have ever encountered. That's saying a lot, because cold fusion, like all new science, attracts strange people.

    IH objected, but purely on a formal basis. They never really cared.

    No, they cared a lot!


    Let me point out here that you are speculating about events you know nothing about, whereas I am telling you about events that I experienced first-hand. As noted in the lawsuit docket, I visited I.H. and worked with them. I had no knowledge of their business plans or contracts. I knew nothing about Rossi's strange, fake company. But I did know what the people at I.H. thought about the test as it was underway.

    And what does it means in your interpretation ?

    I presume that anybody could be free to express his own opinion without insulting others !

    You are wrong. U.S. Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech primarily mean the government cannot interfere with the press. They also mean that a corporation cannot stop you from publishing something if you do not work for them. But they do not mean that the operator or organizer of this web site cannot ban or censor a participant here. Any private organization or corporation has the right to control all of the speech within the organization. It cannot reach outside and ban speech elsewhere. For example, the Wikipedia editors can ban me -- as indeed they have banned me -- but they cannot stop me from uploading papers to my own web site or to web sites other than Wikipedia.


    There are some other examples of protected speech not relevant to this discussion. For example, if you live in an apartment or nursing home, the management cannot interfere with your communication. (There have been court cases along these lines.)


    Not all speech is protected. Libel, for example, is not.

    [I see no evidence that energy companies are even aware that LENR exists.]


    Apart from Rossi technology there are many patents from e.g. Mitsubishi heavy industries and Airbus to cite just two big companies

    Roughly 600,000 patents are granted every year. It is very unlikely a decision maker at an energy company would be aware of the Mitsubishi cold fusion patent. That patent has no practical use. It has nothing directly to do with energy production. Mitsubishi stopped doing cold fusion research many years ago, as far as I know. Iwamura retired to work at Tohoku U., and the company donated his equipment to the university. That was generous of them. I appreciate it. But I doubt they are doing research if they do not have the equipment.

    Why they (IH) told that to you ?

    They wanted my opinion. They told several people, asking for their opinions.

    Even with a technical discussion company secrets can be transmitted.

    But they were not, in this case.

    So you heard only IH. You have not seen anything directly.

    No, I saw some of Penon's data. You have now seen it as well. Since it comes from Rossi and Penon, surely you believe this is what they reported. It was my opinion then, and now, that this data is invalid.

    Your certain knowledge = IH/Cherokee says

    My knowledge that the people in I.H. had doubts comes from the fact that they told me they had doubts. What better source could there be? My knowledge of the reasons they had doubts was from the Penon data.


    If you do not feel unhappy with the Penon data, because you see nothing wrong with 0.0 bar pressure or the same flow rate day after day, then you disagree with I.H. and with me. Perhaps you think they should pay $89 million based on this report. In that case, you and I have very different standards about how a test should be performed and how a report should be written. I wouldn't pay 89 cents for this report.

    Despite that Rossi thought he could pull-off the test, his technology works you know, he now started cutting corners when he encountered problems.

    Nope. His 1-year test was bad from the start. He did not cut corners or make it worse over time. You can see that in the Penon report data.


    I.H. urged him to improve the test during the year, but he did not.


    (I do not know about the other tests.)

    I agree that one of my working assumptions is that the deeply entrenched political and economic powers that currently control the world's energy supply do not want to see their control and profits evaporate due to LENR.

    I see no evidence that energy companies are even aware that LENR exists. To the extent that a few of them are aware of LENR, they are no more afraid of it than they are afraid of space-based solar systems or Tokamak plasma fusion systems. They consider both of these pie-in-the-sky schemes that will never be practical.


    Established energy companies fight one another. The coal industry is trying to outlaw wind turbines; gas and oil companies have it in for coal, now that natural gas is used to generate electricity. None of them are fighting to prevent plasma fusion or cold fusion.


    The history of commerce shows that established companies do not fight new competitive products until those products begin to take actual market share. It is always too late by then. See, for example, the book "The Innovator's Dillema."

    And since it is easy to see that those forces are extremely powerful and do not want LENR, it is reasonable to conclude that these powerful forces will fight LENR.

    Perhaps they will if LENR ever becomes practical, but they are not fighting it now. I know just about every LENR researcher in the world. Not one of them has had a problem with opposition from energy companies. On the contrary, some excellent research was paid for by AMOCO and Shell Oil. The only opposition has come from academic scientists, mainly theoretical physicists who think they know everything, and plasma physicists who are afraid of losing their funding.