frankwtu Member
  • Member since Feb 14th 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by frankwtu

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Mary


    So would the court want the (currently locked off) 1MW E-cat tested or a single module under laboratory conditions. This will of course go the same way as the Pons and Fleishmann replications by Caltech since we know Rossi has indicated there is currently no system that does not require his and IH's constant attention. But this being the case, is it reasonable to force him and IH to be absent from a test only he or they can perform, this was not in the contract.


    Yes I think there is every opportunity for a stale mate.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Mary


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    I am not sure why the ERV report matters unless it has enough info to uncover glaring flaws. If it seems to show the plant worked, how would anyone know the data were properly collected and were real?


    The ERV report is agreed (in contract) between Rossi and IH to be the trigger for the payment of $89 million.


    If as expected that is what it does then the only option for IH is to discredit it. They may go full on for 'fraud' or half throttle to claim it was 'mistaken'. Either way, the same scrutiny that Rossi's claims have had from you and others must be expected for any IH claims. You can see where this is going, the same way as this and other forum's, a stale mate between believers and sceptics. Any expert testimony will be easily challenged by either side to the confusion of the Jury.


    Then they will come back to the contract. What does it say? Well it says IH must pay Rossi $89 million on the production of COP >6 as reported in the ERV report. They will understand that, but look, none of us can agree on the facts surrounding LENR why should this be any different for a Judge, Jury and the court.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Mary


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Frank, what is an insect? Animal, vegetable or mineral?


    Asking this about an insect is like asking is cold fusion energy 'mechanical' 'chemical' or 'biological'?


    I'm not surprised you are confused. You along with many others, are not asking the right questions.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Big business would want to control LENR, that would be normal. Suppressing it will move it out of control.


    IH misjudged a tad then wouldn't you say!


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    (3) Does the contract allow for further independent testing? No!
    It certainly allows IH to test devices, they can do R&D on them and improve them. The agreement actually appears to have contemplated that IH would run the GPT, with the ERV observing. As we know, that did not happen. How is it that this did not happen? We only know Rossi's story, which is obviously self-serving. Is that story the truth, and, especially, is it the whole truth?


    It certainly does allow IH to do their own R&D but not as a qualifying condition for payment, only the ERV report can satisfy that.


    Jed


    Quote from JedRothwell

    Okay, in that case the question would be "Is it possible that 1 MW of excess heat was released in the customer site as claimed by Rossi and Penon in the ERV? No."


    You have got me there Jed, unlike you I have not seen the ERV report. But then you are not talking about MW hours only MW; over what time period? One year? One MW over a year would be just a few watts a day, so no heat from the vent and COP >50 job sorted.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Nobody


    Quote from nobody

    Were i the court, would order Rossi to submit the device to a court-appointed independent test. If it passes, IH owes.


    Its far more complex than that. IH have never categorically said Rossi's invention does not work only that they have tried to validate it without success.


    In order to win, IH must show breach of contract by Rossi or fraud. A claim of fraud by IH is not yet in the court docket and has only been hinted at by others.


    Yes wouldn't it be nice for the invention to be tested by an independent competent person, do you know of any that would be agreeable to IH and Rossi and the court? Dr. Nathan Lewis or Dr. Steven E. Koonin of Caltech maybe.


    http://partners.nytimes.com/li…50399sci-cold-fusion.html


    Best regards
    Frank

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Alain


    I liked your summary very much, If all hangs on the sincerity of Jed and Dewey, I would not like to be in IH et al's shoes right now. But in reality, Jones Day and their clients will be making their own case perhaps markedly different and applying legal logic quite alien to our resident 'insiders'. And of course the same applies to Rossi and his legal team, which I am sure are much cheaper than Jones Day but I think should not be underestimated.


    I prefer to wait and see, whilst having a little fun.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    The issue in Rossi v. Darden, in fact, is not reality of "LENR" but twofold: did Rossi transfer IP and did the devices made by IH according to his instructions actually work when independently tested, or only when Rossi baby-sat them continuously.


    I agree. But this is my take on that:


    (1) Yes Rossi did transfer IP otherwise IH would not have been capable of building the reactors for the one year 1MW test.
    (2) Did the devices work, yes of course they did according to an agreed contractual test protocol, amended by IH but accepted jointly by IH and Rossi.
    (3) Does the contract allow for further independent testing? No!


    In any case 'further independent testing' cannot be presented to a court as 'unbiased' if it is motivated by a desire to avoid paying a contractually 'owed amount' . Look at how this forum in general treats with scepticism the so called 'independent tests' Rossi has arranged none of which stand up to scrutiny. How then will tests carried out by Darden et al convince a court when there is a clear 'motive' for presenting 'biased' results.


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    No. It's a "technical fact." However, then, there is equity, and a moment's thought in independence-space (a great place to hang out) would show that nobody would set up an agreement like this in the real world, where an $89 million payment is conditional on the opinion of a single expert, particularly if the expert is chosen by the one to be paid, and with no appeal and no recourse.


    None would set up this type of agreement????? Rossi and Darden et al did, and its binding. A single expert chosen by Rossi????? Chosen and agreed by both Rossi and Darden et al, in fact Darden et al had 'hands on' influence over the testing protocol which was amended at their request then agreed by both Rossi and Darden et al.


    So, Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax, much like your friend Jed, wrong on all counts.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Gunnar


    And therein lies the courts dilemma, how to prove the existence of opinion as fact. The Jury will be instructed in law by the Judge who will explain the contract has an agreed definition of success upon which $89 million must be paid. That is the ERV report.


    That stands unless it is successfully challenged which is possible but difficult. The only agreed test (agreed between Rossi and Darden et al) is the ERV report, any other tests and research will not be agreed contractually and will have little value, particularly because they will be easily challenged as biased and not based on the agreed contract.


    No; the ERV report is the only contractual standard and that will be presented as 'fact'.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    No IP transfer, no deal.
    2. The tests (Validation and Guaranteed Performance) were fraudulent or in error.


    1. There was IP transfer, IH built the reactors for the one year test. There was no time constraints on IP transfer as this was an area of constant research, ongoing over time. This therefore was not a 'breach of contract'.
    2. If fraudulent, as you yourself admit a very difficult position to prove (see my post above to Jed) if in error is the error 'material' and how can it be proven to be a reasonable cause for withholding $89 million when continuing IP transfer and development was part of the contract.


    Not out of the question I grant you but very difficult to pursue and prove particularly to a Jury, always assuming they stay awake.


    Don't forget that in general it is accepted that LENR works: Nobel laureate Brian Josephson is on the record that he’s certain the eCat is a nuclear fusion device and works as claimed. http://coldfusionnow.org/nobel…rms-support-for-e-cat-ht/


    Best regards
    Frank

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Jed


    Quote from JedRothwell

    Is it possible 1 MW of heat was released in the customer site? No.


    But there is no mention in the contract that 1 MW of heat is required to fulfil the contract terms and conditions (which is probably why you don't see it from the factory vent, that means nothing); only that there be a COP >6. There is no mention in the contract that if one or other party is dissatisfied with the outcome of the test and particularly the ERV (Penon) and his report that they are free to carry out there own tests absent of any agreement, nothing. So the court will consider the contract and if it is 'breached' not some pet boiler mechanic's interpretation of Florida boiler regulations, you are way off Jed with that one.


    The only avenue open to the sort of scenario you suggest is to prove Rossi and/or Penon et al guilty of fraud. For this to be successful they have to prove all and each of the following:

    • Misrepresentation of a material fact
    • Made with knowledge of its falsity
    • Made with intent to induce the victim to rely on the misrepresentation
    • The victim relies upon the misrepresentation
    • The victim suffers damages as a result

    Its a bit like the motion to dismiss, some may stick but unless you can get them all to stick without question and thereby convince the Jury; its a non starter.


    Rends, your post above shows just how IH thinking dramatically changed when $89 million became due. An excellent find.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Wyttenbach


    So since IH built the modules for the E-cat 1 Mw plant, the fraud exercised by Rossi over IH must be restricted to the fuel. So to prove Rossi a fraud, the fuel can be the only suspect then? Is that what you are saying? Or maybe Penon and the ERV report.


    I think that is going to be so difficult to convince a Jury, providing they can stay awake. I can see it now:

    • AR "members of the Jury - my expert, a nuclear physicist, says my invention works, here are his 4 reports all saying the same thing and here is a picture of Mr Darden after seeing one of them, he is very happy don't you think".
    • D members of the Jury, my expert - well not my original expert, but a new one, the one we employed just after we refused to pay the $89 million, not the one agreed in the contract, he says the invention does not work. No there is no coincidence with us not paying the balance agreed, it just happened that way, no he's not biased he is completely independent. Is he competent you ask? Well he is an HVAC engineer, how do we know, well you can see he has his boiler suit on and his tool box with him. No he's not an expert in cold fusion, we didn't share any of Rossi's IP with cold fusion experts who might turn out to be his competitors, thats why we had to use this boiler guy".


    But then DW is not IH's representative and may have it all wrong.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Mary


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    While we're on animal stories, I suspect that Jones Day is taking its time on the way to squashing Rossi like a cockroach.


    A cockroach is an insect Mary not an animal. But then why should we be concerned with facts? I suspect Jones Day is gearing up for a bluff at the mediation.


    But who will blink first?


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Some Thoughts on the Design and Operation of Rossi’s LENR Reactors (Michael Lammert)

    Extract:
    "To achieve a COP of >50 in the 1MW system it is not likely that high power external heat was supplied to the reactors a any time other than the system start up. It is more likely that the reactor temperature is controlled by adjusting the amplitude of a waveform that is optimized in frequency and shape to promote fusion reactions within the reactor. If this conclusion is correct, scientists trying to replicate Rossi’s work would be more likely to achieve success by using one power source to supply heat to a reactor during start up and a separate waveform generator to supply the reactor with a range of high frequency signals that can be optimized to promote fusion reactions within the reactor. After optimizing the waveform, the fusion reaction rate within the reactor can be controlled by feedback to the waveform generator, and the heater power supply can be turned off".


    Best regards
    Frank

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Alan


    Very interesting, particularly this:


    Fraud as a human activity can be hard to get a handle on, but the legal elements of a fraud are more readily defined. Generally stated, these include:


    • Misrepresentation of a material fact
    • Made with knowledge of its falsity
    • Made with intent to induce the victim to rely on the misrepresentation
    • The victim relies upon the misrepresentation
    • The victim suffers damages as a result


    The key distinction between fraud and other types of theft hinges on the first element: the perpetrator acts by misrepresentation, as opposed to larceny, in which the perpetrator uses force or stealth to secure another’s property.


    From the point of view of IH, for the fraud charge to stick Penon's ERV report must not only be discredited but proven to be constructed with falsity and misrepresentation as its purpose. I think now the report will quickly become 'discoverable' if this is the case. So the plot thickens!!


    This of course could backfire in the face of IH et al (if of course Penon is the target, it may be just bluster, perhaps a mediation ploy).


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Court-Ordered Mediation Scheduled For Jan 2017 in Rossi v. Industrial Heat Case

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    What Hermes wrote was correct, i.e, if Rossi had taught IH how to make devices that worked when independently tested, where all that was needed was some more engineering for practicality, etc., there would have been no trouble raising, not just $89 million, but a lot more, perhaps $1 billion. IH set out to break the logjam. Something was stopping Rossi and they decided it was important to find out.


    But it was never in the contract that Rossi should teach IH how to make devices that worked when independently tested; only that Rossi should transfer the IP and provide support (and to pay up on a positive ERV report), and on the provision of IP and support there was no time limit like there was on the payment of the $89 million.


    Best regards
    Frank