Think of the Jury

I’ve never seen anything quite like the E-Cat story. Over the last few days  here there has been intense scrutiny of every last detail that can be gleaned from the recent reports and photos, and the discussion/debate shows no sign of dying down so far. I think I understand the reason why there is such intense interest among readers — we are dealing with a technology which, if real, could have a profound impact on the world.

However, at the moment, I think it takes a certain mindset to get excited about the E-Cat and LENR. It is an unproven technology/phenomenon, and from my own observations, the average person is not that interested in technologies that may or may not be real.  I think this is part of the reason why we have seen so little interest in this field among the mainstream media — the average media consumer really doesn’t care that much. Most people tend to get interested in technologies once they are proven and are available in the marketplace for use.

It all makeors ws me wonder what the judge is making of this story, and what the eventual jurors will think about it all. We are here because we want to be, but this is just another case assigned to Judge Altonaga, probably complegely unlike anything she has seen before. And think of the jurors who are selected from everyday life to find themselves dealing with a subject that has probably never crossed their mind before, being presented with all the details that we have been following over recent years. They are going to be subjected to reams of documents dealing with complex scientific topics with witnesses looking at things from totally different perspectives. And my understanding is that the trial will last two weeks, so they will be expected to be able to come to an informed decision in a very short time.

Rossi’s team contends that he deserves to be paid because Penon’s report states that the plant exceeds the requirements  of the agreement. IH’s team contends that the Penon report cannot be trusted because it is impossible for the plant to have worked as Penon certified.  If I was a juror, I am sure the main question on my mind would be, does the E-Cat work? Can it really produce substantially more energy than it consumes? If in the jury’s mind the answer is yes, Rossi’s side would probably prevail; if the answer is no, he would probably lose.

Probably the judge is wondering the same thing, too. If I were the judge, one way I might think of trying  to resolve this dilemma would be to ask for some kind of new E-Cat demonstration or test to be conducted. Based on what we have seen, at this point, it doesn’t sound like it is possible to go back and recreate the Doral plant test, but it should be possible to have Rossi conduct a new E-Cat test with another reactor. It doesn’t have to be 1 MW — just something that can show that in principle E-Cat technology is valid.

I don’t know if this is likely, or even legally possible given court rules, but to me it would be a common sense thing to do, and I think it would be very helpful to the jurors who might find all the scientific and forensic debates quite confusing.

  • Billy Jackson

    if you cant prove your case then confuse the issue.. I fear rossi has the deck stacked against him.. just public opinion of cold fusion alone says it does not work. Those of us here and on similar sites have immersed ourselves in this knowledge over time and at our own pace and choosing. i fear that a Jury of general public individuals with no back ground is simply going to go on what they are told by experts and what they know. and everyone knows cold fusion does not work despite all the evidence.

    If IH cant prove their case they simply have to muddy the water enough to confuse the facts to bias the jury to rule against him.

    I Simply point you to earlier conversations here on this site and nextbigfuture. I have spoken with people at length about this technology and they simply don’t care.. its not visible and the term scam and hoax are simply to embedded in earlier judgements for people to let it go easily.. let alone a jury thats had maybe a few weeks to reach an uninformed conclusions with authority figures speaking out against the technology.

    Unless Rossi is willing to perform a test in court like he did for the Navy to prove his technology.. then he’s going to have a difficult time.

    (Unless he can subpoena those high profile military and NASA individuals to testify)

    • Skip

      Say the jury doesn’t support the Rossi claim, based that on the “fact” that CF isn’t real, and a week later someone/group like MFMP states they know for a fact it IS real and can, and do, prove it…
      Would the court accept an appeal?
      Would the suppression continue until our owners got their ducks in a row?

    • LION

      Hi Billy—(Unless he can subpoena those high profile military and NASA individuals to testify)

      If it is necessary I don’t doubt that he will, but I bet many will not require a subpoena, they will happily offer their support, for sure if I felt I could be of any help then I would not hesitate to do so.

    • doug marker

      We need to remember just what testimonials are relevant.

      It isn’t enough to ask someone to come to the trial and tell the jury it is their opinion that LENR is real. The jury are being asked to determine who did and didn’t meet the contract not to determine if LENR works.

      I agree that any IH argument put before them on the issue of scientific acceptance of LENR may taint the evidence but that is *not* what the jury are being asked to decide. In fact it would be impossible for such a jury to make a determination of if LENR is real or isn’t. But, they should be able to come to some determination as to who met the contract and who didn’t.

      There is a tricky fine line on this where our own biases warp our perception. Restated, the jury are not looking at this case through the eyes of LENR supporters/skeptics. The case is a commercial one about who did or didn’t meet contractual obligations.

      IMHO IH are on thin ice.

  • Billy Jackson

    if you cant prove your case then confuse the issue.. I fear rossi has the deck stacked against him.. just public opinion of cold fusion alone says it does not work. Those of us here and on similar sites have immersed ourselves in this knowledge over time and at our own pace and choosing. i fear that a Jury of general public individuals with no back ground is simply going to go on what they are told by experts and what they know. and everyone knows cold fusion does not work despite all the evidence.

    If IH cant prove their case they simply have to muddy the water enough to confuse the facts to bias the jury to rule against him.

    I Simply point you to earlier conversations here on this site and nextbigfuture. I have spoken with people at length about this technology and they simply don’t care.. its not visible and the term scam and hoax are simply to embedded in earlier judgements for people to let it go easily.. let alone a jury thats had maybe a few weeks to reach an uninformed conclusions with authority figures speaking out against the technology.

    Unless Rossi is willing to perform a test in court like he did for the Navy to prove his technology.. then he’s going to have a difficult time.

    (Unless he can subpoena those high profile military and NASA individuals to testify)

    • Skip

      Say the jury doesn’t support the Rossi claim, based that on the “fact” that CF isn’t real, and a week later someone/group like MFMP states they know for a fact it IS real and can, and do, prove it…
      Would the court accept an appeal?
      Would the suppression continue until our owners got their ducks in a row?

    • LION

      Hi Billy—(Unless he can subpoena those high profile military and NASA individuals to testify)

      If it is necessary I don’t doubt that he will, but I bet many will not require a subpoena, they will happily offer their support, for sure if I felt I could be of any help then I would not hesitate to do so.

    • doug marker

      We need to remember just what testimonials are relevant.

      It isn’t enough to ask someone to come to the trial and tell the jury it is their opinion that LENR is real. The jury are being asked to determine who did and didn’t meet the contract not to determine if LENR works.

      I agree that any IH argument put before them on the issue of scientific acceptance of LENR may taint the evidence but that is *not* what the jury are being asked to decide. In fact it would be impossible for such a jury to make a determination of if LENR is real or isn’t. But, they should be able to come to some determination as to who met the contract and who didn’t.

      There is a tricky fine line on this where our own biases warp our perception. Restated, the jury are not looking at this case through the eyes of LENR supporters/skeptics. The case is a commercial one about who did or didn’t meet contractual obligations.

      IMHO IH are on thin ice.

  • Steve D

    A successful quark demo now, pre-trial, will put Rossi in the headlines. Rossi is in total control of his fate. A confident jury is his if he wants it, unless he can’t deliver it.

  • Steve D

    A successful quark demo now, pre-trial, will put Rossi in the headlines. Rossi is in total control of his fate. A confident jury is his if he wants it, unless he can’t deliver it.

  • I think that it is pretty effed up that they are allowed to question Penon’s report like this – especially under the idea that the laws of physics supposedly won’t allow it. If they had a problem with Penon, then they never should have agreed to have him as their ERV.

  • radvar

    Rossi’s attorneys can cite hundreds of papers, name Mitsubishi, AirBus and others, and talk about scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century. I don’t believe the supposed “impossibility” of LENR is a deal breaker.

    • doug marker

      The problem with going down that line is that any such ‘evidence’ is not any proof of who met this contract. All such material would likely do, even if permitted, is clog the trial with confusing information that may or may not be adequately related to the contract.

      The ERV report says it worked. IH commissioned the ERV along with Andrea Rossi. IH are in a bind if trying to reject their own ERV’s report. IMHO this is the Achille’s heel of IH’s case.

      Again, the core of this trial isn’t about if eCats work, it is about the contract. If IH raise the matter, then they would have to explain to the jury why they are so committed to LENR investment. It is a kind of a trap.

      • radvar

        Concur. I was responding to Frank’s concerns about the “theory” being a stumbling block for jurors.

        • doug marker

          The jury will sure be busy just deciding why IH rejected the ERV report they (IH) commissioned. IH’s defense seems to be that AR conned Penon. A strange line of argument if this is where they are taking it.

          • Josh G

            No, I think IH is saying that Penon was in on the con. That is part of their counter-suit.

          • doug marker

            That claim is difficult allowing IH appointed Penon and IH accepted his quarterly reports.

            Doug

  • doug marker

    Amen ! 🙂

  • doug marker

    To the parent theme – Amen ! 🙂

  • doug marker

    Just to add to the conundrum, if IH allow Smith to include in his opposition, that the eCat is a scientifically impossible device, then AR lawyers might ask why IH is investing in LENR on such a scale. Add to this the demonstrations of Brillouin to selected US Govt agencies. IIRC, they have demonstrated over unity albeit on a small scale up to this point.

    Yes, this aspect is a challenge. AR’s best response would be releasing several small demo units that can repeatedly demonstrate excess energy – they don’t have to be big, just big enough to get past the crazy ‘its impossible’ calorimetry brouhaha that always arises with any LENR test. So is the QuarkX AR’s preparation for this predictable defence ?. One might hope so !.

    Doug Marker
    Sydney Australia

    • radvar

      I like the “why IH investments” line for defeating the “not possible” argument. Better than evidence of the possibility.

    • Alan DeAngelis
    • Dr. Mike

      Doug,
      Where in either of Smith’s reports does he say the E-Cat is a scientifically impossible device? He questions the consistency of the data taken and the credibility of Rossi’s statements, but he really did not make any comments on the actual E-Cat devices.
      Dr. Mike

      • doug marker

        Dr Mike,
        You may well be right that he hasn’t directly raised it. I was going from a recollection posted here listing a claimed statement from Smith.

        I do hope you are right and it has not been stated by him.

        Cheers Doug

        • Dr. Mike

          Doug,
          I remember the comment about a COP greater than one not being possible because I also replied to that comment in that it was not what Smith said in his report. Smith’s 2 reports can be found in the case files in documents #252-4 and #254-5 if you would like to read the actual documents. You might also be interested in some of Rossi’s e-mails to IH concerning the customer JM Products. See #245-03,08, and 27.
          Dr. Mike

          • doug marker

            Dr Mike,
            Thanks for that input. It is informative.

            Doug

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Even if neither Murray nor Smith made a definite statement with respect to this, in 237 (“Defendants’ response in opposition to motion…”), p. 8 it reads:

            „Plaintiffs claim to have invented a technology called the “E-Cat” capable of violating the law of conservation of energy by producing far more energy than it consumes.“

            (No comment necessary.)

          • doug marker

            Andreas,
            Thanks for that input – very relevant.

            Doug

  • doug marker

    Just to add to the conundrum, if IH allow Smith to include in his opposition, that the eCat is a scientifically impossible device, then AR lawyers might ask why IH is investing in LENR on such a scale. Add to this the demonstrations of Brillouin to selected US Govt agencies. IIRC, they have demonstrated over unity albeit on a small scale up to this point.

    Yes, this aspect is a challenge. AR’s best response would be releasing several small demo units that can repeatedly demonstrate excess energy – they don’t have to be big, just big enough to get past the crazy ‘its impossible’ calorimetry brouhaha that always arises with any LENR test. So is the QuarkX AR’s preparation for this predictable defence ?. One might hope so !.

    Doug Marker
    Sydney Australia

    • Alan DeAngelis
    • Dr. Mike

      Doug,
      Where in either of Smith’s reports does he say the E-Cat is a scientifically impossible device? He questions the consistency of the data taken and the credibility of Rossi’s statements, but he really did not make any comments on the actual E-Cat devices.
      Dr. Mike

      • doug marker

        Dr Mike,
        You may well be right that he hasn’t directly raised it. I was going from a recollection posted here listing a claimed statement from Smith about. A COP greater than 1 not being accepted by science ?.

        I do hope you are right and it has not been stated by him.

        Cheers Doug

        • Dr. Mike

          Doug,
          I remember the comment about a COP greater than one not being possible because I also replied to that comment in that it was not what Smith said in his report. Smith’s 2 reports can be found in the case files in documents #252-4 and #254-5 if you would like to read the actual documents. You might also be interested in some of Rossi’s e-mails to IH concerning the customer JM Products. See #245-03,08, and 27.
          Dr. Mike

          • doug marker

            Dr Mike,
            Thanks for that input. It is informative.

            Doug

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Even if neither Murray nor Smith made a definite statement with respect to this, in 237 (“Defendants’ response in opposition to motion…”), p. 8 it reads:

            „Plaintiffs claim to have invented a technology called the “E-Cat” capable of violating the law of conservation of energy by producing far more energy than it consumes.“

            (No comment necessary.)

          • doug marker

            Andreas,
            Thanks for that input – very relevant.

            Doug

          • TVulgaris

            I actually wondered why Rossi’s lawyers didn’t jump all over the “capable of violating the law of conservation” part, because there’s a burden of proof these were Rossi’s actual words.

  • Industrial Heat just trying to re-accommodate Rossi for his Successful E-cat test.

    • TVulgaris

      That took me an entire second there. I’ve worked to hard today…

  • Industrial Heat just trying to re-accommodate Rossi for his Successful E-cat test.

    • TVulgaris

      That took me an entire second there. I’ve worked to hard today…

  • LilyLover

    Ye all, I foretell this:
    The jury may be uninformed about the science but all it takes is a couple of dedicated members; they are going to “show’em” the truth.
    Natural leaders of the jury: Granted we, know no nothing about LENR and all the scientists say it’s impossible; if there wasn’t a fire, how did these smarties of the IH got befooled by the smoke? Then why are they filing for patents and unwilling to accept 11 M back? Why-O-why, the advanced venture capitalists stayed silent for one year? What kind of a lazy crook sets World record for endurance running? One who gets shafted by the Italian mafia and the big-oil, will be shafted by us no more. Cheap energy means cheap robotics. End of war. The system has killed our children, this is our chance to save them/some in the future. Let’s talk about the size of the award. Do we teach a lesson to IH or Cherokee or big-oil or the big-“Science” or all of them?
    Responsibility on our shoulder is big – if we deny Rossi, history will tarnish or/and ignore us. If we award Rossi for fake-Science, no money is lost from our pocket. Research presented to us was flawed. If we award Rossi for true-Science, we get a place in History and feel good for alleviating the in-“human-condition”.
    So, decide we must, 89 + 3 * 11 + 130 = 252. 130 may change from 0 to 200+.
    ***
    So said the grandiose QuixoteX

  • LilyLover

    Ye all, I foretell this:
    The jury may be uninformed about the science but all it takes is a couple of dedicated members; they are going to “show’em” the truth.
    Natural leaders of the jury: Granted we, know no nothing about LENR and all the scientists say it’s impossible; if there wasn’t a fire, how did these smarties of the IH got befooled by the smoke? Then why are they filing for patents and unwilling to accept 11 M back? Why-O-why, the advanced venture capitalists stayed silent for one year? What kind of a lazy crook sets World record for endurance running? One who gets shafted by the Italian mafia and the big-oil, will be shafted by us no more. Cheap energy means cheap robotics. End of war. The system has killed our children, this is our chance to save them/some in the future. Let’s talk about the size of the award. Do we teach a lesson to IH or Cherokee or big-oil or the big-“Science” or all of them?
    Responsibility on our shoulder is big – if we deny Rossi, history will tarnish or/and ignore us. If we award Rossi for fake-Science, no money is lost from our pocket. Research presented to us was flawed. If we award Rossi for true-Science, we get a place in History and feel good for alleviating the in-“human-condition”.
    So, decide we must, 89 + 3 * 11 + 130 = 252. 130 may change from 0 to 200+.
    ***
    So said the grandiose QuixoteX

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I’m afraid that the jury will get lost in all the dry details. Maybe added a Tucker like spin to the presentation could sway the jury. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djMYTM1p318

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I’m afraid that the jury will get lost in all the dry details. Maybe added a Tucker like spin to the presentation could sway the jury. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djMYTM1p318

  • Alan DeAngelis

    No one except us will give a rat’s ass about this case. Rossi needs to come up with another demo that will grab the public’s attention. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj-Rl-cgKxM

  • Dr. Mike

    “Think of the Jury” and “Think of the Contract”. Let’s start with the contract. The key clauses of this contract are IH is to provide Rossi (Leonaedo Corp.) with certain monies as described in Section 3 and in consideration Rossi is to provide services of which the most important are defined in Section 13.1, that is, to see that IH had the ability to utilize Rossi’s IP and to produce E-Cat Products. IH made an initial payment of $11.5M to Rossi even though he did not perform the “Validation Test” exactly according to the contract. What consideration did IH receive for the initial payment? Certainly not even beginning to have the ability to utilize Rossi’s IP and produce E-Cat products (working products, that is). So should Rossi be entitled to additional funds from IH when IH is not being provided with the information needed to produce working E-Cat products? From a contract stand point IH should have a least received $11.5M worth of consideration from Rossi before giving him any more money. The jury will need to decide whether Rossi was adequately supporting IH to see that they could utilize his IP and produce E-Cat products.
    Now let’s consider the Jury. As having served on a number of juries, I know what I was mainly concerned about, that is the credibility of the witnesses. Perhaps the jury picked for this case won’t be big on credibility, but in the deliberations that I have been in, I remember many comments by jurors claiming that “you can’t believe any thing that witness says” because he/she was caught in a lie on on of his/her answers to a question. How is Rossi going to come across as a credible witness? My guess is that after the evidence and testimony is presented on Rossi’s deception on setting up JM Products as the customer, they will discount any of his testimony that is not backed up by other supporting evidence. Was there a heat exchanger? My guess is the jury will conclude there was no heat exchanger unless Rossi can provide a preponderance of evidence other than Rossi’s self-serving testimony, to support the existence of the heat exchanger.

    For Rossi to win his lawsuit his primary goal will not be to show that his E-cat devices work, but rather to show that he has adequately transferred his IP to IH and to show that IH really can produce his E-Cat products. Even if Rossi’s team can convince the jury that the 1MW plant works as claimed (in my opinion they won’t be able to do this), they will most likely not be able to demonstrate adequate transfer of IP to even cover the payments already received. If the jury decides that IH really does not have the knowledge to utilize Rossi’s IP, then their final decision will be to return some money to IH for Rossi’s failure to transfer IP.

    • doug marker

      Great lot of speculations :).

      Not sure I follow each line you have put forward but any interpretation is a read.

      D

    • doug marker

      PS IIRC IH manufactured several reactors that were later used ? – does anyone else recall this ?

      D

      • Dr. Mike

        Doug,
        They definitely made the small units in the 1MW plant that did not work and were not used except at start-up, if I remember correctly from Rossi’s deposition testimony.
        Dr. Mike

      • Steve Swatman

        I seem to remember that IH made some odthe reactors for the Lugano test, that
        rossi gave them complete instructions and then they lost the plot and
        failed thereafter. Because they didnt take notes? were not competent?
        didnt think it was necessary?

  • Dr. Mike

    “Think of the Jury” and “Think of the Contract”. Let’s start with the contract. The key clauses of this contract are IH is to provide Rossi (Leonaedo Corp.) with certain monies as described in Section 3 and in consideration Rossi is to provide services of which the most important are defined in Section 13.1, that is, to see that IH had the ability to utilize Rossi’s IP and to produce E-Cat Products. IH made an initial payment of $11.5M to Rossi even though he did not perform the “Validation Test” exactly according to the contract. What consideration did IH receive for the initial payment? Certainly not even beginning to have the ability to utilize Rossi’s IP and produce E-Cat products (working products, that is). So should Rossi be entitled to additional funds from IH when IH is not being provided with the information needed to produce working E-Cat products? From a contract stand point IH should have a least received $11.5M worth of consideration from Rossi before giving him any more money. The jury will need to decide whether Rossi was adequately supporting IH to see that they could utilize his IP and produce E-Cat products.
    Now let’s consider the Jury. As having served on a number of juries, I know what I was mainly concerned about, that is the credibility of the witnesses. Perhaps the jury picked for this case won’t be big on credibility, but in the deliberations that I have been in, I remember many comments by jurors claiming that “you can’t believe any thing that witness says” because he/she was caught in a lie on on of his/her answers to a question. How is Rossi going to come across as a credible witness? My guess is that after the evidence and testimony is presented on Rossi’s deception on setting up JM Products as the customer, they will discount any of his testimony that is not backed up by other supporting evidence. Was there a heat exchanger? My guess is the jury will conclude there was no heat exchanger unless Rossi can provide a preponderance of evidence other than Rossi’s self-serving testimony, to support the existence of the heat exchanger.

    For Rossi to win his lawsuit his primary goal will not be to show that his E-cat devices work, but rather to show that he has adequately transferred his IP to IH and to show that IH really can produce his E-Cat products. Even if Rossi’s team can convince the jury that the 1MW plant works as claimed (in my opinion they won’t be able to do this), they will most likely not be able to demonstrate adequate transfer of IP to even cover the payments already received. If the jury decides that IH really does not have the knowledge to utilize Rossi’s IP, then their final decision will be to return some money to IH for Rossi’s failure to transfer IP.

    • doug marker

      Great lot of speculations :).

      Not sure I follow each line you have put forward but any interpretation is a read.

      D

    • doug marker

      PS IIRC IH manufactured several reactors that were later used ? – does anyone else recall this ?

      D

      • Dr. Mike

        Doug,
        They definitely made the small units in the 1MW plant that did not work and were not used except at start-up, if I remember correctly from Rossi’s deposition testimony.
        Dr. Mike

        • Jerry Soloman

          Dr Mike, your last paragraph will be the most important.

          “has Rossi adequately transferred his IP to IH and to show that IH really can produce his E-Cat products.”

          look to IH partner Brillouin Energy for this answer.

          • Dr. Mike

            Jerry,
            Although hindsight is always 20/20, it sure looks like IH would have been a lot better off to tie their payments to Rossi to IH’s ability to make working E-cats, rather than for Rossi to demonstrate that they work. I don’t think they will ever make that mistake again, nor will anyone else that wants to roll the dice and get into a future business venture with Rossi. Rossi really should not have spent one year in the 1MW facility; he should have been spending about halftime between transferring his technology to IH and about halftime advancing the technology (IMO).
            Dr. Mike

      • Steve Swatman

        I seem to remember that IH made some odthe reactors for the Lugano test, that
        rossi gave them complete instructions and then they lost the plot and
        failed thereafter. Because they didnt take notes? were not competent?
        didnt think it was necessary?

      • Jerry Soloman

        The Jury is definitely not going to buy the story that IH a sophisticated company with 20+ LENR companies under NDA allowed a $100 million dollar test to run its course then call the man and his eCats a fraud.

        • cashmemorz

          The extent of evidence is regarding the one agreement covering the one device by the plaintive and not others. What IH did with others, be they involved with LENR devices or marmalade is of no import to the case at hand. IH will be identified as a partner involved with Leonardo Corp. Other LENR entities are tied in to Cherokee which entities are an indirect association with Leonardo. No need for the jury to get tangential information that has little or no bearing on the case between Leonardo and IH.

          • psi2u2

            I don’t entirely agree. IH’s pattern of behavior looks like patent trolling, and that activity is certainly relevant to Rossi’s case for their alleged breach of contract. The extent to which the judge will allow testimony to that effect is of course a legal question on which I am not qualified to opine. But, as a matter of logic and reasoning, I think IH’s other activities in the LENR field should definitely be regarded as relevant — although not AS relevant as more basic questions like whether or not the 1MW plant actually achieved the COPs Rossi claims or was, as IH lawyers claim, a sham.

          • cashmemorz

            The other LENR entities that IH is gathering under their investment strategy may give a character reference about IH. And other side issues. But only to give the jury a general idea about what IH is about. If anything, should the jury get hung about who to side with, such side issues could be considered to swing the balance of justice.

  • Nik Agmk

    Sorry, but you are totally misleaded/misleading: court has just to decide wether Penon report is valid. It doesn’t need ECat work principles. To succeed report must be bulletproof clear and trusted. As far as I can see – it is not – with such a lousy backyard diy installation and “to say the least strange” (read as “total fake”) data.

    • cashmemorz

      Everything else is handwaving and or obfuscation. Proof of the pudding is in the tasting and all that. Contracts and how they are INTERPRETTED is extra legalities which in this case are hard to deduce regarding facts. Where facts are difficult to unravel one goes back to square one and tastes the pudding or, in this case, one measures the over all results. In the case of the E-Cat the over all results is the COP. If the ERV person in the test on which this case is based, is in doubt, then redo the test with a dependable ERV person or institution that is agreeable, not to the disputing parties, but agreeable to a third party expert in energy production.

  • hunfgerh

    Rossi and IH have a contract.

    Does anyone have an exact knowledge of the contract terms?

    What point (s) does IH complain about as a breach of contract?

    If possible, answer in two sentences!

    • GiveADogABone

      1: The Licence Agreement as amended.
      2: Complain to whom?

      • hunfgerh

        I do not know about the subject matter or the terms of the contract.
        I assume that the contract is a device for the generation of energy or a building instructions for this.
        The key points of such a treaty should be
        1. Device with COP> 1. always safely reproducible.
        2. State approval for production (COP> 1 = nuclear reaction)
        3. For market introduction (private users) Safety certificate with proof of disposal.
        If one of these points is missing, the whole discussion is not worth it

        • Mike Rion

          Well, I guess that ends the discussion then. All that effort for nothing.

    • Josh G

      Yes, a copy of the contract and its amendments was ‘leaked’ about a year ago and has been in circulation ever since.

      To explain that to you in a single sentence would require an extremely long run on sentence since there are many aspects that IH complains about, but it was Rossi who first sued IH for breach of contract, and then IH filed a countersuit, and if you want to know what their claims were, then you should read their motion rather than asking us to try to figure out how to whittle down several complex legal claims into a short sentence so you can be spoon fed the information that we have all worked hard to acquire.

    • nietsnie

      I believe the salient points are:
      Rossi will build a working example of his device and will run it. The device must run for at least 350 days out of somewhat over a year. During that period of time it must produce 6 times more energy than is supplied to it. In order to determine whether these requirements are met, we’ll hire an expert adjudicator who will arrange to measure the output on a regular basis and produce a report at the end of the test that says whether the above terms were met. If he says they are – then IH will give Rossi the money and Rossi will license the technology to them.

      At the end of the test the expert that both sides agreed to declared the terms of the agreement met. Therefore IH should pay the man.

      Now there are questions as to whether Rossi has been in cahoots with the expert adjudicator from the beginning. Also, Rossi arranged for a mysterious ‘customer’ to reside on the other side of the wall from the plant, purportedly using the energy produced for some industrial purpose. There’s some indication that he was never there. But, the agreement had nothing to do with the customer. IH’s case seems to boil down to: Rossi is a flimflam. Here are these situations in which he has obviously lied or misled. He claims to have accomplished the impossible. He knew the expert before hand.- they might well have been in cahoots. Please declare this contract null and void in spite of the conditions being met because obviously something fishy is going on here. The letter of the deal gives the advantage to Rossi.

      • Josh G

        Great, now can you re-state that in two sentences for Hunfgerh? (-;

    • Dr. Mike

      The contract can be found in the court documents file #245-01.

      IH’s main concern with contract breach was that Rossi failed to fulfill the part of the contract that was consideration for the money paid, as defined in section 13.1 of the contract. Rossi was to provide IH with the knowledge how to utilize his IP and build E-Cat products that could be sold. IH has not been successful in building E-Cats that work.

      • Stanny Demesmaker

        That’s not a convincing argument when 3 years later you were still in business with him and didn’t make a problem of it.

        • Dr. Mike

          Reading thru some of IH’s internal e-mails that are among the court documents, IH seemed to be doing everything possible to give Rossi the time he needed to be successful because success for Rossi would end up being success for IH. It looks like by June of 2015 they had begin to give up on Rossi- see document #247-1 page 11.

      • hunfgerh

        #Rossi was to provide IH with the knowledge how to utilize his IP and build E-Cat products that could be sold. IH has not been successful in building E-Cats that work.#

        Thanks for this INFO; Summary in two sentences.

        • Vinney

          The 1MW E-cat plant was an outstanding success. It was a prototype of what IH was supposed to produce for market, had they paid the remaining $89 million contract fee and with the continual blessing of Rossi, but IH had other ideas.
          I still say if they (IH) want to stay with E-cat technology, then third -party mediators should be bought in, devising alternative new payment terms, IP rights terms, revised distribution territories and manufacturing rights, that would be acceptable to the victor and inventor, Andrea Rossi.
          The Court case is now just a waste of time, just cut to the ‘chase’.

      • Patrick Ellul

        Does anyone have the link to the recent leaked photo of Rossi in front of a blackboard with some QuarkX information, that is mentioned on the JONP?

  • hunfgerh

    Rossi and IH have a contract.

    Does anyone have an exact knowledge of the contract terms?

    What point (s) does IH complain about as a breach of contract?

    If possible, answer in two sentences!

    • GiveADogABone

      1: The Licence Agreement as amended.
      2: Complain to whom?

      • hunfgerh

        I do not know about the subject matter or the terms of the contract.
        I assume that the contract is a device for the generation of energy or a building instructions for this.
        The key points of such a treaty should be
        1. Device with COP> 1. always safely reproducible.
        2. State approval for production (COP> 1 = nuclear reaction)
        3. For market introduction (private users) Safety certificate with proof of disposal.
        If one of these points is missing, the whole discussion is not worth it

        • Mike Rion

          Well, I guess that ends the discussion then. All that effort for nothing.

    • Josh G

      Yes, a copy of the contract and its amendments was ‘leaked’ about a year ago and has been in circulation ever since.

      To explain that to you in a single sentence would require an extremely long run on sentence since there are many aspects that IH complains about, but it was Rossi who first sued IH for breach of contract, and then IH filed a countersuit, and if you want to know what their claims were, then you should read their motion rather than asking us to try to figure out how to whittle down several complex legal claims into a short sentence so you can be spoon fed the information that we have all worked hard to acquire.

    • nietsnie

      I believe the salient points are:
      Rossi will build a working example of his device and will run it. The device must run for at least 350 days out of somewhat over a year. During that period of time it must produce 6 times more energy than is supplied to it. In order to determine whether these requirements are met, we’ll hire an expert adjudicator who will arrange to measure the output on a regular basis and produce a report at the end of the test that says whether the above terms were met. If he says they are – then IH will give Rossi the money and Rossi will license the technology to them.

      At the end of the test the expert that both sides agreed to declared the terms of the agreement met. Therefore IH should pay the man.

      Now there are questions as to whether Rossi has been in cahoots with the expert adjudicator from the beginning. Also, Rossi arranged for a mysterious ‘customer’ to reside on the other side of the wall from the plant, purportedly using the energy produced for some industrial purpose. There’s some indication that he was never there. But, the agreement had nothing to do with the customer. IH’s case seems to boil down to: Rossi is a flimflam. Here are these situations in which he has obviously lied or misled. He claims to have accomplished the impossible. He knew the expert before hand.- they might well have been in cahoots. Please declare this contract null and void in spite of the conditions being met because obviously something fishy is going on here. The letter of the deal gives the advantage to Rossi.

      • Josh G

        Great, now can you re-state that in two sentences for Hunfgerh? (-;

    • Dr. Mike

      The contract can be found in the court documents file #245-01.

      IH’s main concern with contract breach was that Rossi failed to fulfill the part of the contract that was consideration for the money paid, as defined in section 13.1 of the contract. Rossi was to provide IH with the knowledge how to utilize his IP and build E-Cat products that could be sold. IH has not been successful in building E-Cats that work.

      • Stanny Demesmaker

        That’s not a convincing argument when 3 years later you were still in business with him and didn’t make a problem of it.

        • Dr. Mike

          Reading thru some of IH’s internal e-mails that are among the court documents, IH seemed to be doing everything possible to give Rossi the time he needed to be successful because success for Rossi would end up being success for IH. It looks like by June of 2015 they had begin to give up on Rossi- see document #247-1 page 11.

      • hunfgerh

        #Rossi was to provide IH with the knowledge how to utilize his IP and build E-Cat products that could be sold. IH has not been successful in building E-Cats that work.#

        Thanks for this INFO; Summary in two sentences.

        • Vinney

          The 1MW E-cat plant was an outstanding success. It was a prototype of what IH was supposed to produce for market, had they paid the remaining $89 million contract fee and with the continual blessing of Rossi, but IH had other ideas.
          I still say if they (IH) want to stay with E-cat technology, then third -party mediators should be bought in, devising alternative new payment terms, IP rights terms, revised distribution territories and manufacturing rights, that would be acceptable to the victor and inventor, Andrea Rossi.
          The Court case is now just a waste of time, just cut to the ‘chase’.

  • FC

    Based on my limited knowledge of the case, if I was a jury member thinking in contractual terms only, the fact that one of the parties in the contract was responsible during the test for making the readings on which the “independent” ERV report was going to be based (and therefore, on which the resolution of the contract hinged), would strip the ERV report of credibility. Especially after finding out about that party’s questionable business practices.

    But since the other party accepted those terms for a whole year (not without complains, but accepted them nonetheless), the credibility – or lack thereof – of the ERV report becomes an irrelevant matter. The contract should be resolved based on the conclusion of the ERV report. Period.

    Furthermore, the refusal to accept a refund of their initial investment invalidates any claims by the defendants regarding the device’s performance. In other words, if the defendants think that the device doesn’t work, they should take their money back and accept the dissolution of the contract. Otherwise, any further action on their part becomes highly suspicious. Especially after finding out about their questionable business practices.

    • Josh G

      “Furthermore, the refusal to accept a refund of their initial investment invalidates any claims by the defendants regarding the device’s performance.”

      I remember that Rossi asserted this awhile back and Dewey said Rossi never offered to refund the money. Has there any evidence in the filings to back up Rossi’s claim that he tried to give IH their money back?

      • FC

        If there is any evidence, I haven’t seen it. My statement is based on information posted in this forum. Therefore, if that information is unsubstantiated, please accept my apologies for not phrasing my message correctly. I should have said:

        “Furthermore, if it is true that the defendants refused to accept a refund of their initial investment…”

        • Josh G

          No need to apologize. I was just curious if I missed something.

          • FC

            I’m pretty sure we are all missing plenty of things. 😛

            But anyway, it’s fun to make educated guesses with whatever information is available to us.

        • BillH

          I can think of a perfectly good reason for refusing to accept the return of $10M, always assuming it was offered. IH had spent a lot more on this project and wanted to recover all of it, even if it meant going to court.
          e.g. the additional funds they had paid to Ampenergo.

          • FC

            IH not only spent money on this venture. They also attracted a lot of money from investors. Would they return that money to the investors if Rossi returned the $10M to them? I don’t think so. Therefore, they gained something and also lost something in this venture. And that’s what the life of the venture capital fund manager is all about.

          • BillH

            You think IH just get to keep investors money just because they can? Of course IH would have to give investors money back, if asked, or they would also be open to lawsuits.

            If IH failed to return those monies, both IH and Cherokee would be a dead in the water company, who again would ever trust them?

          • FC

            I guess I didn’t express myself correctly. I was referring to the management fees they collect from investors’ funds.

      • Mike Rion

        You should not believe anything Dewey Weaver says, or Jed Rothwell either. They both have a financial interest in IH, which makes anything they say at least questionable.

  • FC

    Based on my limited knowledge of the case, if I was a jury member thinking in contractual terms only, the fact that one of the parties in the contract was responsible during the test for making the readings on which the “independent” ERV report was going to be based (and therefore, on which the resolution of the contract hinged), would strip the ERV report of credibility. Especially after finding out about that party’s questionable business practices.

    But since the other party accepted those terms for a whole year (not without complains, but accepted them nonetheless), the credibility – or lack thereof – of the ERV report becomes an irrelevant matter. The contract should be resolved based on the conclusion of the ERV report. Period.

    Furthermore, the refusal to accept a refund of their initial investment invalidates any claims by the defendants regarding the device’s performance. In other words, if the defendants think that the device doesn’t work, they should take their money back and accept the dissolution of the contract. Otherwise, any further action on their part becomes highly suspicious. Especially after finding out about their questionable business practices.

    • Josh G

      “Furthermore, the refusal to accept a refund of their initial investment invalidates any claims by the defendants regarding the device’s performance.”

      I remember that Rossi asserted this awhile back and Dewey said Rossi never offered to refund the money. Has there any evidence in the filings to back up Rossi’s claim that he tried to give IH their money back?

      • FC

        If there is any evidence, I haven’t seen it. My statement is based on information posted in this forum. Therefore, if that information is unsubstantiated, please accept my apologies for not phrasing my message correctly. I should have said:

        “Furthermore, if it is true that the defendants refused to accept a refund of their initial investment…”

        • Josh G

          No need to apologize. I was just curious if I missed something.

          • FC

            I’m pretty sure we are all missing plenty of things. 😛

            But anyway, it’s fun to make educated guesses with whatever information is available to us.

        • BillH

          I can think of a perfectly good reason for refusing to accept the return of $10M, always assuming it was offered. IH had spent a lot more on this project and wanted to recover all of it, even if it meant going to court.
          e.g. the additional funds they had paid to Ampenergo.

          • FC

            IH not only spent money on this venture. They also attracted a lot of money from investors. Would they return that money to the investors if Rossi returned the $10M to them? I don’t think so. Therefore, they gained something and also lost something in this venture. And that’s what the life of the venture capital fund manager is all about.

          • BillH

            You think IH just get to keep investors money just because they can? Of course IH would have to give investors money back, if asked, or they would also be open to lawsuits.

            If IH failed to return those monies, both IH and Cherokee would be a dead in the water company, who again would ever trust them?

          • FC

            I guess I didn’t express myself correctly. I was referring to the management fees they collect from investors’ funds.

      • Mike Rion

        You should not believe anything Dewey Weaver says, or Jed Rothwell either. They both have a financial interest in IH, which makes anything they say at least questionable.

  • GiveADogABone

    The core fact in this case is the CoP being greater or less than six.
    Which is it?

    The jury is the trier-of-fact. First they decide if the Licence Agreement was a valid contract. If valid, then the ERV report is right until IH prove it wrong.

    After that, the only information the jury needs is that required to determine if the CoP was above or below six. That requires three pieces of information, electricity in, mass flow rate and specific enthalpy change.

    The electricity in and mass flow rate come from instruments. The specific enthalpy change comes from the properties of water at varying pressures and temperatures which in turn requires more instruments to determine those pressures and temperatures.

    The IH experts’ testimony and depositions about the output of those instruments were a joke when measured against the Daubert Test. A Motion To Strike against IH was submitted to the court with a date of 10 April 2017. If IH were to present a credible case to the jury, then they had to have submitted their numbers. They failed in the permitted timescales.

    In my view and by rights the Motion to Strike Murray’s and Smith’s evidence should succeed and Summary Judgement be made in Rossi’s favour. The ERV report then stands and the consequences follow.

    If I was a juror, I am sure the main question on my mind would be, has IH proved that the CoP was less than six. On all the evidence I have seen the answer is no.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Maybe Defendants would claim that the term „1MW plant“ appears somewhere in the contract. But since absolute power is not explicitly mentioned as a validation criterion I think that this argument should be considered weak.

      More important seems to be that with a COP of 6 the “heat dissipation argument” would become void. The same applies to the “missing steam argument”, provided that temperature and flow measurements were not completely wrong.

    • Josh G

      Well don’t forget that the jury has to consider not only Rossi’s claims in his suit but also IH’s claims in their countersuit. So I actually think it is a much more complicated set of issues for them to decide than you lay out here. But I do agree that the motion to strike Murray and Smith’s reports should succeed on the merits. However I have not legal experience, so who knows what the de facto standard is.

      • GiveADogABone

        I wrote, ‘The ERV report then stands and the consequences follow.’
        I think you are raising a point about the ‘consequences’. If you put all the consequences in a logical chain, you may well find there is a ‘domino effect’ that makes them all null and void but I leave that to the lawyers.

        • Josh G

          No, I misread you. I was talking about IH’s case against the test results, the existence of a heat exchanger, the non-existence of a legitimate customer, etc. etc. But as you said, ” the ERV report is right until IH prove it wrong.” So I was basically saying that disproving the ERV raises a set of complicated issues. It’s a big deal.

          • GiveADogABone

            Agreed. Murray and Smith were given the task of disproving the ERV report (indeed a complicated task stitching together an alternative reality) and the result? A dog’s breakfast.

      • Mike Rion

        Am I missing something. I was under the impression that this trial is only about Rossi’s suit against IH. There suit against him will be decided by another trial and jury, right?

        • Josh G

          No as far as I’m aware this case will decide both Rossi’s suit and IH’s counter-suit.

  • GiveADogABone

    The core fact in this case is the CoP being greater or less than six.
    Which is it?

    The jury is the trier-of-fact. First they decide if the Licence Agreement was a valid contract. If valid, then the ERV report is right until IH prove it wrong.

    After that, the only information the jury needs is that required to determine if the CoP was above or below six. That requires three pieces of information, electricity in, mass flow rate and specific enthalpy change.

    The electricity in and mass flow rate come from instruments. The specific enthalpy change comes from the properties of water at varying pressures and temperatures which in turn requires more instruments to determine those pressures and temperatures.

    The IH experts’ testimony and depositions about the output of those instruments were a joke when measured against the Daubert Test. A Motion To Strike against IH was submitted to the court with a date of 10 April 2017. If IH were to present a credible case to the jury, then they had to have submitted their numbers. They failed in the permitted timescales.

    In my view and by rights the Motion to Strike Murray’s and Smith’s evidence should succeed and Summary Judgement be made in Rossi’s favour. The ERV report then stands and the consequences follow.

    If I was a juror, I am sure the main question on my mind would be, ‘Has IH proved that the CoP was less than six?’. On all the evidence I have seen the answer is no.
    Edit: If the Murray and Smith evidence fails the Daubert Test, then the jury never get to see their evidence and the ERV report stands unchallenged.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Maybe Defendants would claim that the term „1MW plant“ appears somewhere in the contract. But since absolute power is not explicitly mentioned as a validation criterion I think that this argument should be considered weak.

      More important seems to be that with a COP of 6 the “heat dissipation argument” would become void. The same applies to the “missing steam argument”, provided that temperature and flow measurements were not completely wrong.

    • Josh G

      Well don’t forget that the jury has to consider not only Rossi’s claims in his suit but also IH’s claims in their countersuit. So I actually think it is a much more complicated set of issues for them to decide than you lay out here. But I do agree that the motion to strike Murray and Smith’s reports should succeed on the merits. However I have not legal experience, so who knows what the de facto standard is.

      • GiveADogABone

        I wrote, ‘The ERV report then stands and the consequences follow.’
        I think you are raising a point about the ‘consequences’. If you put all the consequences in a logical chain, you may well find there is a ‘domino effect’ that makes them all null and void but I leave that to the lawyers.

        • Josh G

          No, I misread you. I was talking about IH’s case against the test results, the existence of a heat exchanger, the non-existence of a legitimate customer, etc. etc. But as you said, ” the ERV report is right until IH prove it wrong.” So I was basically saying that disproving the ERV raises a set of complicated issues. It’s a big deal.

          • GiveADogABone

            Agreed. Murray and Smith were given the task of disproving the ERV report (indeed a complicated task stitching together an alternative reality) and the result? A dog’s breakfast.

      • Mike Rion

        Am I missing something. I was under the impression that this trial is only about Rossi’s suit against IH. There suit against him will be decided by another trial and jury, right?

        • Josh G

          No as far as I’m aware this case will decide both Rossi’s suit and IH’s counter-suit.

  • John Falstaff

    I see the word “jury” in connection with an outside the box energy claim like this and my mind immediately goes to Steorn … an unfortunate association.

    • Omega Z

      I see the word “jury” in connection with an outside the box energy claim like this and my mind immediately thinks people totally oblivious to any of this.

      Seriously, You ask people if they remember Pons and Fleischmann and their eyes glaze over. Society in general do not care or pay attention to reality. Only Fake reality shows etc..

  • Gerard McEk

    I believe that the main discussion will be if the ERV Penon is trustworthy. If IH cannot disprove him, there is no chance to win the case. If they somehow succeed to prove that Penon cannot be trusted, a test of an E-cat may be demanded.

    • FC

      To me this case has nothing to do with the E-cat.

      Imagine that you enter into a bet with someone else under an agreed upon set of rules. The other party adheres to the rules, but in the end you lose the bet. Do you have the right to avoid payment by questioning the very rules you agreed upon?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        One thing to be considered in this context is the fact that TD, JV &Co. are professional investors. This case is not about a clueless grandmother that has been fooled by a shifty trickster.

        • FC

          Exactly, Andreas. They are high level professionals with the necessary resources to buy expert advice that will save them from making foolish bets under misguided rules.

          So I’ll repeat my question. Should someone like that have the right to avoid payment by questioning the very rules they agreed upon?

          It’s a very fundamental question of law. Science has nothing to do with it.

        • cashmemorz

          The jury can have the knowledge of a clueless granny. And that is what a foxy investment house could depending on

        • BillH

          And yet they were clueless, see for example the edits and final signed draft of the term sheet. Vaughn clearly thinks the customer is Johnson Mathey and also doesn’t know the difference between milli-Watts and Mega-Watts.

      • Barbierir

        That is not a good analogy, if you can prove the other has rigged the outcome then of course you can avoid payment

        • FC

          Rigged how?

          1. By not adhering to the rules?

          Or

          2. By using a rigged set of rules (the ones that you agreed upon)?

          • Barbierir

            3. By having the agreed upon referee either in cahoots with the other party or doing blatant mistakes.
            BTW I’m not saying that is what happened or that IH has in any way proven their case, but what you affirm is completely unreasonable by any standard.

          • FC

            To me, if the agreed upon referee is in cahoots with the other party, then your due diligence on the referee was faulty. Therefore, the set of rules that you agreed upon was rigged (i.e. Number 2).

            But if the referee made mistakes, then to me the rules were not adhered to (i.e. number 1).

            Now, moving to your last sentence, “what you affirm is completely unreasonable by any standard”, what exactly did I affirm? Apart from saying that to me this case has nothing to do with the E-cat, so far I’m only making questions.

            Btw, in both of your comments you have berated me. In the first one, by saying that my analogy is not good. And in the second one, by saying that some affirmation of mine is unreasonable.

            Have I done anything mean to you that I’m not aware of? I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, but there is a difference between disagreeing and categorically dismissing somebody else’s opinion.

            Again, I still have more questions than answers. 🙂

          • Barbierir

            Sorry if it sounded harsh, perhaps I mistook question marks as rethorical rather than genuine questions.
            So you agree that you can avoid payment if the rules were not abided by, and one implicit rule is that the referee must be neutral and competent. Bad due diligence in agreeing upon the referee is irrelevant, especially if there is no serious reason to mistrust. And of course cheating/mistakes can’t be prove until the bet is well underway or ended.
            Anyway the IH case seem more focused on the contractual aspects rather than if the Ecat works or not.

          • FC

            Apologies accepted, but you’ve done it again. The sentence “bad due diligence in agreeing upon the referee is irrelevant” is not an opinion, but a categorical statement. 😉

            Yes, I agree that if the referee is proved to have behaved in a non-neutral or incompetent manner, then the agreed upon rules have been violated and the report should be disregarded.

            But I disagree that cheating/mistakes can’t be proved until the end, especially when quarterly reports are produced. I think that there are ways in which IH could have monitored progress.

            Now, how was Penon incompetent or non-neutral? (And this isn’t a rhetorical question either 🙂 ). By using somebody else’s data instead of his? Could the doubts be removed if IH had their own data and could compare it to Fabiani’s? How do you quantify neutrality and competence, so that they can be tested?

      • Dr. Mike

        FC,

        This wasn’t a bet, it was a contract. Rossi’s gain from the contract was that he would receive money when certain conditions were met. In consideration of monies paid by IH to Rossi IH was to receive that listed in section 13.1 of the contract, namely the ability to use Rossi’s IP and the ability to make E-Cat products. They discontinued payments to Rossi after not being able to build E-Cats that worked. They had already paid Rossi $11.5M and were not going to pay any more since they felt Rossi had not properly transferred his IP to them.
        Dr. Mike

        • FC

          I never said that this was a bet (although I personally think that it was, like everything that we do in life 🙂 ). I was only making an analogy in order to share with the rest of you a question that has been bugging me.

          • Dr. Mike

            FC,
            In that sense it was a bet- one that had the potential for both sides winning! I don’t know if you have examined any of the court documents, but you would probably be surprised to learn that Penon’s report was based on Fabiani’s data rather than his own data. See my comment to Gerald above.
            Dr. Mike

          • FC

            Who’s Gerald? Do you mean Gerard? 😉

            Yes, I have seen some of the court documents, but I’m afraid that I haven’t seen enough of them to go into any kind of discussion.

            Yes, I have read your comment above. It doesn’t look good for the report’s credibility (as I’ve already mentioned in a previous comment below).

          • Dr. Mike

            FC,
            Thanks for the correction on Gerard’s name. This isn’t the first time that I haven’t got a person’s name correct. I really need to get my prescription on my glasses updated!

          • Mike Rion

            I think its a valid analogy, what else is Venture capital but a bet with someone.

    • Dr. Mike

      Gerald,
      There is the issue of the data. In his deposition Fabiani testified (Document #245-19 page 6) that he did not have access to Penon’s computer so he (Fabiani) was sending Penon his (Fabiani’s) data to Italy every 2 months. In Penon’s deposition (Document 245-20 p.7) Penon testifies that Fabiani was sending him the data from his (Penon’s) computer every 2 months. Penon didn’t even realize that he wrote up his report based on Fabiani’s data rather than his own.
      Dr. Mike

      • radvar

        I believe Penon understood that the bi-monthly data was not from his (Penon’s) computer. Reading pages 6,7,8 of 245-20 shows Penon was aware of the fact that Fabiani could not access his computer. In my view Penon demonstrates too much clarity as a “systems thinking” to have made such a simple mistake in connecting the dots. Further, there’s no indication that Penon based his final report or Fabiani’s bi-monthly data, instead of the data from his (Penon’s) computer.

        • Dr. Mike

          After rereading these pages I still think that PENON believed Fabiani was sending Penon’s data to Penon, however, it you see it diferently, it means the lawyers need to ask the right questions of Penon at the trial so the jury is clear about what data Penon used and how he acquired it. As for your above highlighted statement of Penon, I think that the data that he claims he already had was the data sent to him every 2 months by Fabiani, but perhaps you are correct that it was his own data. I just didn’t see any testimony on how he acquired his own data.

          • From the discussions I have had with Fabiani earlier, long before these documents were released, I’m fairly convinced Penon had his own instruments and Fabiani had his own. If they showed very similar values it could depend on the simple fact that they were measuring on the same physical object with the same kind of instruments. Or to put it like this: Any divergence between their measured values should give you a reason to investigate what’s wrong.

          • Mike Rion

            Why does it matter as long as it wasn’t falsified or corrupted in some way. Information is information.

          • Dr. Mike

            If Penon is getting paid to write an independent report, his data needs to be independent. Suppose the IH lawyers are able to impeach the credibility of Rossi (perhaps by the testimony related to setting up the customer JM Products). If Penon testifies that he got all of the water flow data daily from Rossi, will the jury belief this data was transferred accurately?

          • GiveADogABone

            You state, ‘If Penon testifies that he got all of the water flow data daily from Rossi, will the jury belief this data was transferred accurately?’

            The electricity and water meters are cumulative and sealed; that is the guarantee of overall accuracy. If a reading on one day is inaccurate it gets corrected on the next. That pattern appears in the FLP electricity data for Doral at certain places because FLP catch their data at different times of the day. Smooth the curve a bit and the peaks disappear.

            Sure the Licence Agreement required 350 days above COP=6 but the actual average COP over 350 days is so far above 6, it barely matters. The water readings likewise.

      • Dr. Mike

        Gerard- sorry about spelling your name as “Gerald”. My bad eyes!

      • BillH

        That might explain why in 236-43 pages 2-14 the raw data from Penon(Fabiani?) contained details of what happened before the official start date and also noted issues that happened when Penon was known not to be on site. All the notes were in Italian, which would make sense.

        • BillH

          The whole of 236-43 makes interesting reading, I now believe pages 2-14 are from Fabiani’s laptop but were submitted by Penon.

          The next section contains the 3 interim reports sent by Penon to IH, followed by the final report.

          Finally, there is a section of handwritten notes giving the steam output temperature taken 3 times a day, and a far right column which appears to show when the internal tank was topped up by the external tank because of leaks. Does anyone know if this is Fabiani or Rossi’s handwriting?

          • BillH

            I can answer my own question, they were Rossi’s handwritten notes, his name is at the bottom of each sheet, doh!

    • radvar

      I agree that could be the crux of the issue. After reading Penon’s deposition, 245-20, prompted by Dr. Mike’s comment below, I have more confidence in Penon.

      • BillH

        On the contrary, this extract from the full deposition is full of technical errors. He says the flow meter readings were rounded down by 7% when in fact it was 10%
        He doesn’t appear to know what round up or rounding down is, the example he gave was totally incorrect. The meter he claimed he used is at odd with previous statement PC860? does this even exist as a power meter type. He made no corrections to his full deposition, and didn’t come to Florida to sign it. Lastly, the deposition was taken in the Dominican Republic.

  • Gerard McEk

    I believe that the main discussion will be if the ERV Penon is trustworthy. If IH cannot disprove him, there is no chance to win the case. If they somehow succeed to prove that Penon cannot be trusted, a test of an E-cat may be demanded.

    • FC

      To me this case has nothing to do with the E-cat.

      Imagine that you enter into a bet with someone else under an agreed upon set of rules. The other party adheres to the rules, but in the end you lose the bet. Do you have the right to avoid payment by questioning the very rules you agreed upon?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        One thing to be considered in this context is the fact that TD, JV &Co. are professional investors. This case is not about a clueless grandmother that has been fooled by a shifty trickster.

        • FC

          Exactly, Andreas. They are high level professionals with the necessary resources to buy expert advice that will save them from making foolish bets under misguided rules.

          So I’ll repeat my question. Should someone like that have the right to avoid payment by questioning the very rules they agreed upon?

          It’s a very fundamental question of law. Science has nothing to do with it.

          • Observer

            These people expected to make money regardless of whether the e-cat worked or did not work. What caught them off guard is that the e-cat worked better than they had anticipated.

          • roseland67

            Never know what a jury will do,
            BUT,
            If his goes to trial, IH will parade “experts” in physics, math and engineering, from academia, industrial, commercial and government labs and all will be asked to give their “expert” opinion on Ecat operation, testing, and possibility of actual LENR occurring in Rossi’s test.
            Waddya think their gonna say,
            And who is capable of arguing with them or proving them wrong?
            Rossi?
            He must prove the Ecat works as claimed, not just say it does.

          • GiveADogABone

            The rules do not permit new witnesses after the end of discovery. They must all be known, have provided testimony and been deposed. As far as I can see, only Murray and Smith are technical witnesses for IH.

            ‘He must prove the Ecat works as claimed, not just say it does.’
            The proof that it works is in the ERV report, so the only issue is whether the report is right or wrong. The report is right until IH proves it wrong.

          • roseland67

            The new expert witnesses will be called to directly refute the ERV data and prove it wrong.

          • TVulgaris

            How will any new expert witnesses be called after discovery? This is a civil case, no judge would allow that.

          • BillH

            In one respect at least the Final Report is wrong, and provably wrong, the test was not done on 115 reactors, or anywhere near that number, The question then is is this enough to discredit the whole report.

        • cashmemorz

          The jury can have the knowledge of a clueless granny. And that is what a foxy investment house could be depending on

        • BillH

          And yet they were clueless, see for example the edits and final signed draft of the term sheet. Vaughn clearly thinks the customer is Johnson Mathey and also doesn’t know the difference between milli-Watts and Mega-Watts.

      • Barbierir

        That is not a good analogy, if you can prove the other has rigged the outcome then of course you can avoid payment

        • FC

          Rigged how?

          1. By not adhering to the rules?

          Or

          2. By using a rigged set of rules (the ones that you agreed upon)?

          • Barbierir

            3. By having the agreed upon referee either in cahoots with the other party or doing blatant mistakes.
            BTW I’m not saying that is what happened or that IH has in any way proven their case, but what you affirm is completely unreasonable by any standard.

          • FC

            To me, if the agreed upon referee is in cahoots with the other party, then your due diligence on the referee was faulty. Therefore, the set of rules that you agreed upon was rigged (i.e. Number 2).

            But if the referee made mistakes, then to me the rules were not adhered to (i.e. number 1).

            Now, moving to your last sentence, “what you affirm is completely unreasonable by any standard”, what exactly did I affirm? Apart from saying that to me this case has nothing to do with the E-cat, so far I’m only making questions.

            Btw, in both of your comments you have berated me. In the first one, by saying that my analogy is not good. And in the second one, by saying that some affirmation of mine is unreasonable.

            Have I done anything mean to you that I’m not aware of? I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, but there is a difference between disagreeing and categorically dismissing somebody else’s opinion.

            Again, I still have more questions than answers. 🙂

          • Barbierir

            Sorry if it sounded harsh, perhaps I mistook question marks as rethorical rather than genuine questions.
            So you agree that you can avoid payment if the rules were not abided by, and one implicit rule is that the referee must be neutral and competent. Bad due diligence in agreeing upon the referee is irrelevant, especially if there is no serious reason to mistrust. And of course cheating/mistakes can’t be prove until the bet is well underway or ended.
            Anyway the IH case seem more focused on the contractual aspects rather than if the Ecat works or not.

          • FC

            Apologies accepted, but you’ve done it again. The sentence “bad due diligence in agreeing upon the referee is irrelevant” is not an opinion, but a categorical statement. 😉

            Yes, I agree that if the referee is proved to have behaved in a non-neutral or incompetent manner, then the agreed upon rules have been violated and the report should be disregarded.

            But I disagree that cheating/mistakes can’t be proved until the end, especially when quarterly reports are produced. I think that there are ways in which IH could have monitored progress.

            Now, how was Penon incompetent or non-neutral? (And this isn’t a rhetorical question either 🙂 ). By using somebody else’s data instead of his? Could the doubts be removed if IH had their own data and could compare it to Fabiani’s? How do you quantify neutrality and competence, so that they can be tested?

      • Dr. Mike

        FC,

        This wasn’t a bet, it was a contract. Rossi’s gain from the contract was that he would receive money when certain conditions were met. In consideration of monies paid by IH to Rossi IH was to receive that listed in section 13.1 of the contract, namely the ability to use Rossi’s IP and the ability to make E-Cat products. They discontinued payments to Rossi after not being able to build E-Cats that worked. They had already paid Rossi $11.5M and were not going to pay any more since they felt Rossi had not properly transferred his IP to them.
        Dr. Mike

        • FC

          I never said that this was a bet (although I personally think that it was, like everything that we do in life 🙂 ). I was only making an analogy in order to share with the rest of you a question that has been bugging me.

          • Dr. Mike

            FC,
            In that sense it was a bet- one that had the potential for both sides winning! I don’t know if you have examined any of the court documents, but you would probably be surprised to learn that Penon’s report was based on Fabiani’s data rather than his own data. See my comment to Gerald above.
            Dr. Mike

          • FC

            Who’s Gerald? Do you mean Gerard? 😉

            Yes, I have seen some of the court documents, but I’m afraid that I haven’t seen enough of them to go into any kind of discussion.

            Yes, I have read your comment above. It doesn’t look good for the report’s credibility (as I’ve already mentioned in a previous comment below).

          • Dr. Mike

            FC,
            Thanks for the correction on Gerard’s name. This isn’t the first time that I haven’t got a person’s name correct. I really need to get my prescription on my glasses updated!

          • Mike Rion

            I think its a valid analogy, what else is Venture capital but a bet with someone.

    • roseland67

      Gerard,

      Disprove an Energy Out > Energy In,
      Undocumented, non replicated,
      over unity, cold fusion device?

      • BillH

        There are many instances of devices with an output but no perceived input they are called batteries. In this case you could put a battery in a black box, provide a token input of say 1mW and get an output of 60W. Doing a COP calculation would then provide what appears to be a phenomenal COP. Hmmmm, why does this remind me so much of the Steorn case….

        Once you can conceive of what is in the black box it doesn’t look so impressive.

        • roseland67

          Batteries are chemical, not nuclear, their energy and power density are well understood, calculable, replicable and proven

          • BillH

            And yet, put them inside a black box and call them secret and they can still look miraculously good in terms of COP, at least for a short while.

          • roseland67

            But chemical energy and power density are all fixed, the cop can be calculated, it would be blatantly obvious as soon as the experiment died.

    • Dr. Mike

      Gerald,
      There is the issue of the data. In his deposition Fabiani testified (Document #245-19 page 6) that he did not have access to Penon’s computer so he (Fabiani) was sending Penon his (Fabiani’s) data to Italy every 2 months. In Penon’s deposition (Document 245-20 p.7) Penon testifies that Fabiani was sending him the data from his (Penon’s) computer every 2 months. Penon didn’t even realize that he wrote up his report based on Fabiani’s data rather than his own.
      Dr. Mike

      • Dr. Mike

        Gerard- sorry about spelling your name as “Gerald”. My bad eyes!

      • BillH

        That might explain why in 236-43 pages 2-14 the raw data from Penon(Fabiani?) contained details of what happened before the official start date and also noted issues that happened when Penon was known not to be on site. All the notes were in Italian, which would make sense.

        • BillH

          The whole of 236-43 makes interesting reading, I now believe pages 2-14 are from Fabiani’s laptop but were submitted by Penon.

          The next section contains the 3 interim reports sent by Penon to IH, followed by the final report.

          Finally, there is a section of handwritten notes giving the steam output temperature taken 3 times a day, and a far right column which appears to show when the internal tank was topped up by the external tank because of leaks. Does anyone know if this is Fabiani or Rossi’s handwriting?

          • BillH

            I can answer my own question, they were Rossi’s handwritten notes, his name is at the bottom of each sheet, doh!

  • Barbierir

    I don’t know how the trial will continue, if technical disagreement becomes the main focus I’d expect both parties to agree on one or more third party expert that will write a definitive report after evaluating the evidences by both sides. I can’t see how the jury could decide on it without technical advice.

  • Barbierir

    I don’t know how the trial will continue, if technical disagreement becomes the main focus I’d expect both parties to agree on one or more third party expert that will write a definitive report after evaluating the evidences by both sides. I can’t see how the jury could decide on it without technical advice.

  • AdrianAshfield

    I don’t know how the jury can sort this out unless they have a basic technical background. So it probably will boil down to “he said, you said” and who is the most believable. Imagine what they would think if they looked up cold fusion on Wikipedia!
    I think Jackson was right about the majority, if they have heard anything at all, will just know that cold fusion was “debunked.” and not know it was later replicated.
    As Frank said, a foolproof demonstration would certainly help and I don’t know why Rossi has not proposed that. I was hoping he would demonstrate the QuarkX before the trial and the resulting publicity would help.

    • Mike Rion

      Rossi doesn’t want to prove his machine. He just wants his IP back, and of course the Nobel Prize.

  • AdrianAshfield

    I don’t know how the jury can sort this out unless they have a basic technical background. So it probably will boil down to “he said, you said” and who is the most believable.
    I think Jackson was right about the majority, if they have heard anything at all, will just know that cold fusion was “debunked.” and not know it was later replicated. Imagine what they would think if they looked up cold fusion on Wikipedia!
    As Frank said, a foolproof demonstration would certainly help and I don’t know why Rossi has not proposed that. I was hoping he would demonstrate the QuarkX before the trial and the resulting publicity would help.

    • Mike Rion

      Rossi doesn’t want to prove his machine. He just wants his IP back, and of course the Nobel Prize.

  • GiveADogABone

    Seems to be about where we are :
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/us/12experts.html
    In U.S., Expert Witnesses Are Partisan

  • GiveADogABone

    Seems to be about where we are :
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/us/12experts.html
    In U.S., Expert Witnesses Are Partisan

  • BillH

    I’m looking at 236-43, specifically pages 2-14, which I believe might be the data recorded on Penon’s laptop, printed out and somewhat skewed The only column that makes any real sense to me is the one that shows the KW-in recorded every 12hr, the columns either side of this show the average hourly power input and the cumulative total of power used.

    You can also see that the 6 smaller units were energised prior to the start of the test but they were never used after the test started. Periodically the PCE had to be reset, either due to meter errors or loss of power.

    The far right column seems to be a tentative attempted to calculate COP, but without the flow meter readings I can’t see how this could be achieved.

    Perhaps someone who reads Italian can make some sense of the notes.

    • Barbierir

      The notes in pages 2-14 are lists of technical interventions on the plant, blackouts, breaks, replacements, etc…

      • BillH

        That’s what I gleaned from the few words I recognised. They must have been added after the data was sent to him, since he wasn’t there on most of the days with notes.

    • There are some interesting comments, (a part from a few replacements of input and output tubes of the BFs, due to leakage, and a few electrical failures, among them an electric arc and a few shorts). Check e.g. ‘phase angle’ on June 11:

      Feb 1 – 16, gradual start of single modules with two interruptions (water leakage and power interruption).

      February 17
      Ignition of BF (quick ramp from 0 to 28 in 12 hours)

      February 18 10:30
      Conclusion [or complete] ignition BF
      22:30
      The entire system ON

      February 19 10:30
      Liquid leakage in the part with single modules
      22:30
      Off 6 groups of single modules

      February 20
      Remain in operation only BF at 50% ON 50% OFF

      February 21
      Power up BF (from 38 to 42 on regulator)

      March 3 10:30
      Lack of supply of grid, stop supply for 30 minutes

      April 7, 10:30 (the famous power interruption):
      Lack of power in grid, system blocked for 3 hours (also recording).
      00:00
      Start of last file [?] power due to electric reset (lack of current in grid)

      April 8, 10:30
      Value not indicative due to start at 24:10

      May 19
      Reset to zero of reading with PCE-830-old, and installation of new PCE-830-new.

      June 9
      Fuse burned in variac of BF3. Ordered! System works with BF1+BF2+BF4

      June 11
      System restarted completely (BF1+2+3+4) with phase angle at 41+41+40+41

      July 5
      At 10:30 reset of PCE-830 with restart of calculation of consumption due to limit of three decimals (the PCE-830 exceed the threshold of 10MW and indicates with only 2 decimals and not 3 decimals any longer) [MATS’ NOTE: should be MWh, referring to total consumed energy, see third column in table]

      July 27 22:30
      Interruption at night of the power supply, battery of PCE-830 empty in the morning. Count of kWh restarted
      July 28 10:30
      Not influent and not countable for the COP since the time for restart is not definable.

      August 18
      Reactor 4 isolated, output power brought to 705 kWh/h (heating plate in short circuit).

      October 2
      Power of supply increased and normal production regained (36 m3 per day H2O – 1MWh/h of steam)

      October 12
      At 18:30, power meter set to zero to allow 24h verification by ERV

      December 2, 22:30
      Power decreased to 700kW at the request of the customer

      [some maintenance of reactor 2 during decreased power]

      December 22, 10:30
      Restart of reactor 2 and power produced brought back to 1MWh/h at the request of the client.

      January 5
      In order to analyse the wave form of the current supplied the PCE had to be reset at 22:30.

      February 15
      The counter of the PCE passed the limit for three decimals during the night, therefore necessary to reset, done at 12:25 (it was not possible to do it earlier due to visit from inspectors of territory and health)

      February 16
      At 10:40 the electric power supply to the system was closed

      February 17
      End of test, plant closed to remove certified instruments

      • BillH

        Many interesting snippets there Mats, thanks for the effort. I think the vane angles might relate to the method of regulating the flow either into or out of the reactors(BFs).

        • I associate phase angle with electricity. 4×40 makes 180. So maybe they have intentionally time separated the power supply to the BFs in order to make the load more even. Could possibly be an advantage if the power supply is chopped with tyristors and if it’s not operating att full power (entire wave).

          • BillH

            Only 4 times 40 is 160, so maybe not. The fact that all four are not the same suggest the the BF with 16 reactors might require a different setting or some of the reactors within a BF were inactive.

          • Right, how embarrassing 😀

    • GiveADogABone

      In one line of COP data there is a ‘divide by zero’ error. That signals that the COP was being calculated in the spreadsheet and the feed flow was recorded in a hidden column.

      • BillH

        I noticed that too #DIV 0, I didn’t like to mention a hidden column or columns since this would indicate removal of important information from the printout.

      • Obvious

        The COP values in the Fabiani data show that the COP here used the energy to heat the water to boiling, plus the boiling (and possibly the “super-heating” part . Therefore the L/day he used should be calculable from the data by reversing the math.

    • Obvious

      The twice a day readings are from Fabiani’s data.

      Interesting is the FPL daily data that shows the warehouse using 1MWh (total) for each of two days before the start of ERV data.

  • BillH

    I’m looking at 236-43, specifically pages 2-14, which I believe might be the data recorded on Penon’s laptop, printed out and somewhat skewed The only column that makes any real sense to me is the one that shows the KW-in recorded every 12hr, the columns either side of this show the average hourly power input and the cumulative total of power used.

    You can also see that the 6 smaller units were energised prior to the start of the test but they were never used after the test started. Periodically the PCE had to be reset, either due to meter errors or loss of power.

    The far right column seems to be a tentative attempted to calculate COP, but without the flow meter readings I can’t see how this could be achieved.

    Perhaps someone who reads Italian can make some sense of the notes.

    • Barbierir

      The notes in pages 2-14 are lists of technical interventions on the plant, blackouts, breaks, replacements, etc…

      • BillH

        That’s what I gleaned from the few words I recognised. They must have been added after the data was sent to him, since he wasn’t there on most of the days with notes.

    • There are some interesting comments, (a part from a few replacements of input and output tubes of the BFs, due to leakage, and a few electrical failures, among them an electric arc and a few shorts). Check e.g. ‘phase angle’ on June 11 and the power interruption on April 7:

      Feb 1 – 16, gradual start of single modules with two interruptions (water leakage and power interruption).

      February 17
      Ignition of BF (quick ramp from 0 to 28 in 12 hours)

      February 18 10:30
      Conclusion [or complete] ignition BF
      22:30
      The entire system ON

      February 19 10:30
      Liquid leakage in the part with single modules
      22:30
      Off 6 groups of single modules

      February 20
      Remain in operation only BF at 50% ON 50% OFF

      February 21
      Power up BF (from 38 to 42 on regulator)

      March 3 10:30
      Lack of supply of grid, stop supply for 30 minutes

      April 7, 10:30 (the famous power interruption):
      Lack of power in grid, system blocked for 3 hours (also recording).
      00:00
      Start of last file [?] power due to electric reset (lack of current in grid)

      April 8, 10:30
      Value not indicative due to start at 24:10

      May 19
      Reset to zero of reading with PCE-830-old, and installation of new PCE-830-new.

      June 9
      Fuse burned in variac of BF3. Ordered! System works with BF1+BF2+BF4

      June 11
      System restarted completely (BF1+2+3+4) with phase angle at 41+41+40+41

      July 5
      At 10:30 reset of PCE-830 with restart of calculation of consumption due to limit of three decimals (the PCE-830 exceeds the threshold of 10MW and indicates with only 2 decimals and not 3 decimals any longer) [MATS’ NOTE: should be MWh, referring to total consumed energy, see third column in table. Happened three times]

      July 27 22:30
      Interruption at night of the power supply, battery of PCE-830 empty in the morning. Count of kWh restarted
      July 28 10:30
      Not influent and not countable for the COP since the time for restart is not definable.

      August 8
      Stop supply BF4 due to load on earth of the cable

      August 10
      At 16:40 restart of BF4 (at 30%)

      August 11 10:30
      (4 reactors working: BF1, 2, 3 at 40%, BF4 at 30%)

      August 18
      Reactor 4 isolated, output power brought to 750 kWh/h (heating plate in short circuit).

      October 2
      Power of supply increased and normal production regained (36 m3 per day H2O – 1MWh/h of steam)

      October 12
      At 18:30, power meter set to zero to allow 24h verification by ERV

      December 2, 22:30
      Power decreased to 700kW at the request of the customer

      [some maintenance of reactor 2 during decreased power]

      December 22, 10:30
      Restart of reactor 2 and power produced brought back to 1MWh/h at the request of the client.

      January 5
      In order to analyse the wave form of the current supplied the PCE had to be reset at 22:30.

      February 15
      The counter of the PCE passed the limit for three decimals during the night, therefore necessary to reset, done at 12:25 (it was not possible to do it earlier due to visit from inspectors of territory and health)

      February 16
      At 10:40 the electric power supply to the system was closed

      February 17
      End of test, plant closed to remove certified instruments

      • BillH

        Many interesting snippets there Mats, thanks for the effort. I think the vane angles might relate to the method of regulating the flow either into or out of the reactors(BFs).

        • I associate phase angle with electricity. 4×40 makes 180. So maybe they have intentionally time separated the power supply to the BFs in order to make the load more even. Could possibly be an advantage if the power supply is chopped with tyristors and if it’s not operating att full power (entire wave).

    • GiveADogABone

      In one line of COP data there is a ‘divide by zero’ error. That signals that the COP was being calculated in the spreadsheet and the feed flow was recorded in a hidden column.

      • BillH

        I noticed that too #DIV 0, I didn’t like to mention a hidden column or columns since this would indicate removal of important information from the printout.

      • Obvious

        The COP values in the Fabiani data show that the COP here used the energy to heat the water to boiling, plus the boiling (and possibly the “super-heating” part . Therefore the L/day he used should be calculable from the data by reversing the math.

    • Obvious

      The twice a day readings are from Fabiani’s data.

      Interesting is the FPL daily data that shows the warehouse using 1MWh (total) for each of two days before the start of ERV data.

  • cashmemorz

    Everything else is handwaving and or obfuscation. Proof of the pudding is the tasting and all that. Contracts and how they are INTERPRETTED is extra legalities but hard to deduce regarding facts. Where facts are difficult to unravel one goes back to square one and tastes the pudding or, in this case, one measures the over all results. In the case of the E-Cat the over all results is the COP. If the ERV person in the test upoin which this case is based, is in doubt then redo the test with a dependable ERV person or institution that is agreeable, not to the disputing parties, but agreeable to a third party expert in energy production.

  • Omega Z

    I see the word “jury” in connection with an outside the box energy claim like this and my mind immediately thinks people totally oblivious to any of this.

    Seriously, You ask people if they remember Pons and Fleischmann and their eyes glaze over. Society in general do not care or pay attention to reality. Only Fake reality shows etc..

  • doug marker

    IH have made some very aggressive statements about the test. Here are some extracts – IMHO they have a big hill to climb, again the length of the test seems to contradict much of their attack …

    “Defendants Reply”

    #1 Page 4 (“Rossi’s Fraud”)
    Finally, Plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove how the payment of $10,000,000, which was procured by Rossi’s fraud, operated as a waiver or is subject to the “voluntary payment doctrine.”

    #2 Page 13 (“fantastical”, “fabricated”)
    “IH and IPH’s inability to replicate Plaintiffs’ claimed fantastical results, or even anything remotely approaching those results, thus demonstrates either that the E-Cat IP does not work and Plaintiffs’ results are fabricated (which they will not admit) or that Plaintiffs breached the Agreement sections requiring them to provide IH and IPH with all of the E-Cat IP needed to replicate those results and the training and support to so replicate. ”

    D

  • doug marker

    IH have made some very aggressive statements about the test. Here are some extracts – IMHO they have a big hill to climb, again the length of the test seems to contradict much of their attack …

    “Defendants Reply”

    #1 Page 4 (“Rossi’s Fraud”)
    Finally, Plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove how the payment of $10,000,000, which was procured by Rossi’s fraud, operated as a waiver or is subject to the “voluntary payment doctrine.”

    #2 Page 13 (“fantastical”, “fabricated”)
    “IH and IPH’s inability to replicate Plaintiffs’ claimed fantastical results, or even anything remotely approaching those results, thus demonstrates either that the E-Cat IP does not work and Plaintiffs’ results are fabricated (which they will not admit) or that Plaintiffs breached the Agreement sections requiring them to provide IH and IPH with all of the E-Cat IP needed to replicate those results and the training and support to so replicate. ”

    D

  • Patrick Ellul

    Does anyone have the link to the recent leaked photo of Rossi in front of a blackboard with some QuarkX information, that is mentioned on the JONP?

  • BillH

    There are many instances of devices with an output but no perceived input they are called batteries. In this case you could put a battery in a black box, provide a token input of say 1mW and get an output of 60W. Doing a COP calculation would then provide what appears to be a phenomenal COP. Hmmmm, why does this remind me so much of the Steorn case….

    Once you can conceive of what is in the black box it doesn’t look so impressive.

  • Josh G

    If this case goes to trial, IH is going to be able to make Rossi look very, very bad based on the way he (falsely) represented to them the whole situation with JM Chemical products. He is clearly leading them on to think that the company was a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey set up by his lawyer, when in fact he admitted in his deposition that it wasn’t.

    See for example the representations he makes in his e-mails in 245-11: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/245-11-Exhibit-11.pdf

    I’m not saying the IH is blameless or anything like that. They appear to have used Rossi to get more investment capital long after they knew the ‘test’ was compromised and would not reveal anything. They also seemed to have given Rossi the impression that this was ‘THE’ test while all along they didn’t believe that. But the evidence for that seems somehow less in-your-face. Their lies are more like lies of omission. There is no smoking gun email where they can be seen to conspire to screw Rossi out of his money. But there are e-mails from Rossi to them where he is making representations that he knows to not be true.

    Also given his checkered past, I think it’s going to make it very easy for IH to paint him as untrustworthy. Yes Rossi’s lawyers can try to do the same with IH given their apparent double-dealing (and for the record I think they’re snakes), but I don’t think it will cut as deep into their credibility.

    • BillH

      A fair assessment of the present state of affairs. I would also add that the reputational damage to IH and by inference Cherokee, is huge. They made so many mistakes, especially in the technical area their oversight of testing. They have also been forced to reveal much confidential information and a great deal about their business practices. Any compensation they may get would hardly repair the damage.

      • Josh G

        Yes, 100% agree. They come out of this looking like scoundrels. That’s why they’re flooding LENR Forum with a frenzy of pro-IH posts and why ECW is such an important forum in the LENR ecosystem.

        • FC

          Open question: Do you think that IH want to terminate the contract?

          • FC

            My opinion: No, why would they? They probably think that Rossi is on to something (in spite of their legal strategy of dismissing both Rossi and the E-Cat as a fraud) and therefore they want to keep their rights to Rossi’s present and future IP. In fact, I think this whole lawsuit is all about Rossi wanting to terminate the contract (to regain full rights to his IP) and IH trying to prevent him. The rest is just part of the negotiation.

          • Mike Rion

            Heck no, they still want to retain the IP, strange since at the same time they want us to believe it is worthless.

    • doug marker

      Josh,

      You posted “If this case goes to trial, IH is going to be able to make Rossi look very, very bad based on the way he (falsely) represented to them the whole situation with JM Chemical products. He is clearly leading them on to think that the company was a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey set up by his lawyer, when in fact he admitted in his deposition that it wasn’t.”

      Isn’t this trial about the eCat being contracted to run for 12 months and deliver equal or better than a minimal performance. I can understand your issue re Matthey but who he is and what he is doesn’t in any legal sense mean the eCat did or didn’t work as per the contract.

      Put another way, the contract was not about delivering heat to ‘JM Chemicals’. That was a side issue to do with where the energy would go, the eCat only really had to produce it. It is *not* pivotal to if the eCat worked. It is too easy to get hung up about this particular side issue.

      D

      • Josh G

        In principle I agree with you. But what you or I think doesn’t really matter. Frank said: think of the jury. So that’s what I did. And I think that in this particular case the jury’s decision will hinge on Rossi’s credibility, and there is a lot of ammunition against him in the court documents released to us. I think there’s a lot of ammunition against IH, too. But as I said on balance I think it tips in IH’s favor.

  • Josh G

    If this case goes to trial, IH is going to be able to make Rossi look very, very bad based on the way he (falsely) represented to them the whole situation with JM Chemical products. He is clearly leading them on to think that the company was a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey set up by his lawyer, when in fact he admitted in his deposition that it wasn’t.

    See for example the representations he makes in his e-mails in 245-11: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/245-11-Exhibit-11.pdf

    I’m not saying the IH is blameless or anything like that. They appear to have used Rossi to get more investment capital long after they knew the ‘test’ was compromised and would not reveal anything. They also seemed to have given Rossi the impression that this was ‘THE’ test while all along they didn’t believe that. But the evidence for that seems somehow less in-your-face. Their lies are more like lies of omission. There is no smoking gun email where they can be seen to conspire to screw Rossi out of his money. But there are e-mails from Rossi to them where he is making representations that he knows to not be true.

    Also given his checkered past, I think it’s going to make it very easy for IH to paint him as untrustworthy. Yes Rossi’s lawyers can try to do the same with IH given their apparent double-dealing (and for the record I think they’re snakes), but I don’t think it will cut as deep into their credibility.

    • BillH

      A fair assessment of the present state of affairs. I would also add that the reputational damage to IH and by inference Cherokee, is huge. They made so many mistakes, especially in the technical area their oversight of testing. They have also been forced to reveal much confidential information and a great deal about their business practices. Any compensation they may get would hardly repair the damage.

      • Josh G

        Yes, 100% agree. They come out of this looking like scoundrels. That’s why they’re flooding LENR Forum with a frenzy of pro-IH posts and why ECW is such an important forum in the LENR ecosystem.

    • doug marker

      Josh,

      You posted “If this case goes to trial, IH is going to be able to make Rossi look very, very bad based on the way he (falsely) represented to them the whole situation with JM Chemical products. He is clearly leading them on to think that the company was a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey set up by his lawyer, when in fact he admitted in his deposition that it wasn’t.”

      Isn’t this trial about the eCat being contracted to run for 12 months and deliver equal or better than a minimal performance. I can understand your issue re Matthey but who he is and what he is doesn’t in any legal sense mean the eCat did or didn’t work as per the contract.

      Put another way, the contract was not about delivering heat to ‘JM Chemicals’. That was a side issue to do with where the energy would go, the eCat only really had to produce it. It is *not* pivotal to if the eCat worked. It is too easy to get hung up about this particular side issue.

      D

      • Josh G

        In principle I agree with you. But what you or I think doesn’t really matter. Frank said: think of the jury. So that’s what I did. And I think that in this particular case the jury’s decision will hinge on Rossi’s credibility, and there is a lot of ammunition against him in the court documents released to us. I think there’s a lot of ammunition against IH, too. But as I said on balance I think it tips in IH’s favor.

  • FC

    Open question: Regardless of the outcome in court (or if a settlement is reached prior to that), is there any chance that the contract will remain valid?

    • FC

      Since both parties are accusing each other of breaching the contract, is it safe to assume that the contract will be officially declared null and void at the latest by the end of the trial? And that the trial will only determine who has to compensate who and for how much? (Provided a settlement isn’t reached before then).

      • FC

        The contract seems to lack specific terms for termination. Therefore, the laws of the State of Florida apply. In that case, as far as I can tell, if the jury finds that one party has breached the contract in any way, the other party is entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally. It could also happen that both parties are found to have breached the contract in one or more ways, which would give both of them the possibility of terminating the contract.

        It seems clear that Rossi wants to terminate the contract. But do IH? And if they don’t (and the verdict allows them to), how could they justify keeping the contract in force in the face of their accusations of fraud against Rossi and the E-Cat?

        • Obvious

          I am pretty sure there is a dispute mechanism specified in the contract that requires arbitration for settlement, and the jurisdiction for dispute settlement is specified to be Florida.

          • FC

            I couldn’t find it. If you could please point it to me, I would appreciate it very much.

          • Obvious

            Looks like it is 16.10 of the License Agreement.
            I don’t see arbitration there, though, so I take that part back.
            But unilateral revocation of the license is not supported.

          • FC

            Exactly, Obvious. As I said before, the contract doesn’t seem to specify any terms for termination. It only refers the parties to the laws of Florida for resolving any disputes.

        • BillH

          But Rossi already said he terminated the license agreement unilaterally?
          I’m not sure he had the legal right to do that?

      • Dr. Mike

        In my opinion the answers to your question have to be yes and yes since there is no way the court could force Rossi to turn over his IP to IH. IH would have to keep coming back to court every time they claimed he wasn’t providing the IP needed to produce his latest E-Cat products.

  • FC

    Open question: Regardless of the outcome in court (or if a settlement is reached prior to that), is there any chance that the contract will remain valid?

    • FC

      Since both parties are accusing each other of breaching the contract, is it safe to assume that the contract will be officially declared null and void at the latest by the end of the trial? And that the trial will only determine who has to compensate who and for how much? (Provided a settlement isn’t reached before then).

      • FC

        The contract seems to lack specific terms for termination. Therefore, the laws of the State of Florida apply. In that case, as far as I can tell, if the jury finds that one party has breached the contract in any way, the other party is entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally. It could also happen that both parties are found to have breached the contract in one or more ways, which would give both of them the possibility of terminating the contract.

        It seems clear that Rossi wants to terminate the contract. But do IH? And if they don’t (and the verdict allows them to), how could they justify keeping the contract in force in the face of their accusations of fraud against Rossi and the E-Cat?

        • Obvious

          I am pretty sure there is a dispute mechanism specified in the contract that requires arbitration for settlement, and the jurisdiction for dispute settlement is specified to be Florida.

          • FC

            I couldn’t find it. If you could please point it to me, I would appreciate it very much.

          • Obvious

            Looks like it is 16.10 of the License Agreement.
            I don’t see arbitration there, though, so I take that part back.
            But unilateral revocation of the license is not supported.

          • FC

            Exactly, Obvious. As I said before, the contract doesn’t seem to specify any terms for termination. It only refers the parties to the laws of Florida for resolving any disputes.

        • BillH

          But Rossi already said he terminated the license agreement unilaterally?
          I’m not sure he had the legal right to do that?

      • Dr. Mike

        In my opinion the answers to your question have to be yes and yes since there is no way the court could force Rossi to turn over his IP to IH. IH would have to keep coming back to court every time they claimed he wasn’t providing the IP needed to produce his latest E-Cat products.

  • georgehants

    It is to me inconceivable that people are still going round in circles regarding the ridiculous court case etc. is everybody half-witted and mad?
    Seven bloody years and millions dying and suffering for lack of cheap energy and all everybody can talk about is within a clearly failed system.
    Why is not every person not demanding a sane system where Rossi is forced to have surgery to remove his greed and Ego and forced to reveal his secrets (if genuine) for the good of mankind.
    The ability of laughingly supposed intelligence people to think is a joke.

    • FC

      Hi George.
      That’s a good point.
      Personally, I think that if Rossi’s latest device works as claimed and all he’s waiting for to market it is the dissolution of his contract with IH, then humanity as a whole has a vested interest in this trial. That’s my reason for following this legal battle more closely as of late. Personally, I don’t care who wins and what compensation they receive. (I believe both parties have deep enough pockets to survive any outcome). I just want the dissolution of the contract so that Rossi can start selling his device (if it really works as claimed and he’s ready to mass produce it). Because right now I think that would be the quickest solution to our energy problems.

      • georgehants

        FC many thanks, the quickest solution is to remove capitalism and it’s greed infested philosophy and allow genuine people to evolve a caring and sharing society.
        Two and a half thousand years of greed infested rich and powerful or religious dictators, dictating the World is long enough, time to grow up I think.
        Please let’s not have the usual halfwits quoting the dictatorships mistakenly described as communism replying.

        • FC

          I agree with you to a great extent, George. I think no one can deny that humankind needs to grow up, fast. I just think that growing up is usually a slower process than the dissemination of useful new technologies. (E.g. it only took a few years for mobile phones to become ubiquitous).

          • georgehants

            FC again many thanks, It has to start some where and today is as good a day as any other.
            Best

          • orsobubu

            But remember that historical revolutions happen in a matters of days, because the social forces have worked underground for centuries in the meantime. Then, they explode abruptly as earthquakes.

          • FC

            Good observation, orsobubu. It reminds me of a quote that I like from Stephen Jay Gould:

            “Stasis is the norm for complex systems; change, when provoked at all, is usually rapid and episodic.”

          • Andreas Moraitis

            The problem is that revolutions do not change the human genome. No matter what economical system people are living in, certain patterns of behaviour, such as aggressiveness or selfishness, will always find a loophole. We can try to reduce those loopholes by carefully improving our society and culture, step by step. That can only happen in practice, not in theory – even if prepared over a long time. Revolutions might block some holes, but they open many others. History is pretty unambiguous in this regard.

        • Monty

          Yeah. Because this is how it works with the systems. We just remove the old system and give ourselfs a new one. Worked great with communism though…

          • Monty

            You get the system you deserve is my point of view 😉
            The world is not this kind of place because we choose to live in capitalism. It’s this kind of place because capitalism is the economical system that represents us the best at this time.

          • georgehants

            Monty, you don’t seem to think you deserve very much

          • georgehants

            Monty, you seem to be totally under the control of the establishment propaganda, Good luck to you.

        • Mike Rion

          Spoken like a true Marxist/Socialist. Not in my country, at least not as long as I have strength to fight it.

          • cashmemorz

            If I may interject what I think Georgehants
            is saying is how to get justice in an idealized
            way for the downtrodden. He is not trying to be
            Marxist -Leninist as the goal, just idealistic
            in looking for a way to improve the lot of the
            the majority of humans. His heart is in the
            right place, just difficult to find a way to
            implement his desires. But I may be reading
            him not quite the way he means it. This just
            what I have come to understand in his comments.
            Personally I see too much excess produced that
            could be of use to those who need it. But because
            of the way things are structured that goal is frustrated.

          • Mike Rion

            Humanity has always been defined by ambition, and aspiration toward a perceived goal, whether it be bringing down a Mastadon to insure a long lived food source, or conquering the mystery of LENR to assure a long lived energy supply. But if the food, or energy, is supplied without a corresponding effort then the basic human trait that has been the chief motivation toward mans rapid development over the past 100,000 years is taken away. IMHO you do not give the down trodden what they need, you supply them with a system that allows them to provide it for themselves. That is what the triumvirate of Democracy, Capitalism and Free Enterprise provides within the USA. Greed is good, because it’s fulfillment assures survival of the species.

          • Dr. Mike

            Really well said!

          • Mike Rion

            Thanks Dr. Mike

          • Ciaranjay

            Best system so far.
            But maybe not forever.
            When the billionaires can get robots to do all the jobs they won’t need the other 99.9%.
            Big changes on the way over the next few decades.

          • orsobubu

            The problem here is in the inner nature of capitalism. You cannot extract surplus value – hence convert it in money and capital – without human work exploitation. Robots alone cannot absolutely produce one dollar alone of capitalization, considering the average economic cycle. capitalists need ever-growing numbers of proletary workers to be billionaires and avoid crisis. Robots increase productivity but this helps in increasing the capital only if the owner capitalist wins his battle against competition expanding its human workforce as a final effect. So, since the overproduction crisis ever looms, and markets cannot grow forever, the only solution for the capitalist will be destroy the production system by imperialistic war, re-define the geopolitical influence spheres and starting again. Some of them are dreaming about transfer the market expansion in outer planets or space colonies, but they will surely fail.

          • psi2u2

            Exactly.

          • What do you think about the fact that Rossi told us at JoNP that he has
            – developed the quark
            – a new industrial customer
            – a new factory in sweden

            and in the court under oath he says that he has
            no new partner
            no new factory
            no new customer

          • doug marker

            In the court he can do jail time for telling lies. In public he can say what he thinks he can get away with. As said many times before Andrea is a hard case. He will give IH a tough time 🙂

            Doug

          • Swede

            The QuarkX is real, sorry to say that you have to take my word for it. I have seen it live and as AR would say it is a master piece. It is something totaly different from the E-cat, both in scale and function.

          • Ciaranjay

            Well that’s me convinced then.

          • Interesting. Perhaps some more meat on the Quark bones to chew on soon (emphasis added).

            Yes. We are preparing an updated version, more detailed and with the addiction of the description of an experiment made with standard calorimetry, whose results will be compared to the results obtained by direct measurements made using the Wien and Boltzmann equations. Also the theoretical part will be reviewed. We are studying and experimenting.

          • psi2u2

            You read it here first!

          • doug marker

            Swede – Thanks, I appreciate your comment.

            All we need now is for AR to bring something to a usable conclusion.

            His lack of final execution for any of his inventions is creating too many problems. As much for himself as for anyone else.

            Cheers Doug

          • Omega Z

            I prefer Rossi drag it out rather then to launch prematurely. A false start could lead to another 20 year delay. There are those who will make sure of that…

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I guess it is less relevant what he said on JoNP over the last years. We have seen that he sometimes exaggerates, but I would tend to interpret this as a typical Mediterranean habit. By “factory” he most likely means his warehouse in Doral, thus a “new factory” might be the same warehouse, equipped with new machinery. He has also been talking about a planned factory in Sweden, which is, however, obviously not yet set up.

            It is correct that he says in one of the depositions that there was no new partner “in the development of E-Cat units” (see Can’s compilation, p. 59). On the other hand he mentions “a collaboration with Hydrofusion” (ibid., p. 58) in Sweden. I do not think that this implies necessarily a contradiction, since this partnership is everything else but “new”. Also, Hydrofusion might not be directly involved in the development of the units.

          • BillH

            It’s best not to commit perjury.

          • So I guess there really was a heat exchanger then.

          • orsobubu

            Absolutely not, because you’ve a metaphysical, idealistic vision of human nature, which is dialectical instead. The development of our specieas has arrived to the point that greed is counter-productive today. Another form of superior production system is required to reconcile the surpassed ideological superstructure with the evolved materialistic structure. but I admit you’re right if you belong to the ruling class, who extract the surplusvalue from workers’ exploitation, or you take advantage from monopolistic position or you’re a rentier. In these cases, you’re fully authorized to stick with conservative and reactionary policies. It is the proof of the reality of the dialectics of class struggle.

          • Omega Z

            You and those like you think it’s about the system. This ism or that ism nothing will change. It has nothing to do with the system.

            It’s about the PEOPLE. Period…

          • cashmemorz

            The context of greed is when most of ones needs are fullfilled
            and one wants more than what is needed to get by. The context
            for helping the down trodden does not (yet) include greed.
            So what that implies is getting people up from misery. What
            they do after that is, of course, up to the individual,
            including greed. So, give the downtrodden a LENR device, with
            safe guards that it gets into the intended hands, and a warning
            that it w ill be taken away if misusedan then see what
            happens. If the downtrodden, misuse it, take it away with
            the explanation of why. Then listen to the excuses why it
            should be returned. It may be prudent to look at similar
            situations where well drilling equiopment and solar energy
            devices were donated to learn what may happen. From What I
            read such donations have helped communities rise above
            their baseline existence.

          • Steve Savage

            Mike… I agree about motivation, however it does not work this way for everybody. For me (and many millions more) being freed from the drudgery of needing to earn a living would provide a pathway to (hopefully) much more productive and interesting use of my time. You must be aware that those that control the capital (the rich) in our current economy, reap much larger rewards than those that supply labor. Machines and Artificial Intelligence will soon be able to provide almost unlimited goods and services with ever diminishing need for human intervention (labor). Our current paradigm “Democracy, Capitalism and Free Enterprise” has provided us with what we have today, but there is every reason to believe it will not do so (in it’s current form) in the future. Perhaps, LENR, with it’s promise of free energy for all, will facilitate and precipitate the needed changes, however it is good to be reminded that only a few successful capitalists control scarce resources. With LENR, resources become increasingly scarce and control will remain with a few.

            I find it so hard to understand why people believe it is a good thing to have so much of our society’s decision making reside in the hands of the super rich. Why would it not be better to reduce this inequality and power and put more of it in the hands of the community (writ large). Currently, our democracy is an illusion and is not functioning well. IMHO we need to strengthen it (technology will help) not give over complete control to the select few capitalists that have manged accumulate and control more than 50% of all the assets, as they will continue to work in their own interest first.

            Don’t get me wrong here, I am a firm believer in Democracy, Capitalism and Free Enterprise, it is absolutely necessary and as far as I can see it is the only way forward. But, increasingly we understand that the system as it is currently constructed has several anomalies which need to be fixed

          • very well said. thank you for that post Steve.

      • Ciaranjay

        I think IH agreed rights to USA but no Europe.
        So nothing stopping Rossi selling there.

        • FC

          Agreed. But it seems to me that Rossi wants to be rid of IH before he puts anything on the market. Perhaps he thinks that if he starts selling a working product he may never get rid of them?

          • doug marker

            But, how many more partners will AR burn through ?
            When is enough enough ? and
            Where are the factories ?.

            But also I don’t agree with George that AR should be ‘forced’ (so who has the evil intent) to hand over what he may have discovered because George says so. Very strange logic.

          • FC

            If I understand Rossi correctly, Doug, Leonardo doesn’t need outside partners to mass produce the E-Cat anymore, because it now has the necessary funding to do so all by itself.

            If I remember correctly, factories will be in Florida and Sweden?

            I too disagree with the use of force.

    • Andy Kumar

      “…forced to reveal his secrets (if genuine) (for fair reward) for the good of all mankind”
      .
      George,
      I had proposed, long time ago, that we invoke *eminent domain* on Rossi for the good of mankind. His greed is beyond belief. He won’t let go unless forced to do so.

      • Omega Z

        What do you suggest.
        Waterboarding???

        Which 1 of us is going to hold him down and who will pour the water???

        There are so many things we can do this for.
        Force doctors to provide free care etc, etc, etc,,,

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Well, in a way, his secrets have been revealed. We know it’s lithium aluminum hydrate and nickel powder.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Pardon me, hydride

    • Vinney

      Wait until you see the feeding frenzy of the lawyers in court, going round and round in circles over the same arguments we had here at ECW.
      They may even be asking ‘Is LENR real?, and producing more energy out than went in.
      What’s been discussed here for 6 years, and now the lawyers are going to have a meal of it.
      The judge should make it clear to IH if they lose this case, they are looking at damages and compensation of between US$200 – $300 million, and these damages don’t apply the other way around, as this part of the Contract is favourable to AR.
      That should concentrate their thinking a little bit.

      • Mike Rion

        If they lose one of their shell companies will go bankrupt and the award will never be paid.

        • FC

          That’s a definite possibility, Mike. But I suspect that Rossi can afford not being paid. I think he’s not in this lawsuit for a few hundreds of millions. I think he’s in it for the trillions that the QuarkX might bring. So he just wants out from the contract with IH. And for that to happen, he needs the court to find IH guilty of breaching the contract at least once, regardless of the compensation.

          • Mike Rion

            Exactly, I agree. To Rossi the money has always simply been the means to an end.

          • roseland67

            Rossi can still sell Ecats in every country that IH does not have a license, and yet?

    • roseland67

      Georgehants,
      IF, Rossi really had what he suggests he has, every intelligence dept in every country in the world would have conspired to “sweat” him for the keys to his kingdom.

      • BillH

        And yet, put them inside a black box and call them secret and they can still look miraculously good in terms of COP, at least for a short while.

        • roseland67

          But chemical energy and power density are all fixed, the cop can be calculated, it would be blatantly obvious as soon as the experiment died.

      • Omega Z

        You have no idea whats going on behind closed doors.
        While everyone is watching small time Cherokee Darden reality show, Some nations are ready for a bidding War. China already offered up $200 million for a 25% energy market share before the GPT was even half way through. Imagine the number if it’s proven beyond doubt. X$ in the billions.

        • radvar

          Concur. We’re only seeing the ripples on the surface above the emerging continent.

        • roseland67

          Omega,

          Correct, I have no idea what is going on behind “closed doors”, I suspect you do not either.
          Can you provide a link to the China $200 million for anything Rossi?

          I have been imagining “Ecat” possibilities for over 6 years.
          Now, as always, I will believe it when I see it, just don’t think I’ll see it.

    • Omega Z

      I find it entertaining that you think this technology will change things very much. I would imagine that you have not even considered the possibility that it could make things much worse before they get better.

    • Mike Rion

      Dying may be a blessing in disguise. World population has doubled since 1970. It is projected to double again by 2050. If that is allowed to happen there won’t be enough food to feed everyone, or enough room to house them, let alone free energy to keep them warm.

      • georgehants

        Mike, good to know that looked at as you do, that there is no better answer I am sure you, your family and friends will be first in-line to volunteer for your own deaths.

        • Mike Rion

          Not us! But nature has ways of taking care of this kind of situation in the end for example: Comet strike, desease,

  • georgehants

    It is to me inconceivable that people are still going round in circles regarding the ridiculous court case etc. is everybody half-witted and mad?
    Seven bloody years and millions dying and suffering for lack of cheap energy and all everybody can talk about is within a clearly failed system.
    Why is not every person demanding a sane system where Rossi is forced to have surgery to remove his greed and Ego and forced to reveal his secrets (if genuine) (for fair reward) for the good of all mankind.
    The ability of laughingly supposed intelligence people to think is a joke.

    • FC

      Hi George.
      That’s a good point.
      Personally, I think that if Rossi’s latest device works as claimed and all he’s waiting for to market it is the dissolution of his contract with IH, then humanity as a whole has a vested interest in this trial. That’s my reason for following this legal battle more closely as of late. Personally, I don’t care who wins and what compensation they receive. (I believe both parties have deep enough pockets to survive any outcome). I just want the dissolution of the contract so that Rossi can start selling his device (if it really works as claimed and he’s ready to mass produce it). Because right now I think that would be the quickest solution to our energy problems.

      • georgehants

        FC many thanks, the quickest solution is to remove capitalism and it’s greed infested philosophy and allow genuine people to evolve a caring and sharing society.
        Two and a half thousand years of greed infested rich and powerful or religious dictators, dictating the World is long enough, time to grow up I think.
        Please let’s not have the usual halfwits quoting the dictatorships mistakenly described as communism replying.

        • FC

          I agree with you to a great extent, George. I think no one can deny that humankind needs to grow up, fast. I just think that growing up is usually a slower process than the dissemination of useful new technologies. (E.g. it only took a few years for mobile phones to become ubiquitous).

          • georgehants

            FC again many thanks, It has to start some where and today is as good a day as any other.
            Best

          • orsobubu

            But remember that historical revolutions happen in a matters of days, because the social forces have worked underground for centuries in the meantime. Then, they explode abruptly as earthquakes.

          • FC

            Good observation, orsobubu. It reminds me of a quote that I like from Stephen Jay Gould:

            “Stasis is the norm for complex systems; change, when provoked at all, is usually rapid and episodic.”

          • Andreas Moraitis

            The problem is that revolutions do not change the human genome. No matter what economical system people are living in, certain patterns of behaviour, such as aggressiveness or selfishness, will always find a loophole. We can try to reduce those loopholes by carefully improving our society and culture, step by step. That can only happen in practice, not in theory – even if prepared over a long time. Revolutions might block some holes, but they open many others. History is pretty unambiguous in this regard.

          • orsobubu

            In this case it is the cultural evolution that matters. Think about the hugely different social acceptance from today of some behaviours like ius primae noctis in the middle age, or the right to kill a slave in the empire age. Those patterns you refer to are materialistically induced, in the sense that the economic, material reality (fight to survive) has ingrained them in the genome as a necessity, by evolution in the primeval jungle. If the production system changes, so the cultural superstructures have to change accordingly, and you can verify that bourgeoise society is hugely different from ancient societies, where extreme violence and personal abuse was the norm. With the evolution of production (robots, automation, total planning, infinite energy, etc) the pillars of capitalistic system are a tragic obstacles to human development, and they will be wiped out as well. The process is the opposite of what you describe, it isn’t that we have to try to modify the behaviour because of the evolving environment, it is the material evolving environment that commands a change in human behaviour, we like it or not. Perhaps, with millennia, this will also intake in the genome, in the same way that men today are taller than thousands of years ago. Perhaps will be the man-machine sintethic evolution, with advanced social codes programmed inside the chips, to lead a form of genetic change. Do you prefer that this perspective – extremely probable – be driven by a ruling class upon the subordinate class to create a perfect new android slave? The rebellion, the revolution will be a necessity instead. I’w waiting from you some examples of backward steps in the quality of human expressions of life due to past revolutions. It is not a case that the pope speaks actually like a marxist, and the dalai lama tells that the western philosophy more akin to him is marxism.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Cultural evolution, economic conditions, genetic predispositions – all these factors play a role. But we cannot switch the genetic component off just by changing one of the others. Even if it seems to have faded into the background it is important to remain aware of it. I agree that there has been made historic progress during the previous Centuries. But the ice is still thin, and preventing it from breaking requires responsible action.

            In democracies, everybody who does not agree with the current circumstances can found a party and try to convince people to vote for it. IMO that’s like it should be done. It is a long and arduous way, but it works without force and bloodshed.

          • orsobubu

            Andreas M., if you take your time and look at this:

            https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Engels_Anti_Duhring.pdf

            starting from section II – theory of force, page 112, I’m sure you we’ll see very differently at revolutions in history, totally purging them from the concept of violence and bloodshed

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Thanks orsobubu, will do.

        • Monty

          Yeah. Because this is how it works with the systems. We just remove the old system and give ourselfs a new one. Worked great with communism though…

          • Monty

            You get the system you deserve is my point of view 😉
            The world is not this kind of place because we choose to live in capitalism. It’s this kind of place because capitalism is the economical system that represents us the best at this time.

          • georgehants

            Monty, you don’t seem to think you deserve not very much

          • georgehants

            Monty, you seem to be totally under the control of the establishment propaganda, Good luck to you.

          • Jerry Soloman

            here is a good read George – 10 Most Recent & Current Communist Nations In The World https://financesonline.com/10-most-recent-current-communist-nations-in-the-world/

          • orsobubu

            Wrong, see my reply to monty above. If you’ve money, market, wage work and banks, you’ve capitalism, not communism. There is only one auto-proclamed nation in the world, a little island in the Pacific, if I’m not wrong, in the whole history of the world, which is not capitalist. Communism is a revolutionary program for the future.

          • orsobubu

            Wrong, because since the fifties, with the early work of Amadeo Bordiga, we now know that communism was in reality a state capitalism, conserving all the faults of the original, free market version, and worse..See “Theories” chapter:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadeo_Bordiga

        • Navdrew

          Perhaps Venezuela and its socialist leader Maduro can produce a solution to the world’s problems. They have plenty of oil with equality and Justice for all. Not..

        • Mike Rion

          Spoken like a true Marxist/Socialist. Not in my country, at least not as long as I have strength to fight it.

          • cashmemorz

            If I may interject what I think Georgehants
            is saying is how to get justice in an idealized
            way for the downtrodden. He is not trying to be
            Marxist -Leninist as the goal, just idealistic
            in looking for a way to improve the lot of the
            the majority of humans. His heart is in the
            right place, just difficult to find a way to
            implement his desires. But I may be reading
            him not quite the way he means it. This just
            what I have come to understand in his comments.
            Personally I see too much excess produced that
            could be of use to those who need it. But because
            of the way things are structured that goal is frustrated.

          • Mike Rion

            Humanity has always been defined by ambition, and aspiration toward a perceived goal, whether it be bringing down a Mastadon to insure a long lived food source, or conquering the mystery of LENR to assure a long lived energy supply. But if the food, or energy, is supplied without a corresponding effort then the basic human trait that has been the chief motivation toward mans rapid development over the past 100,000 years is taken away. IMHO you do not give the down trodden what they need, you supply them with a system that allows them to provide it for themselves. That is what the triumvirate of Democracy, Capitalism and Free Enterprise provides within the USA. Greed is good, because it’s fulfillment assures survival of the species.

          • Dr. Mike

            Really well said!

          • Mike Rion

            Thanks Dr. Mike

          • Ciaranjay

            Best system so far.
            But maybe not forever.
            When the billionaires can get robots to do all the jobs they won’t need the other 99.9%.
            Big changes on the way over the next few decades.

          • orsobubu

            The problem here is in the inner nature of capitalism. You cannot extract surplus value – hence convert it in money and capital – without human work exploitation. Robots alone cannot absolutely produce one dollar alone of capitalization, considering the average economic cycle. capitalists need ever-growing numbers of proletary workers to be billionaires and avoid crisis. Robots increase productivity but this helps in increasing the capital only if the owner capitalist wins his battle against competition expanding its human workforce as a final effect. So, since the overproduction crisis ever looms, and markets cannot grow forever, the only solution for the capitalist will be destroy the production system by imperialistic war, re-define the geopolitical influence spheres and starting again. Some of them are dreaming about transfer the market expansion in outer planets or space colonies, but they will surely fail.

          • psi2u2

            Exactly.

          • orsobubu

            Absolutely not, because you’ve a metaphysical, idealistic vision of human nature, which is dialectical instead. The development of our specieas has arrived to the point that greed is counter-productive today. Another form of superior production system is required to reconcile the surpassed ideological superstructure with the evolved materialistic structure. but I admit you’re right if you belong to the ruling class, who extract the surplusvalue from workers’ exploitation, or you take advantage from monopolistic position or you’re a rentier. In these cases, you’re fully authorized to stick with conservative and reactionary policies. It is the proof of the reality of the dialectics of class struggle.

          • Observer

            Thank you!

          • Omega Z

            You and those like you think it’s about the system. This ism or that ism nothing will change. It has nothing to do with the system.

            It’s about the PEOPLE. Period…

          • orsobubu

            I agree, it’s about the people, but not because it’s about people thoughts and conscious actions, but in the sense that the capitalistic system is a social relationship, an enormously intricated interaction of human relations basically founded upon exploitation, independently by people conscious will.

          • cashmemorz

            The context of greed is when most of ones needs are fullfilled
            and one wants more than what is needed to get by. The context
            for helping the down trodden does not (yet) include greed.
            So what that implies is getting people up from misery. What
            they do after that is, of course, up to the individual,
            including greed. So, give the downtrodden a LENR device, with
            safe guards that it gets into the intended hands, and a warning
            that it w ill be taken away if misusedan then see what
            happens. If the downtrodden, misuse it, take it away with
            the explanation of why. Then listen to the excuses why it
            should be returned. It may be prudent to look at similar
            situations where well drilling equiopment and solar energy
            devices were donated to learn what may happen. From What I
            read such donations have helped communities rise above
            their baseline existence.

          • Steve Savage

            Mike… I agree about motivation, however it does not work this way for everybody. For me (and many millions more) being freed from the drudgery of needing to earn a living would provide a pathway to (hopefully) much more productive and interesting use of my time. You must be aware that those that control the capital (the rich) in our current economy, reap much larger rewards than those that supply labor. Machines and Artificial Intelligence will soon be able to provide almost unlimited goods and services with ever diminishing need for human intervention (labor). Our current paradigm “Democracy, Capitalism and Free Enterprise” has provided us with what we have today, but there is every reason to believe it will not do so (in it’s current form) in the future. Perhaps, LENR, with it’s promise of free energy for all, will facilitate and precipitate the needed changes, however it is good to be reminded that only a few successful capitalists control scarce resources. With LENR, resources become increasingly scarce and control will remain with a few.

            I find it so hard to understand why people believe it is a good thing to have so much of our society’s decision making reside in the hands of the super rich. Why would it not be better to reduce this inequality and power and put more of it in the hands of the community (writ large). Currently, our democracy is an illusion and is not functioning well. IMHO we need to strengthen it (technology will help) not give over complete control to the select few capitalists that have manged accumulate and control more than 50% of all the assets, as they will continue to work in their own interest first.

            Don’t get me wrong here, I am a firm believer in Democracy, Capitalism and Free Enterprise, it is absolutely necessary and as far as I can see it is the only way forward. But, increasingly we understand that the system as it is currently constructed has several anomalies which need to be fixed

          • very well said. thank you for that post Steve.

      • Ciaranjay

        I think IH agreed rights to USA but no Europe.
        So nothing stopping Rossi selling there.

        • FC

          Agreed. But it seems to me that Rossi wants to be rid of IH before he puts anything on the market. Perhaps he thinks that if he starts selling a working product he may never get rid of them?

          • doug marker

            But, how many more partners will AR burn through ?
            When is enough enough ? and
            Where are the factories ?.

            But also I don’t agree with George that AR should be ‘forced’ to hand over what he may have discovered because someone says so. Very strange logic.

          • FC

            If I understand Rossi correctly, Doug, Leonardo doesn’t need outside partners to mass produce the E-Cat anymore, because it now has the necessary funding to do so all by itself.

            If I remember correctly, factories will be in Florida and Sweden?

            I too disagree with the use of force.

    • Andy Kumar

      “…forced to reveal his secrets (if genuine) (for fair reward) for the good of all mankind”
      .
      George,
      I had proposed, long time ago, that we invoke *eminent domain* on Rossi for the good of mankind. His greed is beyond belief. He won’t let go unless forced to do so.

      • Roy

        Maybe Rossi is holding on to his IP until the world is sufficiently convinced and there is no risk of oil companies or others BURYING the tech.

      • Omega Z

        What do you suggest.
        Waterboarding???

        Which 1 of us is going to hold him down and who will pour the water???

        There are so many things we can do this for.
        Force doctors to provide free care etc, etc, etc,,,

    • Jerry Soloman

      George, Brillouin Energy also has a claimed LENR device and they have raised 15 million from investors, should they also be FORCED to release IP for the sake of man?

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Well, in a way, his secrets have been revealed. We know it’s lithium aluminum hydrate and nickel powder.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Pardon me, hydride

    • Vinney

      Wait until you see the feeding frenzy of the lawyers in court, going round and round in circles over the same arguments we had here at ECW.
      They may even be asking ‘Is LENR real?, and producing more energy out than went in.
      What’s been discussed here for 6 years, and now the lawyers are going to have a meal of it.
      The judge should make it clear to IH if they lose this case, they are looking at damages and compensation of between US$200 – $300 million, and these damages don’t apply the other way around, as this part of the Contract is favourable to AR.
      That should concentrate their thinking a little bit.

      • Mike Rion

        If they lose one of their shell companies will go bankrupt and the award will never be paid.

        • FC

          That’s a definite possibility, Mike. But I suspect that Rossi can afford not being paid. I think he’s not in this lawsuit for a few hundreds of millions. I think he’s in it for the trillions that the QuarkX might bring. So he just wants out from the contract with IH. And for that to happen, he needs the court to find IH guilty of breaching the contract at least once, regardless of the compensation.

          • Mike Rion

            Exactly, I agree. To Rossi the money has always simply been the means to an end.

          • roseland67

            Rossi can still sell Ecats in every country that IH does not have a license, and yet?

    • roseland67

      Georgehants,
      IF, Rossi really had what he suggests he has, every intelligence dept in every country in the world would have conspired to “sweat” him for the keys to his kingdom.

      • Omega Z

        You have no idea whats going on behind closed doors.
        While everyone is watching small time Cherokee Darden reality show, Some nations are ready for a bidding War. China already offered up $200 million for a 25% energy market share before the GPT was even half way through. Imagine the number if it’s proven beyond doubt. X$ in the billions.

        • roseland67

          Omega,

          Correct, I have no idea what is going on behind “closed doors”, I suspect you do not either.
          Can you provide a link to the China $200 million for anything Rossi?

          I have been imagining “Ecat” possibilities for over 6 years.
          Now, as always, I will believe it when I see it, just don’t think I’ll see it.

    • Omega Z

      I find it entertaining that you think this technology will change things very much. I would imagine that you have not even considered the possibility that it could make things much worse before they get better.

      • orsobubu

        You’re absolutely correct, but george says that’s a fault of capitalistic system, not of LENR itself. I always thought this technology is worse than better for capitalism survival and in general for mankind, enduring capitalistic conditions. There is a possibility that LENR can help to open the interplanetary space to market expansion and capitalistic thriving, but I think it is too late to invert the path to the collapse of the world order, there are not capitals enough to invest in such a huge accomplishment.

    • Mike Rion

      Dying may be a blessing in disguise. World population has doubled since 1970. It is projected to double again by 2050. If that is allowed to happen there won’t be enough food to feed everyone, or enough room to house them, let alone free energy to keep them warm.

      • georgehants

        Mike, good to know that looked at as you do, that there is no better answer, I am sure you, your family and friends will be first in-line to volunteer for your own deaths.

        • Mike Rion

          Not us! But nature has ways of taking care of this kind of situation in the end for example: Comet strike, desease,

  • GiveADogABone

    The rules do not permit new witnesses after the end of discovery. They must all be known, have provided testimony and been deposed. As far as I can see, only Murray and Smith are technical witnesses for IH.

    • BillH

      In one respect at least the Final Report is wrong, and provably wrong, the test was not done on 115 reactors, or anywhere near that number, The question then is is this enough to discredit the whole report.

  • Dr. Mike

    Jerry,
    Although hindsight is always 20/20, it sure looks like IH would have been a lot better off to tie their payments to Rossi to IH’s ability to make working E-cats, rather than for Rossi to demonstrate that they work. I don’t think they will ever make that mistake again, nor will anyone else that wants to roll the dice and get into a future business venture with Rossi. Rossi really should not have spent one year in the 1MW facility; he should have been spending about halftime between transferring his technology to IH and about halftime advancing the technology (IMO).
    Dr. Mike

  • FC

    Open question: Do you think that IH want to terminate the contract?

    • FC

      My opinion: No, why would they? They probably think that Rossi is on to something (in spite of their legal strategy of dismissing both Rossi and the E-Cat as a fraud) and therefore they want to keep their rights to Rossi’s present and future IP. In fact, I think this whole lawsuit is all about Rossi wanting to terminate the contract (to regain full rights to his IP) and IH trying to prevent him. The rest is just part of the negotiation.

    • Mike Rion

      Heck no, they still want to retain the IP, strange since at the same time they want us to believe it is worthless.

  • Bruce__H

    There is evidence that I expected to surface in discovery but which we have not seen or heard of yet I can make a little list

    – Fuel ash from the ecats
    – .Rumored 24-hour security video of the Doral site
    – Thermal imaging of the facility
    – Rick Smith’s claimed connection between the condensate return pipe and the steam riser for the Tiger/BF units.

    Can anyone think of anything to be added to the list? What does it mean now that discovery is over? Dos it mean that these items will never appear

    • BillH

      Discrepancies about the power meter Penon said was used in his deposition and the notes recorded by Fabiani?
      Exactly what ash sample did AR give the Lugano Team, after Darden warned him in an email not to reveal any IP?
      Why the flow meter wasn’t used to it’s full capacity, it could read to the nearest litre. or 1/1000th of a cubic meter?
      The use or not of the Grundfos pump?
      The pressure gauge’s sample rate and battery?
      Why Henry W Johnson never questioned AR and signed documents he knew were incorrect or for which he had no technical competence to sign? OFAC? Term Sheet?

      • Obvious

        Bass said that pump in the black box was only used on start-ups, to run water through the filter after repairs. Normally it was bypassed.

        • BillH

          Bass was never allowed on the IH side of the plant, so how would he know? That prohibition works both ways.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            That’s not correct. Bass even participated in the installations made inside the „black box“. See 207-48.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Assuming you meant „JMP side“ when you wrote „IH side“.

          • BillH

            uhm, no.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            But what else did you mean? Actually, there was no “IH side” in the building.

    • Obvious

      The video was provided, early on, but for some reason it was not in a viewable format (or something like that).

      • Bruce__H

        Was the nonfunctional file included in one of the documents publicly released on the court docket?

        • Obvious

          No. I don’t know if the video file issue was ever resolved. It was one of the very few evidences provided by Leonardo et al in discovery, before the ‘final’ deadline. There was a comment from IH about the unusable video files at around the same time it was revealed the Fabiani was in Russia.

          I was sort of looking forward to the ‘stellar’ dance part that Rossi was going on about once upon a time.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Cultural evolution, economic conditions, genetic predispositions – all these factors play a role. But we cannot switch the genetic component off just by changing one of the others. Even if it seems to have faded into the background it is important to remain aware of it. I agree that there has been made historic progress during the previous Centuries. But the ice is still thin, and preventing it from breaking requires responsible action.

    In democracies, everybody who does not agree with the current circumstances can found a party and try to convince people to vote for it. IMO that’s like it should be done. It is a long and arduous way, but it works without force and bloodshed.

  • BillH

    Discrepancies about the power meter Penon said was used in his deposition and the notes recorded by Fabiani?
    Exactly what ash sample did AR give the Lugano Team, after Darden warned him in an email not to reveal any IP?
    Why the flow meter wasn’t used to it’s full capacity, it could read to the nearest litre. or 1/1000th of a cubic meter?
    The use or not of the Grundfos pump?
    The pressure gauge’s sample rate and battery?
    Why Henry W Johnson never questioned AR and signed documents he knew were incorrect or for which he had no technical competence to sign? OFAC? Term Sheet?

    • Obvious

      Bass said that pump in the black box was only used on start-ups, to run water through the filter after repairs. Normally it was bypassed.

      • BillH

        Bass was never allowed on the IH side of the plant, so how would he know? That prohibition works both ways.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          That’s not correct. Bass even participated in the installations made inside the „black box“. See 207-48.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Assuming you meant „JMP side“ when you wrote „IH side“.

          • BillH

            uhm, no.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            But what else did you mean? Actually, there was no “IH side” in the building.

  • radvar

    Hundreds of photos that Rossi (I believe, but with no evidence) took to document the entire process. Again, where in the depositions was he asked for any such collection? And if he was he not asked, why not?

  • radvar

    I think the “will never appear” angle is interesting. Both IH and Rossi have an interest in not disclosing trade secrets. From that perspective, they will be trying to win with the least possible evidence.

    And that may answer my question below about the “why hasn’t ‘full documentation’ been asked for?” Not so much because IH knows it will sink Smith’s report, but because they still hope to win the IP, and want to keep it secret.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Thanks orsobubu, will do.

  • David

    If IH’s main argument is the belief that the ECAT can’t work because it’s impossible, then why did they enter into a commercial agreement in the first place. The case should be decided purely on whether the terms of the contract were fulfilled or not.

    • GiveADogABone

      Contract fulfilled – CoP greater than 6
      not fulfilled – CoP less than 6
      Q. Anything in the evidence from Murray and Smith that proves the CoP was less than 6?
      A. Nothing that I can find.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        However, even with a sufficient COP the question if the IP was completely transferred would still be critical.

        • GiveADogABone

          First, the contract gets annulled for failure to pay?
          Then its damages and return of all IP?

          A cascading failure is a failure in a system of interconnected parts in which the failure of a part can trigger the failure of successive parts. Such a failuremay happen in many types of systems, including power transmission, computer networking, finance, human bodily systems, and bridges.
          Cascading failure – Wikipedia
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_failure

          I do not know what the american legal system calls it.
          e.g. if the ERV report was right, then how can there be a fraudulent conspiracy to alter it?
          How many more of IH’s allegations fail?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I wonder if the contract could be voided in part. If so, there are many options. Otherwise (contract voided as a whole), I guess AR could keep his IP but might have to return the 10M.

          • GiveADogABone

            Rossi has already offered to pay back the 10M in exchange for the IP. IH said no.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            That offer has not yet been confirmed. Certainly, if AR has what he says this would seem to be the best solution for him. He could easily get ten times more money from a big industrial partner, not including the professional assistance in R&D, production, marketing and distribution. IH might be interested in keeping the IP even if they think that AR’s technology does not work, simply in order to avoid potential patent conflicts.

          • GiveADogABone

            Letting IH have some obsolete IP to play with is one thing, letting them have any chance of getting the QuarkX IP is a totally different matter.

  • Töttöröö

    Investigating unproven technologies is OK and necessary. But the “E-Cat Story” is not about technology, you should see that by now.

  • What do you think about the fact that Rossi told us at JoNP that he has
    – developed the quark
    – a new industrial customer
    – a new factory in sweden

    and in the court under oath he says that he has
    no new partner
    no new factory
    no new customer

    • doug marker

      In the court he can do jail time for telling lies. In public he can say what he thinks he can get away with. As said many times before Andrea is a hard case. He will give IH a tough time 🙂

      But for his own sake and to please us in the crowd, I do hope he does have that QuarkX.

      But one thing he can tell the judge and the public that is 100% true, is his ongoing talk of LiH reactors has kept almost everyone, follower and skeptic alike, focused on LENR in a way no other person has or perhaps could achieve. If that alone becomes Andrea’s legacy, good on him.

      Doug

      • Swede

        The QuarkX is real, sorry to say that you have to take my word for it. I have seen it live and as AR would say it is a master piece. It is something totaly different from the E-cat, both in scale and function.

        • Ciaranjay

          Well that’s me convinced then.

          • psi2u2

            You read it here first!

        • doug marker

          Swede – Thanks, I appreciate your comment.

          All we need now is for AR to bring something to a usable conclusion.

          His lack of final execution for any of his inventions is creating too many problems. As much for himself as for anyone else.

          Cheers Doug

          • Omega Z

            I prefer Rossi drag it out rather then to launch prematurely. A false start could lead to another 20 year delay. There are those who will make sure of that…

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I guess it is less relevant what he said on JoNP over the last years. We have seen that he sometimes exaggerates, but I would tend to interpret this as a typical Mediterranean habit. By “factory” he most likely means his warehouse in Doral, thus a “new factory” might be the same warehouse, equipped with new machinery. He has also been talking about a planned factory in Sweden, which is, however, obviously not yet set up.

      It is correct that he says in one of the depositions that there was no new partner “in the development of E-Cat units” (see Can’s compilation, p. 59). On the other hand he mentions “a collaboration with Hydrofusion” (ibid., p. 58) in Sweden. I do not think that this implies necessarily a contradiction, since this partnership is everything else but “new”. Also, Hydrofusion might not be directly involved in the development of the units.

    • Björn-Ola

      He never said that he has a factory in Sweden. I remember he said no on a question about this on JoNP. It is reported that he visited Sweden to look for a suitable building for a factory, so it is probably true that he has plans for setting up a factory in Sweden.

    • BillH

      It’s best not to commit perjury.

      • So I guess there really was a heat exchanger then.

  • Obvious

    The video was provided, early on, but for some reason it was not in a viewable format (or something like that).

  • What happened to the big quarkx announcement planned for february 2017?

    • Evidence for the QuarkX, of various weight, includes:
      – Gullstrom’s experiment and public paper co-authored with Rossi (duped? co-conspirator?)
      – Fabiani’s interview with Mats that included eye-witness observations (co-conspirator?)
      – Leaked picture of Rossi orienting a team of engineers (?) on operation of the QX, with COP > 1700! (elaborate deception with paid actors?)
      – New exhaust pipes on the JMP side, post 1 MW test (why if nothing’s getting really hot?)
      – The ‘glow’ picture of the QX that Rossi released (ok, doesn’t show much but does hint that Sapphire plays a role)
      – Rossi’s assertions (history shows we can only note these, as we cannot determine which are sharing and which are feints… but they have been quite detailed in terms of heat/light/electricity obervations, pursuit of 5 sigma, etc.)

      A smelly stew of deception and conspiracy? Is that what you really think or does your gut tell you that maybe, just maybe, something real is going on here?

      I would like to welcome Gullstrom to the conspiracy super-team. I hope you are getting paid very well to throw your fledgling career into the toilet. /s

    • Jas

      Rossi has mentioned on his JONP that the demonstration will not take place until after the court case has finished.

    • Gerard McEk

      Why do you ask for something you must know, barty?

      A few month ago AR said (JoNP) that he would delay it, due to the work for ongoing court case he felt that he had not enough time to properly prepare an open test like this. Now I believe it might also that his physical health may have played a role.

  • What happened to the big quarkx announcement planned for february 2017?

    • Evidence for the QuarkX, of various weight, includes:
      – Gullstrom’s experiment and public paper co-authored with Rossi (duped? co-conspirator?)
      – Fabiani’s interview with Mats that included eye-witness observations (co-conspirator?)
      – Leaked picture of Rossi orienting a team of engineers (?) on operation of the QX, with COP > 1700! (elaborate deception with paid actors?)
      – New exhaust pipes on the JMP side, post 1 MW test (why if nothing’s getting really hot?)
      – The ‘glow’ picture of the QX that Rossi released (ok, doesn’t show much but does hint that Sapphire plays a role)
      – Rossi’s assertions (history shows we can only note these, as we cannot determine which are sharing and which are feints… but they have been quite detailed in terms of heat/light/electricity observations, pursuit of 5 sigma, etc.)

      A smelly stew of deception and conspiracy? Is that what you really think or does your gut tell you that maybe, just maybe, something real is going on here?

      I would like to welcome Gullstrom to the conspiracy super-team. I hope you are getting paid very well to throw your fledgling career into the toilet. /s

    • Jas

      Rossi has mentioned on his JONP that the demonstration will not take place until after the court case has finished.

    • Gerard McEk

      Why do you ask for something you must know, barty?

      A few month ago AR said (JoNP) that he would delay it, due to the work for ongoing court case he felt that he had not enough time to properly prepare an open test like this. Now I believe it might also that his physical health may have played a role.

  • GiveADogABone

    Contract fulfilled – CoP greater than 6
    not fulfilled – CoP less than 6
    Q. Anything in the evidence from Murray and Smith that proves the CoP was less than 6?
    A. Nothing that I can find.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      However, even with a sufficient COP the question if the IP was completely transferred would still be critical.

      • GiveADogABone

        First, the contract gets annulled for failure to pay?
        Then its damages and return of all IP?

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I wonder if the contract could be voided in part. If so, there are many options. Otherwise (contract voided as a whole), I guess AR could keep his IP but might have to return the 10M.

          • GiveADogABone

            Rossi has already offered to pay back the 10M in exchange for the IP. IH said no.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            That offer has not yet been confirmed. Certainly, if AR has what he says this would seem to be the best solution for him. He could easily get ten times more money from a big industrial partner, not including the professional assistance in R&D, production, marketing and distribution. IH might be interested in keeping the IP even if they think that AR’s technology does not work, simply in order to avoid potential patent conflicts.

          • GiveADogABone

            Letting IH have some obsolete IP to play with is one thing, letting them have any chance of getting the QuarkX IP is a totally different matter.

  • Interesting. Perhaps some more meat on the Quark bones to chew on soon (emphasis added).

    Yes. We are preparing an updated version, more detailed and with the addiction of the description of an experiment made with standard calorimetry, whose results will be compared to the results obtained by direct measurements made using the Wien and Boltzmann equations. Also the theoretical part will be reviewed. We are studying and experimenting.

  • Obvious

    No. I don’t know if the video file issue was ever resolved. It was one of the very few evidences provided by Leonardo et al in discovery, before the ‘final’ deadline. There was a comment from IH about the unusable video files at around the same time it was revealed the Fabiani was in Russia.

    I was sort of looking forward to the ‘stellar’ dance part that Rossi was going on about once upon a time.

  • FC

    The more I think of the jury, the more I’m reminded of Diogenes of Sinope, who used to walk around Athens with a lamp in broad daylight searching for an honest man.
    https://www.wikiart.org/en/jacob-jordaens/diogenes-searching-for-an-honest-man

    • georgehants

      And nothing has changed in two and a half thousand years, we should be so proud.

      • FC

        Lol. Exactly George.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      264, “Defendants’ motion in limine”, p. 6:

      “One megawatt (1 MW) of energy is a massive amount of energy”

      If I were the judge, I would send these attorneys back to school.

      • cashmemorz

        Er, attornies went to law school. For physics, as to the difference between energy and power they just call in a special witness or get a legal clerk to find out the definition. On this point Rossi can give his own lawyer a hint to avoid mixing up terms and therein show that the defendents’ expert witnesses don’t know what they are talking about

        • Andreas Moraitis

          “Attorneys went to law school”

          Yes, but I assume they have a high school diploma. And power vs. energy is not even high school level. If they need an expert for that, then good night.

          • psi2u2

            Right.

        • psi2u2

          Yes, but such a fundamental error looks very bad for these lawyers. Even lawyers, when writing about a technical subject, need to pass a certain threshold of plausibility and talk the talk at least at the most basic level. Otherwise they are merely harming their clients with their ignorance. This is not rocket science.

  • FC

    The more I think of the jury, the more I’m reminded of Diogenes of Sinope, who used to walk around Athens with a lamp in broad daylight searching for an honest man.
    https://www.wikiart.org/en/jacob-jordaens/diogenes-searching-for-an-honest-man

    • georgehants

      And nothing has changed in two and a half thousand years, we should be so proud.

      • FC

        Lol. Exactly George.

  • cashmemorz

    The extent of evidence is regarding the one agreement covering the one device by the plaintive and not others. What IH did with others, be they involved with LENR devices or marmalade is of no import to the case at hand. IH will be identified as a partner involved with Leonardo Corp. Other LENR entities are tied in to Cherokee which entities are an indirect association with Leonardo. No need for the jury to get tangential information that has little or no bearing on the case between LEonardo and IH.

    • psi2u2

      I don’t entirely agree. IH’s pattern of behavior looks like patent trolling, and that activity is certainly relevant to Rossi’s case for their alleged breach of contract. The extent to which the judge will allow testimony to that effect is of course a legal question on which I am not qualified to opine. But, as a matter of logic and reasoning, I think IH’s other activities in the LENR field should definitely be regarded as relevant — although not AS relevant as more basic questions like whether or not the 1MW plant actually achieved the COPs Rossi claims or was, as IH lawyers claim, a sham.

      • cashmemorz

        The other LENR entities that IH is gathering under their investment strategy may give a character reference about IH. And other side issues. But only to give the jury a general idea about what IH is about. If anything, should the jury get hung about who to side with, such side issues could be considered to swing the balance of justice.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    264, “Defendants’ motion in limine”, p. 6:

    “One megawatt (1 MW) of energy is a massive amount of energy”

    If I were the judge, I would send these attorneys back to school.

    • cashmemorz

      Er, attornies went to law school. For physics, as to the difference between energy and power they just call in a special witness or get a legal clerk to find out the definition. On this point Rossi can give his own lawyer a hint to avoid mixing up terms and therein show that the defendents’ expert witnesses don’t know what they are talking about.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        “Attorneys went to law school”

        Yes, but I assume they have a high school diploma. And power vs. energy is not even high school level. If they need an expert for that, then good night.

        • psi2u2

          Right.

      • psi2u2

        Yes, but such a fundamental error looks very bad for these lawyers. Even lawyers, when writing about a technical subject, need to pass a certain threshold of plausibility and talk the talk at least at the most basic level. Otherwise they are merely harming their clients with their ignorance. This is not rocket science.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Seems that the “spoliation” issue is (for now) off the table:

    “Having held a hearing in this matter, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED for the reasons stated on the record.” (266, p. 1)

    • Josh G

      “For now” is the operative term. Document 268 is a notice for a hearing on May 23 in front of judge Altonga on the spoliation motion (among others).

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Seems that the “spoliation” issue is (for now) off the table:

    “Having held a hearing in this matter, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED for the reasons stated on the record.” (266, p. 1)

    • Josh G

      “For now” is the operative term. Document 268 is a notice for a hearing on May 23 in front of judge Altonga on the spoliation motion (among others).

  • radvar

    Wish I had seen this 30 days ago. I KNEW Rossi had to have more photo evidence…

    Andrea Rossi
    May 1, 2016 at 7:52 AM
    LookMoo:
    We have the movies of them, because the plant had cameras for security issues, and photos, but all this information cannot be published before it is disclosed in Court.

  • HappyHighwayman

    The peope who contracted with Rossi are morons for investing and buying unproven technology that clearly doesn’t work in the way they need it to.

    • cashmemorz

      From all the data available it seems that Industrial Heat/ Cherokee is trying to get something for minimum payment. That is whythey are making it look like they can’t make it work.

  • HappyHighwayman

    The peope who contracted with Rossi are morons for investing and buying unproven technology that clearly doesn’t work in the way they need it to.

    • cashmemorz

      From all the data available it seems that Industrial Heat/ Cherokee is trying to get something for minimum payment. That is whythey are making it look like they can’t make it work.