Trial By Jury: Rossi v. IH Trial to Begin June 26

There have been some questions about when the start date of the Rossi v. IH trial, and Tom Conover asked Rossi about this directly on the Journal of Nuclear Physics Today.

Tom Conover
June 11, 2017 at 9:37 PM
Dear Andrea,

Greetings to you and your team!

Things are heating up. It has been said that just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. After all, if bumble bees were meant to fly, they would have to have wings, wouldn’t they?
http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp

A simple question, “In order to fund your manufacturing project with $100 million, could the QuarkX stable enough to endure private viewing during the dates from 06/26/17 through 07/10/17 with a 99.9% of operating in stable format for this entire period?” Naturally, a 24/7 guard would be kept, and it would probably be more comfortable than a shipping container …

This is a theoretical question, a simple thought experiment like Einstein used to do.

Could the QuarkX show up? (Y/N)

Warm Regards,

Tom

Andrea Rossi
June 11, 2017 at 10:12 PM
Tom Conover:
On 7-26-17 will start the trial with the Jury and it will last until end of July…during this period I will be totally focused on the trial.
I still believe that the QuarkX will show up within this year and a test like the one you cite is normal in a case like that.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
P.S.
The article about birds’ flight is interesting.

So there is not too much time left before the trial gets underway; however, it may not be terribly easy to follow closely since I doubt there will be reported in much detail by the media. There are ways to get transcripts sent from the court but it is quite expensive to get live transcripts (e.g. $6.05 per page for a daily transcript).

In regards to the other point that Rossi brings up, from little snippetss of information posted here and there that there have been visitors to Rossi’s labs who have had demonstrations of the QuarkX — certainly under NDA.

The fact that Rossi has requested a jury trial suggests that he is expecting to get a sympathetic ear from the jury. According to the legal reference site Findlaw.com:

“However, there are other occasions when jury trials are better suited to your case than a judge trial would be. This is especially true when you think that you can present your case in a very sympathetic light. Juries are often more swayed by emotions like sympathy than by hard evidence that is presented by attorneys.”

And, while we wait for the serious business of the trial to begin, if anyone is in the mood for a little comic relief, here’s an example of how a trial by jury can sometimes go!

https://youtu.be/xmKV0migjYI

  • Jas

    Hey Frank, Did you get your dates mixed up?

    • Jas

      Title says June 26th. Rossi says July 26th.

      • Frank Acland

        I think Rossi has made a typo, but have asked him on the JONP.

        Thanks!

  • Jas

    Hey Frank, Did you get your dates mixed up?

    • Jas

      Title says June 26th. Rossi says July 26th.

      • Frank Acland

        I think Rossi has made a typo, but have asked him on the JONP.

        Thanks!

  • Freethinker

    Mats Lewan wrote in previous thread:

    “Originally it was scheduled for June 26 but Rossi recently told me it
    should start on June 29. I have not verified this information through.”

    • Frank Acland

      Andrea Rossi
      June 12, 2017 at 8:50 AM
      Frank Acland:
      Thank you for correcting the Typo! Obviously I wrongly wrote that the trial with the Jury will start on July 26, but in reality the starting day will be the 26th of JUNE, not July.
      Just a typo. I am correcting it right now.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

    • Jimr

      It may be he consitered a few days for jury selection before the actual trial begins.

      • HS61AF91

        Wish I was in the jury pool, and acted real cool.

  • Freethinker

    Mats Lewan wrote in previous thread:

    “Originally it was scheduled for June 26 but Rossi recently told me it
    should start on June 29. I have not verified this information through.”

    • Frank Acland

      Andrea Rossi
      June 12, 2017 at 8:50 AM
      Frank Acland:
      Thank you for correcting the Typo! Obviously I wrongly wrote that the trial with the Jury will start on July 26, but in reality the starting day will be the 26th of JUNE, not July.
      Just a typo. I am correcting it right now.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

    • Jimr

      It may be he consitered a few days for jury selection before the actual trial begins.

      • HS61AF91

        Wish I was in the jury pool, and acted real cool.

  • Gerard McEk

    Question is how important the outcome of this process is for AR.
    I guess he needs it for industrialization of the QuarkX. So important, I would think.
    Besides that, wouldn’t Darden let IH go into bankruptcy if they have to pay the 89 M$? Or isn’t that standard procedure in the US?

    • Frank Acland

      If I remember correctly Rossi’s lawsuit suit is against not only IH, but also Cherokee Investment Partners, and Tom Darden and JT Vaughn personally.

    • LilyLover

      After the win, Rossi can remove any doubts about ownership of the IP from the minds of future partners. Investment community will decide the fate of Cherokee based on how they manage the 89M$ payout. Dirtyden is safe because he can claim to be the victim of Cherokee and therefore “following the orders”. That’s why the inclusion of the other parties besides IH. Paying allows Cherokee to blame Dirtyden and show that they are reasonable/responsible, a small price to stay afloat. Not paying is a faster route to extinction for Cherokee.
      Maximizing delays is best bet for them to capitalize upon OilCo-help.
      Also, after the defeat, underhanded supplying of hte IP to Bruillouin-esque companies will have to halt. Good for Dr. Rossi, all in all.

      • Mike Rion

        Isn’t the award if Rossi wins triple damages, so nearly $250 million.

  • Gerard McEk

    Question is how important the outcome of this process is for AR.
    I guess he needs it for industrialization of the QuarkX. So important, I would think.
    Besides that, wouldn’t Darden let IH go into bankruptcy if they have to pay the 89 M$? Or isn’t that standard procedure in the US?

    • Frank Acland

      If I remember correctly Rossi’s lawsuit suit is against not only IH, but also Cherokee Investment Partners, and Tom Darden and JT Vaughn personally.

    • LilyLover

      After the win, Rossi can remove any doubts about ownership of the IP from the minds of future partners. Investment community will decide the fate of Cherokee based on how they manage the 89M$ payout. Dirtyden is safe because he can claim to be the victim of Cherokee and therefore “following the orders”. That’s why the inclusion of the other parties besides IH. Paying allows Cherokee to blame Dirtyden and show that they are reasonable/responsible, a small price to stay afloat. Not paying is a faster route to extinction for Cherokee.
      Maximizing delays is best bet for them to capitalize upon OilCo-help.
      Also, after the defeat, underhanded supplying of hte IP to Bruillouin-esque companies will have to halt. Good for Dr. Rossi, all in all.

      • Mike Rion

        Isn’t the award if Rossi wins triple damages, so nearly $250 million.

  • MorganMck

    As we are about to start this trial, I have become a little nostalgic. As I recall, Rossi told us that the whole law suit would not delay his eCat development work in the least. Since we have seen little to no demonstrable progress since then; either this was not true, he had some unanticipated QuarkX technical issues or he has run out of customers/partners willing to take a chance on him until the IH mess is resolved. In any case, I find it more and more difficult to maintain much confidence that he will field a commercial eCat anytime soon. Actually, Randell Mill’s SunCell seems like a much better bet to me these days.

    • Omega Z

      It doesn’t delay development, but can and will delay bringing it to market. Perhaps that’s Dardens intent??

  • Hhiram

    Without a slam-dunk totally compelling demo of working LENR technology for the jury, Rossi is doomed. They will crush him. Forget the details, what a simple-minded jury will understand is this: IH owes $89 million for a working cold fusion reactor. If Rossi delivers, IH owes.

    Rossi has not delivered. IH will win. Case closed.

    I predict this outcome with 95% confidence, unless Rossi brings a working QuarkX to the courtroom during the trial.

    • It looks to me that IH agreed to pay $89M for a demo of the technology, a turnover of all the material and an unbiased third party to observe the results and sign off on it. That’s what happened with the ERV report.

      It makes no sense that Rossi has agreed to refund IH for their losses if they agree to turn over the IP. If the IP is worthless, why wouldn’t IH agree to that?

      • Hhiram

        That’s not what a jury will see. This is a trial by *jury* now.

        From the jury’s perspective it is simple: if Rossi has a working cold fusion reactor, IH owes him $89 million. If not, they owe him nothing.

        Does he have a working reactor?

        Nobody on the jury will believe he does. He will therefore lose unless he can demo the working technology right there in the courtroom. That can only happen with the QuarkX.

        • jury may not be genious but most are very invested in their shor time mission to be fair.

          here the 89Mn is not only subject to rossi having a working reactor, a condition that give him no right to get any money, but to full fil next condition.

          the second requirement is to have transmited to IH the know how and IP so they can replicate, and this allow him to get the 105Mn$ that he obtained.
          If he did not transmit the IP and KH he should give back the money.

          the third requirement is that he followed the rule pg the long term test, with a solid report, a real client, and credible chain of custody.

          now you can judge from the 3 condition I listed, if what you have read in the PacerMonitor can lead to fulfilling the 3 condition.

          If I was a jury, I would ask Rossi’s attorney their line of defense/attack, to be absolutely sure my first impression from the published evidences is correct.

          • Chapman

            Not meaning to kick off an argument, but I do not know where you came up with the requirements you listed for step 3.

            You list:
            1. A solid report – no, just a positive report, rendered by a mutually agreed upon third party Agent. CHECK!
            2. A real client – no, having a real client was just a personal preference of ROSSI, as part of a “working environment” overview, but there was nothing in the contract having to do with such. Rossi DID create a working environment, as opposed to a laboratory setting, but that aspect is totally moot to the legal satisfaction of the terms of the performance test in question. CHECK!
            3. A credible chain of custody – I really have no idea where you came up with that! Chain of Custody? There is no physical evidence being contested, so what the hay are you talking about chain of custody for? About the only aspect where the concept of “Chain of Custody” could be a consideration would be if Rossi was driving around with the reactor in a semi claiming he was demonstrating MOBILITY, and the charge was made that he was taking it to secret locations and changing out the fuel with doped counterfeits to fool the tester. But in so far as NO accusation of a reactor swap has been made, I am pretty sure you just pulled that one out of your ——— [ I am sorry, I meant “Made that up”, and should not lose my composure so easily… ]

          • hhiram

            The situation for the jury trial is not that complicated. It is now simple, as I described. Working reactor? IH pays $89 million. Not working? IH pays nothing.

            How to decide if there is a working reactor? Only a live demo will convince the jury.

          • The ERV report was part of the contract, and it described a working reactor. IH dismantled the reactor so it’s their problem if they can’t get it to work. They want another demo? $200M cash on the barrel head, please.

        • DrD

          NO.
          First, it always was a trial by Jury at Rossi’s request from the start and that request was granted.
          Secondly, it is about the contract which required a postive ERV report.

        • The ERV report says that Rossi had a working reactor when he handed it over to IH. The ERV report was written by someone that both IH and Rossi agreed was suitable. That’s what the jury will see. But admittedly, Rossi’s credibility will be a big issue.

    • Eyedoc

      this trial has nothing to do with the QuarkX

      • Chapman

        I don’t know Doc.

        I mean, I am not aware of the QuarkX involvement either, but just look at his post!

        “Hhiram” says IH wins, CASE CLOSED! And he appears to be 95% confident on that point. Doesn’t that count for something???

        Surely “Hhiram” can not just be bloviating nonsensically, so I am now deeply concerned over Rossi’s eminent loss.

        ——–

        I will give Hhiram credit on the simple-minded jury remark. Remember the OJ trial? DNA evidence PROOVING guilt.

        But, what did the moron jury say? “We all gots DNA, right? That don’t mean he kilt her”.

        Maybe Rossi SHOULD be afraid…

        • HS61AF91

          talking ’bout DNA stuff and watching a machine make heat is two different things, and if it makes heat, wow that’s real neat. How’s that for ‘moron’ jury speak for you? Seriously, the analogy is not comparable.

          • Chapman

            It is not a dispute about heat. It is a question of contract, agreement, and fulfillment.

            Rossi fulfilled every obligation under the contract. IH refuses to pay. It is really not a complicated issue. You can not retroactively decide to alter the tenants of a contract agreement.

            If a jury cannot grasp the intricacies of law, and is instead swayed by childish rhymes, then they are morons indeed.

            And yes, talking bout DNA and ruling on contract law are the same thing, when justice depends on the ability and willingness of a jury to comprehend the legal issue before them. It is the lawyers right to try to confuse the issues in a manner that favors their clients, but the tactic only works because of the low intelligence of the average american who winds up on jury duty.

            The intelligent avoid jury duty, so justice is more often than not in the hands of those below the mean. I do not applaud the act of avoiding jury duty, I simply point out the stark results of the practice.

          • HS61AF91

            I’d associate with all your points. Lets give jurors some credit, and see what happens.

          • Chapman

            You are right. And, for the record, God Bless You for your optimism.

            I tend to get frustrated and more than a little annoyed at the antics of my fellow man, and I get just a tad smarmy…

            I usually come here for an UPLIFTING time, and to have my faith in human intellect restored, but lately I have found much of what is posted to be worse than I would hear from the others WHILE ON JURY DUTY!!!

            Given some of the bizarre social commentary found here among the “Above Average” crowd, I really should have more respect for those who may be below the mean in terms of raw IQ, but are often far richer in terms of personality, character, and common sense.

            Mea Culpa.
            I acknowledge my bad disposition, and apologize for any offense.
            I gratefully accept your admonishment, and advice.

        • Hhiram

          Don’t be deliberately obtuse, it’s not useful.

          Re-read my comment. This trial is now going to a jury. They will now decide Rossi’s fate. They don’t care one ounce for contract nonsense and technicalities. As I said before, they will only understand one fact: Rossi promised IH a working cold fusion reactor and he did not deliver.

          So, unless Rossi can demonstrate to the jury *in*the*courtroom* a working LENR reactor, he will lose. The only way he can make such a demo is with the QuarkX.

          • Steve Swatman

            I was under the impression that the 1yr test proves the Ecat to be a working design, the quark-x is not required and has no bearing on the contract. All Mr Rossi has to do is convince the jury that he stuck to the contract and produced excess heat as measured by an approved technical witness, approved by both sides.

          • hhiram

            No. Rossi must now convince a jury that he has a working almost-magical world-changing cold fusion reactor. The jury cares nothing for contracts and technicalities.

            Rossi cannot convince the jury based on a disputed ERV report that his personal friend conducted. Only a live demo for the jury’s own eyes will convince them that Rossi’s Star Trek technology is real.

            A successful QuarkX demo in the courtroom is Rossi’s only hope. Without that, the jury will believe nothing he says.

          • Dr. Mike

            I think that for Rossi to win his lawsuit, he will have to demonstrate that he has successfully transferred his IP to IH per the contract. The trail will be entirely about the contract with the outcome of the one year test being a small portion of that contract. The jury will not be presented evidence as to whether Rossi’s QuarkX works (or not) as the QuarkX was not part of the contract.

          • My understanding of the ERV report was that it was generated by someone that both IH AND Rossi trusted. That’s going to be important to a jury.

            The ERV report was positive. IH didn’t start balking at it until they couldn’t get their reactor to work several months later.

          • Steve Swatman

            That would be the personal friend of Mr Rossi who vetted and accepted by IH and their legal team at the time of the test starting, I think You are wrong that a live demo will be the only thing that sways the jury. The Quark-x is not relevant to the e-cat test.

          • Omega Z

            If the Quark works, Rossi can’t lose.
            He can merely sell full Ownership to the IP to China for $100 Billion after taxes lock stock and barrel.

    • Omega Z

      This has nothing to do with the Quark X. In fact the Quark X did not exist prior to the 1 year test. This has to do with the contract agreement and whether IH breached it.

      Ultimately, It does not matter what the court outcome is. If Rossi’s Quark X does work, he can become the richest man in the world and it will be all legal and Darden Inc wont have any legal recourse.

      Per the CONTRACT: IH/Darden have rights to 1st refusal should Rossi offer the other 45% of his patent license to any other entities. Obviously, China could easily offer to make Rossi the Richest man in the world after taxes with half of a single years trade surplus. Half a Trillion$… Obviously, China would want the IP ownership for said price, not just a license.

      Anyone think Darden Inc can math that plus 10% ? ? ?

      While Legally, China couldn’t manufacture and sell in certain countries, NO ONE can stop them from manufacturing a product they own in China. And nothing can really stop product from crossing borders by way of being installed in 3rd party products. Such as a space heater, Genset, vehicles etc that just happens to contain a Quark X.

      Maybe this is why Darden Inc has breached the contract. They realize (to late) they bought the short end of the stick.

      When did they realize this?

      When CHINA offered to buy in at $200M for a non controlling interest into the Europen IH investment fund. China seldom ever excepts non controlling interest. (This was a Wake Up moment for Darden Inc. They have a problem.)

  • Luca Meli

    I’m not optimistic about this trial. I hope I’m wrong

    • Vinney

      Luca, Andrea Rossi loves drama and literature (the classics), a jury trial is right in his element. Even considering the language barrier, most that meet him (and didn’t want to steal his invention), find him personable, honest and charming.

  • Luca Meli

    I’m not optimistic about this trial. I hope I’m wrong

    • Vinney

      Luca, Andrea Rossi loves drama and literature (the classics), a jury trial is right in his element. Even considering the language barrier, most that meet him (and didn’t want to steal his invention), find him personable, honest and charming.

      • Steve D

        Clearly Rossi thrives on the adulation, support and encouragement he receives from his supporters. We get almost real time updates, we get advice and tutoring in other topics, we enquire as to his health. Some readers even implore Rossi to save the world. It’s Rossi who keeps the LENR discussion going more than anyone else. He responds in an appreciative way. Yes, he is a charmer to the extent that his technology or QuarkX, I beg your pardon, the alleged QuarkX gets overlooked. It’s the academics around him that lend credibility unless they have been hoodwinked. Rossi surely understands that a demo is essential to ensure a win.

      • roseland67

        So was Bernie Madoff

  • It looks to me that IH agreed to pay $89M for a demo of the technology, a turnover of all the material and an unbiased third party to observe the results and sign off on it. That’s what happened with the ERV report.

    It makes no sense that Rossi has agreed to refund IH for their losses if they agree to turn over the IP. If the IP is worthless, why wouldn’t IH agree to that?

  • Eyedoc

    this trial has nothing to do with the QuarkX

    • Chapman

      I don’t know Doc.

      I mean, I am not aware of the QuarkX involvement either, but just look at his post!

      “Hhiram” says IH wins, CASE CLOSED! And he appears to be 95% confident on that point. Doesn’t that count for something???

      Surely “Hhiram” can not just be bloviating nonsensically, so I am now deeply concerned over Rossi’s eminent loss.

      ——–

      I will give Hhiram credit on the simple-minded jury remark. Remember the OJ trial? DNA evidence PROOVING guilt.

      But, what did the moron jury say? “We all gots DNA, right? That don’t mean he kilt her”.

      Maybe Rossi SHOULD be afraid…

      • HS61AF91

        talking ’bout DNA stuff and watching a machine make heat is two different things, and if it makes heat, wow that’s real neat. How’s that for ‘moron’ jury speak for you? Seriously, the analogy is not comparable.

        • Chapman

          It is not a dispute about heat. It is a question of contract, agreement, and fulfillment.

          Rossi fulfilled every obligation under the contract. IH refuses to pay. It is really not a complicated issue. You can not retroactively decide to alter the tenants of a contract agreement.

          If a jury cannot grasp the intricacies of law, and is instead swayed by childish rhymes, then they are morons indeed.

          And yes, talking bout DNA and ruling on contract law are the same thing, when justice depends on the ability and willingness of a jury to comprehend the legal issue before them. It is the lawyers right to try to confuse the issues in a manner that favors their clients, but the tactic only works because of the low intelligence of the average american who winds up on jury duty.

          The intelligent avoid jury duty, so justice is more often than not in the hands of those below the mean. I do not applaud the act of avoiding jury duty, I simply point out the stark results of the practice.

          • HS61AF91

            I’d associate with all your points. Lets give jurors some credit, and see what happens.

          • Chapman

            You are right. And, for the record, God Bless You for your optimism.

            I tend to get frustrated and more than a little annoyed at the antics of my fellow man, and I get just a tad smarmy…

            I usually come here for an UPLIFTING time, and to have my faith in human intellect restored, but lately I have found much of what is posted to be worse than I would hear from the others WHILE ON JURY DUTY!!!

            Given some of the bizarre social commentary found here among the “Above Average” crowd, I really should have more respect for those who may be below the mean in terms of raw IQ, but are often far richer in terms of personality, character, and common sense.

            Mea Culpa.
            I acknowledge my bad disposition, and apologize for any offense.
            I gratefully accept your admonishment, and advice.

  • Omega Z

    This has nothing to do with the Quark X. In fact the Quark X did not exist prior to the 1 year test. This has to do with the contract agreement and whether IH breached it.

    Ultimately, It does not matter what the court outcome is. If Rossi’s Quark X does work, he can become the richest man in the world and it will be all legal and Darden Inc wont have any legal recourse.

    Per the CONTRACT: IH/Darden have rights to 1st refusal should Rossi offer the other 45% of his patent license to any other entities. Obviously, China could easily offer to make Rossi the Richest man in the world after taxes with half of a single years trade surplus. Half a Trillion$… Obviously, China would want the IP ownership for said price, not just a license.

    Anyone think Darden Inc can math that plus 10% ? ? ?

    While Legally, China couldn’t manufacture and sell in certain countries, NO ONE can stop them from manufacturing a product they own in China. And nothing can really stop product from crossing borders by way of being installed in 3rd party products. Such as a space heater, Genset, vehicles etc that just happens to contain a Quark X.

    Maybe this is why Darden Inc has breached the contract. They realize (to late) they bought the short end of the stick.

    When did they realize this?

    When CHINA offered to buy in at $200M for a non controlling interest into the Europen IH investment fund. China seldom ever excepts non controlling interest. (This was a Wake Up moment for Darden Inc. They have a problem.)

  • Omega Z

    It doesn’t delay development, but can and will delay bringing it to market. Perhaps that’s Dardens intent??

  • spinner99

    I hope we get at least some clarity out of this whether he has something or not…… When I started to follow story I got really excited and told everyone I knew an energy revolution was almost upon us (to great derision).Since then I have retired and started to wonder not if Rossi will deliver in his lifetime but whether he will deliver in mine. Beginning to think the derision might have been warranted.

  • spinner99

    I hope we get at least some clarity out of this whether he has something or not…… When I started to follow story I got really excited and told everyone I knew an energy revolution was almost upon us (to great derision).Since then I have retired and started to wonder not if Rossi will deliver in his lifetime but whether he will deliver in mine. Beginning to think the derision might have been warranted.

  • georgehants

    It is embarrassing and insulting to even include a man who keeps secret a life saving technology for seven years for nothing but personal gain as a Human Being.

    • Observer

      Your realize, that as a disruptive technology, LENR will create both prosperity and poverty. Its effect on the poorest of the poor will be due to trickle down economics.

      • georgehants

        Observer, With open moral science there is no “trickle down effect” just everybody working for the benefit of everybody with Equal importance..
        Silly idea isn’t it.

        • Observer

          I think “open moral science” is currently in the catagory of “science fiction”.

          But don’t loose hope, fact follows fiction.

          • georgehants

            Observer, Blacks not being regarded as an inferior race was not long ago “fiction” to many, but things can change when there is a will to care about injustice.

          • Chapman

            You are right George. Many positive things we think we can only dream of eventually DO come true.

            For the first half of my life it was only a dream that one day the poor citizens of the Soviet Union might one day be able to cast off the tyrannical bonds of Socialism under which they had suffered and died since the Bolshevik Revolution.

            Now they are FREE!!!

            Never give up the dream of a better world George. I promise you, one day the whole world will be free from Socialism, Communism, and Fascism. I have a dream, that one day my descendents will live in freedom, and prosper from the blessings of a worldwide Capitalist Utopia, where every individual lives in LIBERTY, and is free to pursue personal excellence, profiting from his efforts in full and equal proportion to his labours.

            Gosh… I am tearing up just THINKING about it!

          • georgehants

            Chapman, I fully agree with your comment but have no interest in what the system that brings caring and sharing, equality, freedom and opportunity and fair reward to every individual from birth to death is, only that it works and changes the greed ridden present system, controlled by a few psychopathic rich and powerful solely for their own advantage.

          • Chapman

            I know George. I hear what you are saying.

            And rest assured that my comment was a bit of “Playful Banter” and not intended as any kind of mocking ridicule of your worldview.

        • Mike Rion

          Damned dangerous socialist idea is what it is. God I hate socialists.

      • radvar

        I’m not sure they would see the threat from abundant, distributed low cost energy.

    • AdrianAshfield

      The original E-Cat was not controllable. Look at how much the design has changed from then to the high temperature QuarkX 10mm long by 6 mm diameter.
      As has been pointed out to you countless times, the quickest way to make this technology commercial is through a well funded company. Not just publishing the IP so there is less incentive to develop it.
      I really wish you would stop your unpleasant ad hominems accusing Rossi of crimes against humanity.

      • georgehants

        Adrian, are you seriously trying to say that one man et al can move the Technology on as fast as thousands of scientists around the World, all working openly with the basic knowledge that Rossi claims to have had for seven years?

        • AdrianAshfield

          Yes. Where will the money required to pay these “thousands of scientists” come from?
          You know DOE thinks it is pseudo science and refuses to work on it.

          • georgehants

            Adrian, the “money comes from all of society who then gain from any helpful discoveries.
            I think you need to explain who and with what motives destroyed the work of P&F, certainly not the needy of this World.

        • Alan DeAngelis
          • georgehants

            Alan, you seem to be saying that my reality “inspires terror in Rossi” maybe you are right.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Not quite. Rossi did what “Big Science” was trying to do for more than 60 years.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaWhikqH6RU

          • georgehants

            Alan, there is no definitive proof he has done anything, but if he has then my clear condemnation of keeping secret for seven years this life saving and life enhancing technology is justified by showing greed beyond all understanding

      • radvar

        Count the deaths from energy poverty.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      IT’S NOT A SECRET. IT’S LITHIUM ALUMINUM HYDRIDE AND NICKEL POWDER.

      • Unfortunately not.
        Many groups and individuals have tried it. Either it was negative or inconclusive.
        Now you can judge Rossi is a fraudster or there is still some information missing (the “secret sauce”).

        • Omega Z

          In fact there could be missing details. The Patent we are privy to is primarily an electric heater. It is quite possible other info is included in additional patents. Even when said patents are granted, they can be suppressed from public view.

          • cashmemorz

            If that secret sauce is ever published I will be looking, as very many will be. Then there will be more patents, versions of which IR did not make and the soon after there will be iPhones and other stuff with one time charge long lasting batteries.

            That will be the the dead give away that LENR works or Mills has miniaturized the SunCell

      • georgehants

        Alan, them MFMP etc. can repeat his claimed Cold fusion of high Cop today.
        Strange why they have not.

  • georgehants

    It is embarrassing and insulting for some to even include a man who keeps secret a life saving technology (if genuine) for seven years for nothing but excessive personal gain as worthwhile.
    ——
    How Humans Became Moral Beings
    In a new book, anthropologist Christopher Boehm traces the steps our species went through to attain a conscience

    Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-humans-became-moral-beings-80976434/#I6mfqzBsGcsxHGk2.99

    • Observer

      Your realize, that as a disruptive technology, LENR will create both prosperity and poverty. Its effect on the poorest of the poor will be due to trickle down economics.

      • georgehants

        Observer, With open moral science there is no “trickle down effect” just everybody working for the benefit of everybody with Equal importance..
        Silly idea isn’t it.

        • Observer

          I think “open moral science” is currently in the catagory of “science fiction”.

          But don’t loose hope, fact follows fiction.

          • georgehants

            Observer, Blacks not being regarded as an inferior race was not long ago “fiction” to many, but things can change when there is a will to care about injustice.

          • Chapman

            You are right George. Many positive things we think we can only dream of eventually DO come true.

            For the first half of my life it was only a dream that one day the poor citizens of the Soviet Union might one day be able to cast off the tyrannical bonds of Socialism under which they had suffered and died since the Bolshevik Revolution.

            Now they are FREE!!!

            Never give up the dream of a better world George. I promise you, one day the whole world will be free from Socialism, Communism, and Fascism. I have a dream, that one day my descendents will live in freedom, and prosper from the blessings of a worldwide Capitalist Utopia, where every individual lives in LIBERTY, and is free to pursue personal excellence, profiting from his efforts in full and equal proportion to his labours.

            Gosh… I am tearing up just THINKING about it!

          • georgehants

            Chapman, I fully agree with your comment but have no interest in what the system that brings caring and sharing, equality, freedom and opportunity and fair reward to every individual from birth to death is, only that it works and changes the greed ridden present system, controlled by a few psychopathic rich and powerful solely for their own advantage.

          • Chapman

            I know George. I hear what you are saying.

            And rest assured that my comment was a bit of “Playful Banter” and not intended as any kind of mocking ridicule of your worldview.

        • Thor

          “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

          • georgehants

            Thor, some Human-beings are advanced enough to realise the strong can help the weak to a better life for all.
            But many Human-beings are incapable of such thinking and simply follow basic instincts like the lower animals and insects.

    • AdrianAshfield

      The original E-Cat was not controllable. Look at how much the design has changed from then to the high temperature QuarkX 10mm long by 6 mm diameter.
      As has been pointed out to you countless times, the quickest way to make this technology commercial is through a well funded company. Not just publishing the IP so there is less incentive to develop it.
      I really wish you would stop your unpleasant ad hominems accusing Rossi of crimes against humanity.

      • georgehants

        Adrian, are you seriously trying to say that one man et al can move the Technology on as fast as thousands of scientists around the World, all working openly with the basic knowledge that Rossi claims to have had for seven years?

        • AdrianAshfield

          Yes. Where will the money required to pay these “thousands of scientists” come from?
          You know DOE thinks it is pseudo science and refuses to work on it.

          Edit added.
          Pons & Fleischmann (and Celani) published what they did. Did you get stomped on the head by the crowd rushing to develop it?

          • georgehants

            Adrian, the “money comes from all of society who then gain from any helpful discoveries.
            I think you need to explain who and with what motives destroyed the work of P&F, certainly not the needy of this World.

          • MorganMck

            Before those who “gain” from the “helpful discovery” can pay, it must be commercialized from its current state. The capital to achieve the commercialization is not trivial for the eCat and must come as a gift or as an investment in pursuit of a return. If you or someone you know can supply the gift, please let Rossi know. If not, then please spare us your endless diatribes.

          • georgehants

            Morgan, the investment of labour is all that is needed comes from all of society, excluding all parasitic manipulators just out to make themselves obscenely rich at the expense of the only people that matter, those workers.

          • MorganMck

            You are unbelievably naive about what is required to bring sophisticated technology to market. I suspect you have never had the slightest bit of real-world business experience or you wouldn’t say the ridiculous things you do. Its also hard to believe that you are a serious student of history governments under various political/economic models have done. I think your process maps must always include a block that state: “then a miracle occurs.”.

          • georgehants

            Morgan, a very sad defense of greed and selfishness you try, unfortunately wrong on all counts.
            More honest for you just to say you don’t give a damn about any caring and sharing society and you cannot understand clear Facts put before you.

          • MorganMck

            I am not defending “greed and selfishness” per se ,but rather a system that has proven its works better than any other tried in efficiently directing capital to its most valuable purpose. Not perfect by any means but certainly better than socialistic planning.

            As for me not giving a damn about about society, it is very presumptuous of you to think you know anything about me. In fact, I give a significant amount of my income and wealth to charity and spend a lot of my time serving others. I just happen to believe that capitalism is the best system for advancing the general welfare of a free society.

        • Alan DeAngelis
          • georgehants

            Alan, you seem to be saying that my reality “inspires terror in Rossi” maybe you are right.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Not quite. Rossi did what “Big Science” was trying to do for more than 60 years.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaWhikqH6RU

          • georgehants

            Alan, there is no definitive proof he has done anything, but if he has then my clear condemnation of keeping secret for seven years this life saving and life enhancing technology is justified by showing greed beyond all understanding

    • Alan DeAngelis

      IT’S NOT A SECRET. IT’S LITHIUM ALUMINUM HYDRIDE AND NICKEL POWDER.

      • Unfortunately not.
        Many groups and individuals have tried it. Either it was negative or inconclusive.
        Now you can judge Rossi is a fraudster or there is still some information missing (the “secret sauce”).

        • Omega Z

          In fact there could be missing details. The Patent we are privy to is primarily an electric heater. It is quite possible other info is included in additional patents. Even when said patents are granted, they can be suppressed from public view.

          • cashmemorz

            If that secret sauce is ever published I will be looking, as very many will be. Then there will be more patents, versions of which IR did not make and the soon after there will be iPhones and other stuff with one time charge long lasting batteries.

            That will be the the dead give away that LENR works or Mills has miniaturized the SunCell

      • georgehants

        Alan, then MFMP etc. can repeat his claimed Cold fusion of high Cop today.
        Strange why they have not.

  • Just two weeks to go. Been waiting over a year for this.

    • sam

      Are you attending trial Mats?

      • No. Would have been interesting though.

        • Got any predictions? Anything to keep an eye out for?

          • With the jury it’s impossible to know.
            And I still haven’t understood if the parties are allowed to introduce new evidence in court. That could of course be important.

          • Like what new evidence?

            What do you think of Rossi’s offer to refund IH their money if they relinquish all IP they’ve received? Is that just hearsay?

          • cashmemorz

            My interest in LENR is the physics. I should care about the exact terms of what the trial is all about, but if Rossi or anyone produces irrefutable evidence of how the E-CAT works on the core theory level, that would be my time and place to be there for first hand observation of how that is presented.

          • Rossi published his theory in March. There is no such thing as irrefutable evidence on the theory level with this stuff, might as well be hoping for rainbow skittle droppings from unicorns.

          • cashmemorz

            I know all that. But on the off chance someone has done all of the experiments and hard work of proving a theory, I want to be there when it s presented. But I’m not holding my breath.

          • Rossi has never claimed to be a scientist. He claims to be a businessman. The guy who made zillions of dollars selling iron stoves never had to explain to everyone how fire works.

          • Chapman

            he he he… “rainbow skittle droppings from unicorns”

            Thats a keeper! Thanks!!!

          • Maybe, but it has to be new and allowed in by the judge. So, a magically appearing picture of the upstairs heat exchanger, for example, would probably not be allowed in. But I think if witnesses open new doors in their testimony that were not explored pre-trial that there’s some wiggle room to enter evidence that supports or refutes that testimony. But IANAL so that’s just my understanding from reading a little bit and watching eight thousand episodes of Law & Order.

            New evidence can be introduced during a trial and all evidence does not have to be presented beforehand. The practice and rules state that both sides are supposed to disclose all of the evidence that they have to the other side prior to the trial date but that does not exclude either side from bringing up evidence during the trial that either side has not seen or known of prior to the trial — typically the party will have to ask the court for permission to bring in the new evidence (because it was not disclosed) and then the judge will decide if bringing in the evidence or letting the evidence into the trial without any foreknowledge of the other party will prejudice the defendant or prejudice the case and then the judge will usually decide that the evidence comes in — and if the defendant does not believe it should have been let into the case like that (as sort of an ambush) then the defendant uses that as a point of appeal of the case and claims to the appeals court that the actions of the judge in letting in that evidence prejudiced the case against the defendant.

          • radvar

            During the loonnggg discussions here about the pre-trial disclosures, I believe there surfaced statements by Rossi indicating that there was more potential evidence that he did not want to disclose as it would involve trade secrets.

            As I stated then, I can’t believe Rossi does not have pictures and videos of every little bit of the Doral set up. I also noted that IH never asked for “everything you’ve got” during the depositions. IH’s motivation might have been the same: reluctance to disclose IP. However, they may also have known that 1) “everything you’ve got” would blow their case, and 2) they knew Rossi did not want to disclose the IP and IH wanted to used that to their advantage.

            In that scenario, Rossi is taking a chance by withholding aces, and IH is betting that Rossi’s low cards, with obfuscation thrown on top of them, won’t be enough to convince the jury.

            There’s always the possibility that Rossi spent an enormous amount of time, energy and probably money to create a “just good enough” fake Doral plant, however, there could be aliens living next door too. I mean seriously: non-zero probabilities.

          • Optimistic assessments of Rossi’s behavior have so far turned out to be unfounded.

            Instead things are usually much sloppier and peculiar than we hope.

          • radvar

            +1 on the peculiar. However, he seems to be able to construct complex electromechanical devices and organize significant high-tech industrial projects. Can’t do that with lots of slop.

            It would be a shame if he were applying those talents to fraud.

            Sloppy business practices, well, charitably I would say “highly naive”, however, the record speaks for itself.

          • Omega Z

            A slip by a lawyer on either side(some question etc) can open the door to new evidence being presented.

          • Alan Smith

            My guess is that there will be some kind of last minute settlement. Nobody would want to expose a jury to the legendary Rossi charm. Prepare for drama on the courthouse steps.

  • Just two weeks to go. Been waiting over a year for this.

    • sam

      Are you attending the trial Mats?

      • No. Would have been interesting though.

        • Got any predictions? Anything to keep an eye out for?

          • With the jury it’s impossible to know.
            And I still haven’t understood if the parties are allowed to introduce new evidence in court. That could of course be important.

          • Like what new evidence?

            What do you think of Rossi’s offer to refund IH their money if they relinquish all IP they’ve received? Is that just hearsay?

          • cashmemorz

            My interest in LENR is the physics. I should care about the exact terms of what the trial is all about, but if Rossi or anyone produces irrefutable evidence of how the E-CAT works on the core theory level, that would be my time and place to be there for first hand observation of how that is presented.

          • Rossi published his theory in March. There is no such thing as irrefutable evidence on the theory level with this stuff, might as well be hoping for rainbow skittle droppings from unicorns.

          • cashmemorz

            I know all that. But on the off chance someone has done all of the experiments and hard work of proving a theory, I want to be there when it s presented. But I’m not holding my breath.

          • Rossi has never claimed to be a scientist. He claims to be a businessman. The guy who made zillions of dollars selling iron stoves never had to explain to everyone how fire works.

          • Chapman

            he he he… “rainbow skittle droppings from unicorns”

            Thats a keeper! Thanks!!!

          • Maybe, but it has to be new and allowed in by the judge. So, a magically appearing picture of the upstairs heat exchanger, for example, would probably not be allowed in. But I think if witnesses open new doors in their testimony that were not explored pre-trial that there’s some wiggle room to enter evidence that supports or refutes that testimony. But IANAL so that’s just my understanding from reading a little bit and watching eight thousand episodes of Law & Order.

            New evidence can be introduced during a trial and all evidence does not have to be presented beforehand. The practice and rules state that both sides are supposed to disclose all of the evidence that they have to the other side prior to the trial date but that does not exclude either side from bringing up evidence during the trial that either side has not seen or known of prior to the trial — typically the party will have to ask the court for permission to bring in the new evidence (because it was not disclosed) and then the judge will decide if bringing in the evidence or letting the evidence into the trial without any foreknowledge of the other party will prejudice the defendant or prejudice the case and then the judge will usually decide that the evidence comes in — and if the defendant does not believe it should have been let into the case like that (as sort of an ambush) then the defendant uses that as a point of appeal of the case and claims to the appeals court that the actions of the judge in letting in that evidence prejudiced the case against the defendant.

          • Omega Z

            A slip by a lawyer on either side(some question etc) can open the door to new evidence being presented.

          • Alan Smith

            My guess is that there will be some kind of last minute settlement. Nobody would want to expose a jury to the legendary Rossi charm. Prepare for drama on the courthouse steps.

    • Tobben

      Waiting for more delays?

  • georgehants

    Morgan, the investment of labour is all that is needed comes from all of society, excluding all parasitic manipulators just out to make themselves obscenely rich at the expense of the only people that matter, those workers.

    • radvar

      George, until the robots and AIs fully cripple capitalism I think we’re going to have to put up with money. However science (if you believe in that sort of thing) has demonstrated that once they have “enough” people are more highly motivated by autonomy, mastery and purpose than they are by cash. MFMP comes to mind. So if people had the starting point…

      • georgehants

        radvar, so agree, so many good people in this World just waiting for a caring, sharing society to give their support, but we are still controlled by selfishness and greed.
        One day the light may shine.

        • wizkid

          Love your neighbor and God Almighty George, all of the law hinges on these two things.

          “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. Whoever walks in the dark does not know where they are going. Believe in the light while you have the light, so that you may become children of light” (John 12:35-36).

        • radvar

          The light is here, it just needs amplification.

          The missing element in much reasoning (which is often considered “the light”, as opposed to the darkness of ignorance) is the human drive for interpersonal power. “The Power Paradox” by Dacher Keltner lays this out clearly, backed by scientific studies (there’s that pesky science again. Why don’t they just go away?)

          Having a greater sense of power (as status and social influence) *generally* (and not in all cases) makes people a) less sensitive to other’s feelings, b) less willing to explain their behavior, c) less likely to adhere to social graces and c) more likely to use divisive, exclusionary speech.

          Can’t think of any examples where that happens here…

          Wealth gives people a lot of status and interpersonal influence power. So the wealthy *generally* (and not all of them, of course) have a tendency to have those four attributes.

          Wealth is also used to control politics => policies => regulations => the “system” being maintained the way it is, for the advantage of the wealthy.

          The trick is to look beneath the selfishness and greed and see the drive for power, and then decide whether that is behavior that you personally wish to exhibit or admire.

          The more that happens, the faster things will sort themselves out.

          • georgehants

            radvar, again so agree, it is always down to the individual, but it usually requires a catalyst to set the ball rolling.
            Something, somebody to change the status quo such as leaders like Martin Luther etc.
            At this time there is no outstanding leader to lead the way, the “leaders” we have are mostly all in the category you describe above.

          • radvar

            Yep, I’m disappointed too. You would think after acquiring a billion dollars one of these people would be a little more adventurous. I fear that what happens is that after they get that much power, their egos get addicted to it, and they rationalize that if they were to upset the applecart, they would be ostracized by their fellow billionaires, left out of all the reindeer games, and think that their other “good works” might be jeopardized.

            Meanwhile, as they drink champagne and congratulate each other, outside the ballroom, in the snow, 2 billion people press their noses against the glass…

        • Mike Rion

          Or one day the light of freedom might be extinguished.

  • radvar

    The multi-trillion dollar world energy market currently teeming with disruptors might have a few nickels lying around.

  • Frank Acland

    Some recent entries from the court docket:

    Docket last updated: 5 hours ago
    Tuesday, June 13, 2017
    315 minutes Pretrial Conference – Initial Tue 4:26 PM
    PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 6/13/2017. Total time in court: 5 hour(s). Attorney Appearance(s): Francisco J Leon de la Barra, Rodolfo Nunez, Christopher Rebel Jude Pace, Christopher Martin Lomax, John William Annesser, II, Brian W. Chaiken, John Charles Lukacs, Court Reporter: Stephanie McCarn, 305-523-5518 / Stephanie_McCarn@flsd.uscourts.gov. (cmz)

    Tue 2:49 PM Set/Reset Hearings: Jury Trial set for 6/28/2017 12:00 PM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. (ps1)

    Tue 4:37 PM Set/Reset Hearings: Pretrial Conference set for 6/15/2017 11:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. (ps1)

    Tue 4:38 PM
    Set/Reset Hearings: Charge conference set for 6/19/2017 10:30 AM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. (ps1)

    • LION

      Hi Frank, 6/15/2017 is a THURSDAY, tomorrow.

  • Frank Acland

    Some recent entries from the court docket:

    Docket last updated: 5 hours ago
    Tuesday, June 13, 2017
    315 minutes Pretrial Conference – Initial Tue 4:26 PM
    PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 6/13/2017. Total time in court: 5 hour(s). Attorney Appearance(s): Francisco J Leon de la Barra, Rodolfo Nunez, Christopher Rebel Jude Pace, Christopher Martin Lomax, John William Annesser, II, Brian W. Chaiken, John Charles Lukacs, Court Reporter: Stephanie McCarn, 305-523-5518 / Stephanie_McCarn@flsd.uscourts.gov. (cmz)

    Tue 2:49 PM Set/Reset Hearings: Jury Trial set for 6/28/2017 12:00 PM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. (ps1)

    Tue 4:37 PM Set/Reset Hearings: Pretrial Conference set for 6/15/2017 11:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. (ps1)

    Tue 4:38 PM
    Set/Reset Hearings: Charge conference set for 6/19/2017 10:30 AM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. (ps1)

    • LION

      Hi Frank, 6/15/2017 is a THURSDAY, tomorrow.

  • georgehants

    Thor, some Human-beings are advanced enough to realise the strong can help the weak to a better life for all.
    But many Human-beings are incapable of such thinking and simply follow basic instincts like the lower animals and insects.

  • jury may not be genious but most are very invested in their shor time mission to be fair.

    here the 89Mn is not only subject to rossi having a working reactor, a condition that give him no right to get any money, but to full fil next condition.

    the second requirement is to have transmited to IH the know how and IP so they can replicate, and this allow him to get the 105Mn$ that he obtained.
    If he did not transmit the IP and KH he should give back the money.

    the third requirement is that he followed the rule pg the long term test, with a solid report, a real client, and credible chain of custody.

    now you can judge from the 3 condition I listed, if what you have read in the PacerMonitor can lead to fulfilling the 3 condition.

    If I was a jury, I would ask Rossi’s attorney their line of defense/attack, to be absolutely sure my first impression from the published evidences is correct.

    • Chapman

      Not meaning to kick off an argument, but I do not know where you came up with the requirements you listed for step 3.

      You list:
      1. A solid report – no, just a positive report, rendered by a mutually agreed upon third party Agent. CHECK!
      2. A real client – no, having a real client was just a personal preference of ROSSI, as part of a “working environment” overview, but there was nothing in the contract having to do with such. Rossi DID create a working environment, as opposed to a laboratory setting, but that aspect is totally moot to the legal satisfaction of the terms of the performance test in question. CHECK!
      3. A credible chain of custody – I really have no idea where you came up with that! Chain of Custody? There is no physical evidence being contested, so what the hay are you talking about chain of custody for? About the only aspect where the concept of “Chain of Custody” could be a consideration would be if Rossi was driving around with the reactor in a semi claiming he was demonstrating MOBILITY, and the charge was made that he was taking it to secret locations and changing out the fuel with doped counterfeits to fool the tester. But in so far as NO accusation of a reactor swap has been made, I am pretty sure you just pulled that one out of your ——— [ I am sorry, I meant “Made that up”, and should not lose my composure so easily… ]

  • greggoble

    It would be great if one of the E-Cat World readers lives near the trial and could be the on-site reporter. Is there any way this could happen?

    • sam

      Abd ulRahman Lomax who runs
      Cold fusion community blog says
      he is going to trial.
      He tends to favour I.H in the dispute but I am sure he will have
      some interesting reports.
      I will post them here.

  • greggoble

    It would be great if one of the E-Cat World readers lives near the trial and could be the on-site reporter. Is there any way this could happen?

    • sam

      Abd ulRahman Lomax who runs
      Cold fusion community blog says
      he is going to trial.
      He tends to favour I.H in the dispute but I am sure he will have
      some interesting reports.
      I will post them here.

  • Steve Swatman

    I was under the impression that the 1yr test proves the Ecat to be a working design, the quark-x is not required and has no bearing on the contract. All Mr Rossi has to do is convince the jury that he stuck to the contract and produced excess heat as measured by an approved technical witness, approved by both sides.

  • No. Everything seems to be on track.

  • This trial is really an unfortunate event. A jury cannot decide science fact, at least not new and cutting edge science. A jury can decide who gets money and who is guilty, but often out of pure emotion. Was OJ Simpson really innocent? Remember the old woman who got huge amounts of money for burning her lap with a cup of coffee? If Rossi charms the jury with puppy dog eyes and tall tails, he could win. I think the odds are against him based on fact, but juries often rejects fact. Whatever they say, positive or negative,will have zero scientific credibility regarding the performance of the E-Cat.

    • Dr. Mike

      Rossi possibly could charm a jury if there is no evidence showing that he was not totally honest in this business venture (probably not going to happen). The jury will have to decide which of the parties breached the contract and probably will not need a great deal of science background to decide the case. Which ever side is able to present the case that the other side breached the contract by a preponderance of the evidence will win. Remember that a unamimous jury decision is not required for a verdict in a civil trail!

    • telessar

      You may want to look into the coffee case more before you use it as an example…

      It was picked up by the corporations and spun into a propaganda piece to justify putting limits on consumer lawsuits, but the actual story is pretty horrible.

      I wouldn’t say the jurors were deciding out of emotion – if anything, McDonalds (the defendant) got off very easy.

      • Mark

        Yeah it was pretty horrific

      • Observer

        Why should being burned by McDonald’s coffee require more compensation than being burned by Joe’s Cafe’s coffee?

        We as a people are in trouble when being the victim is envied.

  • This trial is really an unfortunate event. A jury cannot decide science fact, at least not new and cutting edge science. A jury can decide who gets money and who is guilty, but often out of pure emotion. Was OJ Simpson really innocent? Remember the old woman who got huge amounts of money for burning her lap with a cup of coffee? If Rossi charms the jury with puppy dog eyes and tall tails, he could win. I think the odds are against him based on fact, but juries often rejects fact. Whatever they say, positive or negative,will have zero scientific credibility regarding the performance of the E-Cat.

    • Dr. Mike

      Rossi possibly could charm a jury if there is no evidence showing that he was not totally honest in this business venture (probably not going to happen). The jury will have to decide which of the parties breached the contract and probably will not need a great deal of science background to decide the case. Which ever side is able to present the case that the other side breached the contract by a preponderance of the evidence will win. Remember that a unamimous jury decision is not required for a verdict in a civil trail!

    • telessar

      You may want to look into the coffee case more before you use it as an example…

      It was picked up by the corporations and spun into a propaganda piece to justify putting limits on consumer lawsuits, but the actual story is pretty horrible.

      I wouldn’t say the jurors were deciding out of emotion – if anything, McDonalds (the defendant) got off very easy.

      • Mark

        Yeah it was pretty horrific

      • Observer

        Why should being burned by McDonald’s coffee require more compensation than being burned by Joe’s Cafe’s coffee?

        We as a people are in trouble when being the victim is envied.

  • Dr. Mike

    I think that for Rossi to win his lawsuit, he will have to demonstrate that he has successfully transferred his IP to IH per the contract. The trail will be entirely about the contract with the outcome of the one year test being a small portion of that contract. The jury will not be presented evidence as to whether Rossi’s QuarkX works (or not) as the QuarkX was not part of the contract.

  • Observer

    Whether or not IH was capable of paying Rossi would tell us alot about whether they dealing in good faith.

    • LilyLover

      A Keen Observer:
      • Not finding a real customer for utilizing “cheap” heat seems ironically cheap for the company named Industrial “Heat” lead by a successful businessman.
      • Is back-stabbing success?
      • Afterall, after receiving and utilizing IP – Would IH be keen on finding a real customer to find whether the E-Cat works, once they already know that, that it does?
      • Moreover, to top it all, not wanting to accept 11M$ back to let go of the non-functional IP should clearly tell you that IH wasn’t acting in the good faith.
      • How did IH convince the Woodford? Why did Woodford drop out of the partnership with Woodford? Who’s talking about bankrupting the LLC to avoid paying 89M$, IH or Woodford?

      • Do you have a source for this $11M refund claim? Someone at LENR-Forum challenged me on it.

    • Dr. Mike

      In my opinion IH wasn’t making much effort to raise more capital until they were sure they could reproduce Rossi’s results, which should have happened within a couple of months after the initial $10M was paid. At the end of the one year 1MW test they would have only been required to pay Rossi $44.5M plus 5 percent of net until a total of $1B was paid. I think they could have easily raised this amount if they had good results in building their own e-cats and demonstrated those results to investors.

      • Jimr

        Dr., I have never seen the actual contract, you must have. This is the first I have heard of the 44.5 m plus 5% until 1b paid.

        • Brent Buckner
        • Dr. Mike

          See below for the link to the contract, which appears as evidence for a number of motions in the court documents. I encourage everyone interested in the trail to read the actual contract. The promise of large future funds was about the only incentive in the contract to insure that Rossi kept providing IH with additional IP. My guess is that this would be the payment plan chosen by IH since it guaranteed them $19B in profit by the time Rossi received his entire $1B.

  • Observer

    Whether or not IH was capable of paying Rossi would tell us alot about whether they dealing in good faith.

    • LilyLover

      A Keen Observer:
      • Not finding a real customer for utilizing “cheap” heat seems ironically cheap for the company named Industrial “Heat” lead by a successful businessman.
      • Is back-stabbing success?
      • Afterall, after receiving and utilizing IP – Would IH be keen on finding a real customer to find whether the E-Cat works, once they already know that, that it does?
      • Moreover, to top it all, not wanting to accept 11M$ back to let go of the non-functional IP should clearly tell you that IH wasn’t acting in the good faith.
      • How did IH convince the Woodford? Why did Woodford drop out of the partnership with Woodford? Who’s talking about bankrupting the LLC to avoid paying 89M$, IH or Woodford?

      • Do you have a source for this $11M refund claim? Someone at LENR-Forum challenged me on it.

    • Dr. Mike

      In my opinion IH wasn’t making much effort to raise more capital until they were sure they could reproduce Rossi’s results, which should have happened within a couple of months after the initial $10M was paid. At the end of the one year 1MW test they would have only been required to pay Rossi $44.5M plus 5 percent of net until a total of $1B was paid. I think they could have easily raised this amount if they had good results in building their own e-cats and demonstrated those results to investors.

      • Jimr

        Dr., I have never seen the actual contract, you must have. This is the first I have heard of the 44.5 m plus 5% until 1b paid.

        • Brent Buckner
        • Dr. Mike

          See below for the link to the contract, which appears as evidence for a number of motions in the court documents. I encourage everyone interested in the trail to read the actual contract. The promise of large future funds was about the only incentive in the contract to insure that Rossi kept providing IH with additional IP. My guess is that this would be the payment plan chosen by IH since it guaranteed them $19B in profit by the time Rossi received his entire $1B.

  • Curbina

    Before what I want to say, I feel The Need to remind you that I was an enthusiastic supporter of Rossi even well after The lawsuit started. At The beginning of The lawsuit I stated a few times that The key To Rossi’s winning The lawsuit was The customer coming clean. At that Moment it was speculated widely that JM products was in effect a Johnson Mathey branch. The shock came To me when it was known that JM products was basically Rossi playing a ruse. That was The end for me. Rossi will probably not only loose this case but also end prosecuted as a fraudster. It hurts To admit it, but We were conned.

    • He will probably lose the case and the customer situation may be the reason. The jury will not like that.

      However, I feel people are being inaccurate about JM Products. JM Products is owned by a separate entity, just like Rossi asserted. JM Products did conduct some experiments or operations involving first platinum sponge (from Johnson Matthey) and then other materials. JM Products safeguarded complete secrecy in the Agreement between the parties.

      Now, JM Products turned out to be a new company owned by one man, dashing hopes of a professional organization having injected itself into the situation. Rossi operated the JM Products side of the warehouse dashing any hopes of independent corroboration of excess heat. Rossi also misled the heck out of Industrial Heat, making them think it was an independent operation.

      But is that any worse than IH stonewalling the start of the test?

      Is the customer the real issue of the legal dispute? No. Aside from the many technicalities that could scuttle the lawsuit, it is primary about the veracity of the data collected by Penon (and Fabiani and Rossi). So while IH’s lawyers will use the customer situation to paint Rossi in the worst possible light, it’s not as bad as many are making it out to be (a lot of it is just bad assumptions on IH’s part) and more importantly the heart of the case lies elsewhere. If Rossi can win the heart of the case then he can still win the case despite the dodgy customer situation.

      • Curbina

        I don’t suggest IH Is a White dove, they surely acted deceitfully in more than one way, but at The end of The day, even if We knew that The report was going To be crap if produced by Penon, all what Rossi had to do To win The case was having a real customer satisfied by their energy savings vouching for The reality of The e-cat with production data To back their statements. And all We have Is Rossi talking about The director of JM products as if he was a third Party while he was himself! Deluded or deliberate fraud? Either way Rossi Is toast by his own actions.

        • LilyLover

          A clear win for Dr. Rossi will signal honesty of the jury to me.

          • Dr. Mike

            There really shouldn’t be any question of the jury’s honesty. I am confident that the jury’s verdict will reflect their understanding of how the evidence shows who breached the contract. In my opinion the depositions and other evidence that have been made available in the court documents favor IH.

        • Omega Z

          A customer coming forward would not have made a difference as there is no way to prove them independent. Also, no customer was even required by the contract. Only a mutually agreed upon ERV. They did.

          I think issues arose during the test(CHINA). I believe Darden inc suddenly became aware that they my never have 100% control of Rossi’s technology as the contract would have indicated.
          —————————————————————–
          Per the contract: Darden had right of first refusal.

          (RFR) is a contractual right that gives its holder the option to enter a business transaction with the owner of something, according to specified terms, before the owner is entitled to enter into that transaction with a third party.
          —————————————————————–
          Darden/IH only obtained a (manufacture/sell) license for about 55% of the world energy market.(With the option of “RFR”). If Rossi wanted to sell the license for the other 45% or any part there of, Darden inc could match any offer plus (10% if I recall correctly) and obtain the additional territories.

          I see nothing in the contract to prevent Rossi from starting his own operations, but also don’t see that as a show stopper for Darden. Rossi would likely abide by the implied no compete of the contract being an original signing member to the contract.

          However, I believe Darden inc got a rude awakening while shopping around investors into IH. China singly tendered an offer of $200 Million dollars for a non controlling interest in IH for an as yet unproven technology. Do you think this is of no significance. Then why did Darden/IH make serious note of it in documents. Surprise-They were caught off guard.

          NO Corporation can compete financially against major Governments such as the Saudi’s, India, China ect. Not even if Corporations were to join ranks.

          What that means is Darden inc could ultimately lose all control over Rossi’s technology and their investments would become worthless. China having a half Trillion $$ trade surplus could buy Rossi’s technology outright. Not a license, but Ownership.

          Do you think China would abide by Dardens license over China or any other market limitations. Even if Darden gained U.S. Government legal support, The technology is so significant that few other countries would follow suit. They could not afford to.

          Obviously, this is speculation based only on China’s surprise offer to IH/Darden, Darden inc has to take it seriously. There only option is to discredit the technology to buy time to find a different solution or other viable technology. Otherwise, they can only admit defeat. If Rossi’s technology actually works, He ultimately holds the winning hand. Regardless what the court says. It’s merely easier if the court sides with him.

          Note China’s offer given their history speaks volumes about their intent. Follow the data from an insider view then jump should it prove out.

      • Dr. Mike

        I agree that the “JM Products” customer is not the primary issue of the trial, but will be an important issue in establishing Rossi’s credibility in the eyes of the jury. In my opinion, the primary issue will be whether Rossi transferred his IP to IH after the payment of the initial $10M as required by the contract.

    • Gerard McEk

      AR will have the following reply on why he ‘arranged’ a customer:
      IH didn’t come up with a proper customer while they already received the know-how and IP. The real money for AR (89 M$) was in the last part of the contract, but that wasn’t progressing and lead to serious distrust between him and IH. To enforce the last part IH and AR agreed they that AR would find a ‘suitable customer’.
      Maybe AR has a customer but not involved in this testing.
      As it stands now the only evidence of te deliverd energy is Penon’s report, which is not very high level. A proper customer would have been much better.

      • Omega Z

        I do not believe a customer was actually a requirement of the contract. Only a mutually agreed upon ERV. That was done.

        • Chapman

          Do you get the feeling sometimes that you are just wasting your breath even TRYING to remind folks that this is a legal issue based on the specifics of a written contract?

          Lots of folks LOVE sayin’ what they WISH had happened, or what they think SHOULD have been done, or what they THINK would be fair – and yet they totally ignore the fact that the legal case is a specific question put before the jury to rule on, and THAT question is regarding things written in ink and the paper agreement between AR and IH.

          But then again, some folks also believe a jury has the authority to demand an “in-court” demonstration of the e-cat. They do not seem to realize that the jury sits on their hands quietly throughout the process, just listening to the presented facts and arguments. They have no say, they have no voice. The jury is not a “participant” in the proceedings until the Judge instructs them to go deliberate. The jury’s role could just as easily be served by video tape presentation to a jury months after the court proceedings.

          You are a rare bird, in that YOU have kept your focus on the reality of the situation all along. I can only surmise that you either have an abundance of common sense, or a total lack of imagination.

  • Curbina

    Before what I want to say, I feel The Need to remind you that I was an enthusiastic supporter of Rossi even well after The lawsuit started. At The beginning of The lawsuit I stated a few times that The key To Rossi’s winning The lawsuit was The customer coming clean. At that Moment it was speculated widely that JM products was in effect a Johnson Mathey branch. The shock came To me when it was known that JM products was basically Rossi playing a ruse. That was The end for me. Rossi will probably not only loose this case but also end prosecuted as a fraudster. It hurts To admit it, but We were conned.

    • He will probably lose the case and the customer situation may be the reason. The jury will not like that.

      However, I feel people are being inaccurate about JM Products. JM Products is owned by a separate entity, just like Rossi asserted. JM Products did conduct some experiments or operations involving first platinum sponge (from Johnson Matthey) and then other materials. JM Products safeguarded complete secrecy in the Agreement between the parties.

      Now, JM Products turned out to be a new company owned by one man, dashing hopes of a professional organization having injected itself into the situation. Rossi operated the JM Products side of the warehouse dashing any hopes of independent corroboration of excess heat. Rossi also misled the heck out of Industrial Heat, making them think it was an independent operation.

      But is that any worse than IH stonewalling the start of the test?

      Is the customer the real issue of the legal dispute? No. Aside from the many technicalities that could scuttle the lawsuit, it is primarily about the veracity of the data collected by Penon (and Fabiani and Rossi). So while IH’s lawyers will use the customer situation to paint Rossi in the worst possible light, it’s not as bad as many are making it out to be (a lot of it is just bad assumptions on IH’s part) and more importantly the heart of the case lies elsewhere. If Rossi can win the heart of the case then he can still win the case despite the dodgy customer situation.

      • Curbina

        I don’t suggest IH Is a White dove, they surely acted deceitfully in more than one way, but at The end of The day, even if We knew that The report was going To be crap if produced by Penon, all what Rossi had to do To win The case was having a real customer satisfied by their energy savings vouching for The reality of The e-cat with production data To back their statements. And all We have Is Rossi talking about The director of JM products as if he was a third Party while he was himself! Deluded or deliberate fraud? Either way Rossi Is toast by his own actions.

        • LilyLover

          A clear win for Dr. Rossi will signal honesty of the jury to me.

          • Dr. Mike

            There really shouldn’t be any question of the jury’s honesty. I am confident that the jury’s verdict will reflect their understanding of how the evidence shows who breached the contract. In my opinion the depositions and other evidence that have been made available in the court documents favor IH.

        • Omega Z

          A customer coming forward would not have made a difference as there is no way to prove them independent. Also, no customer was even required by the contract. Only a mutually agreed upon ERV. They did.

          I think issues arose during the test(CHINA). I believe Darden inc suddenly became aware that they my never have 100% control of Rossi’s technology as the contract would have indicated.
          —————————————————————–
          Per the contract: Darden had right of first refusal.

          (RFR) is a contractual right that gives its holder the option to enter a business transaction with the owner of something, according to specified terms, before the owner is entitled to enter into that transaction with a third party.
          —————————————————————–
          Darden/IH only obtained a (manufacture/sell) license for about 55% of the world energy market.(With the option of “RFR”). If Rossi wanted to sell the license for the other 45% or any part there of, Darden inc could match any offer plus (10% if I recall correctly) and obtain the additional territories.

          I see nothing in the contract to prevent Rossi from starting his own operations, but also don’t see that as a show stopper for Darden. Rossi would likely abide by the implied no compete of the contract being an original signing member to the contract.

          However, I believe Darden inc got a rude awakening while shopping around investors into IH. China singly tendered an offer of $200 Million dollars for a non controlling interest in IH for an as yet unproven technology. Do you think this is of no significance. Then why did Darden/IH make serious note of it in documents. Surprise-They were caught off guard.

          NO Corporation can compete financially against major Governments such as the Saudi’s, India, China ect. Not even if Corporations were to join ranks.

          What that means is Darden inc could ultimately lose all control over Rossi’s technology and their investments would become worthless. China having a half Trillion $$ trade surplus could buy Rossi’s technology outright. Not a license, but Ownership.

          Do you think China would abide by Dardens license over China or any other market limitations. Even if Darden gained U.S. Government legal support, The technology is so significant that few other countries would follow suit. They could not afford to.

          Obviously, this is speculation based only on China’s surprise offer to IH/Darden, Darden inc has to take it seriously. There only option is to discredit the technology to buy time to find a different solution or other viable technology. Otherwise, they can only admit defeat. If Rossi’s technology actually works, He ultimately holds the winning hand. Regardless what the court says. It’s merely easier if the court sides with him.

          Note China’s offer given their history speaks volumes about their intent. Follow the data from an insider view then jump should it prove out.

      • Dr. Mike

        I agree that the “JM Products” customer is not the primary issue of the trial, but will be an important issue in establishing Rossi’s credibility in the eyes of the jury. In my opinion, the primary issue will be whether Rossi transferred his IP to IH after the payment of the initial $10M as required by the contract.

    • Gerard McEk

      AR will have the following reply on why he ‘arranged’ a customer:
      IH didn’t come up with a proper customer while they already received the know-how and IP. The real money for AR (89 M$) was in the last part of the contract, but that wasn’t progressing and lead to serious distrust between him and IH. To enforce the last part IH and AR agreed they that AR would find a ‘suitable customer’.
      Maybe AR has a customer but not involved in this testing.
      As it stands now the only evidence of te deliverd energy is Penon’s report, which is not very high level. A proper customer would have been much better.

      • Omega Z

        I do not believe a customer was actually a requirement of the contract. Only a mutually agreed upon ERV. That was done.

        • Chapman

          Do you get the feeling sometimes that you are just wasting your breath even TRYING to remind folks that this is a legal issue based on the specifics of a written contract?

          Lots of folks LOVE sayin’ what they WISH had happened, or what they think SHOULD have been done, or what they THINK would be fair – and yet they totally ignore the fact that the legal case is a specific question put before the jury to rule on, and THAT question is regarding things written in ink and the paper agreement between AR and IH.

          But then again, some folks also believe a jury has the authority to demand an “in-court” demonstration of the e-cat. They do not seem to realize that the jury sits on their hands quietly throughout the process, just listening to the presented facts and arguments. They have no say, they have no voice. The jury is not a “participant” in the proceedings until the Judge instructs them to go deliberate. The jury’s role could just as easily be served by video tape presentation to a jury months after the court proceedings.

          You are a rare bird, in that YOU have kept your focus on the reality of the situation all along. I can only surmise that you either have an abundance of common sense, or a total lack of imagination.

  • Steve D

    Hypothetical: Rossi demonstrates his quarkX to the court (or in the public domain such that it comes to the attention of the court) and so proves his LENR credentials. He says the E-cat was good but the quark is even better and when IH found out about it they decided not to honour e-cat deal. IH considers that they have been sold obsolete technology and feel duped by Rossi. There was no way out of the contract other than to state that the e-cat doesn’t work and now they are trying to prove it doesn’t.

    • roseland67

      Steve,
      How does Rossi get around the fraud issue?

      • Steve D

        I guess by fraud you are referring to Rossi being his own customer. No it doesn’t address this and it doesn’t look good. My scenario is a simple one where IH are feeling buyer’s remorse. They should have waited for the quark though as AlainCo points out IH may well be entitled to quark IP. The nature of a win by either party could take any shape and the loot be assigned in unexpected ways.

    • MorganMck

      Boy I would love this to be true Steve, because it would mean that our overall interest in Rossi and LENR as a ready for prime time technology was well founded. Unfortunately I see next to nothing actually happening (except Rossi rhetoric) via-a-via the advancement and commercialization of the QuarkX. Rossi could have easily had the QuarkX tested as a black box by reputable third parties (MFMP?) by now and given himself (and his side in the law suit) a lot of credibility. Instead he (and many others here) say that there would still be skeptics after such tests (duh) and the only true validation is full commercialization. Meanwhile we continue with the LENR water treading.

      • US_Citizen71

        A black box test of the QuarkX would give LENR and Rossi more credibility but it wouldn’t help with the lawsuit much. What your implying would be the same as saying because the 2017 Volkswagen diesels have no problems with emissions the 2015 models didn’t have problems. Apples and oranges.

        • MorganMck

          From a purely legal point of view you have a good point. I’m just frustrated with what seems to be Rossi development delays waiting for the trial results when we all know if he really has the goods, he should not even bother with the potential chump change settlement as his IP is worth orders of magnitude more than he will ever get from IH. Why bother? He fiddles while his productive time on earth tics away. What a waste.

      • The Swedes did a black box testing of Rossi’s device and we haven’t heard anything from them.

      • Steve D

        You are probably right re the skeptics and commercialization as being the only proof. I’ve called it overcoming the credibility barrier before. I’ve also posted that cold fusion is 12 months away, always has been, always will be. It would just nice to see LENR get the rubber stamp such that any respectable institution would see it as prestigious and also expected of them to have an LENR program.

    • first the license is clear, IH own the quarkX technolog if it exists.
      They can ask for the transfer of technology ASAP.

      Sure they would be happy to pay 100Mn$ if they can replicate, and let Rossi be a trillionaire when selling in EU.

      • US_Citizen71

        No IH would have had a license to sell the QuarkX if they had paid, not ownership of the IP. Rossi canceled their license last year if you remember, so as of right now they have no rights to anything until the resolution of the lawsuit decides otherwise.

        • you are right it is only a licence, but the contract requires transfer of know how and IP.

          the canceling of license have no value, not only if he does not give back the money, but simply ifhe does not obtain agreement to break the contract.

          • US_Citizen71

            The contract only specified the process for the one transfer, other than that it simply states that new products and the IP for them would be available to IH. Rossi’s out is that it isn’t a product yet, but simply an advanced prototype.

          • Another out is that QuarkX is so valuable that it would cost IH $150Billion or more just to have the same kind of contract.

          • Rossi transferred the IP, the materials, a working reactor and the knowhow for Ecat. IH figured they could get it to work right because, after all, someone as pedestrian as Rossi got it to work.

      • Steve D

        A return of IP will be a Rossi priority. One court submission had a lot to do with the Nobel Prise. If IH essentially becomes a co- inventor then Rossi and IH will have to share the stage.
        And on a personal note I can’t help recalling your “What a mess” posting when after things were looking up for the IH/Rossi relationship, it broke down and legal action was announced. Of course all were dismayed. That was a long time ago.

      • Michael W Wolf

        I think because the quarkX is still in R&D, it doesn’t apply to the contract. Once Rossi gets it out of R&D, IH would have to sue at that point if they think it applies to the contract. But if IH loses, it won’t matter because of breach of contract.

      • No one can own technology you are developing on your own dime and it’s extracontractual. When I signed on with my last 3 employers, they explicitly had me write down the things I was working on that would not apply to their IP ownership.

    • help_lenr

      Rossi does not have to prove anything new. He had to prove that old type ECAT works a whole year and so he did,this is the end of all needed proofs, now come the time to pay him.

      quarkx is a new invention (based on the knowlege which Rossi gathered during testing old type ECAT), no need to prove anything in the trial about his new invention. It will be a big mistake if Rossi will connect in any way his new invention (quarkx) with the old one *,

      • Steve D

        IH will try and discredit ERV proofs of the E-cat results. The common denominator of both devices is Rossi and a good reputation in the form of publicity and media coverage can only help introduce Rossi in a positive light to the jury. The jury may catch on that they are dealing with what has been fringe science and they have asked to serve on the case of Dumb vs Dumber. It’s all too late now. (I have wondered what would happen if ECW readers were asked to serve.)

        • It was in the contract that IH would be diligent about monitoring the results. They accepted the ERV report. Then, several months later, that’s when they started hemming and hawwing about paying because the reactor no longer worked. And that’s when they started criticizing the ERV report. This is a straightforward contractual dispute. If it was in the contract that Rossi had to keep the device working for x number of months, then they’ll bring it up. I didn’t see that in the contract. Rossi pulled a Fred Flintstone, making sure his dinosaur earthmover only worked right when he was at the controls. Nothing in the contract against that.

          • Brent Buckner

            I can not find the word “diligent” in the License Agreement. Please point me to the section that you’re paraphrasing about monitoring the results.

          • It is part of every contract. Just like the phrase “time is of the essence”. When you agree to a contract you are agreeing to be diligent about monitoring the aspects of the contract.

            And, quit playing dumb. Those kinds of games wouldn’t play well with a jury.

          • Brent Buckner

            OK, so I shouldn’t expect to see it in the written contract. Thanks for your responsiveness.

          • Steve D

            And IH accepted the choice of Penon as ERV.
            Ironic: Even the customer, ie Rossi, was happy with the performance. Ha Ha

          • Steve D

            The “customer” was so pleased that they ordered another (was it?) six new plants. What ever happened to this story? it’s all become a bit pie in the sky.

  • georgehants

    Morgan, a very sad defense of greed and selfishness you try, unfortunately wrong on all counts.
    More honest for you just to say you don’t give a damn about any caring and sharing society and you cannot understand clear Facts put before you.

  • DrD

    NO.
    First it always was a trial by Jury at Rossi’s request from the start and that request was granted.
    Secondly, it is about the contract which required a postive ERV report.

  • first the license is clear, IH own the quarkX technolog if it exists.
    They can ask for the transfer of technology ASAP.

    Sure they would be happy to pay 100Mn$ if they can replicate, and let Rossi be a trillionaire when selling in EU.

    • US_Citizen71

      No IH would have had a license to sell the QuarkX if they had paid, not ownership of the IP. Rossi canceled their license last year if you remember, so as of right now they have no rights to anything until the resolution lawsuit decides otherwise.

      • you are right it is only a licence, but the contract requires transfer of know how and IP.

        the canceling of license have no value, not only if he does not give back the money, but simply ifhe does not obtain agreement to break the contract.

        • US_Citizen71

          The contract only specified the process for the one transfer, other than that it simply states that new products and the IP for them would be available to IH. Rossi’s out is that it isn’t a product yet, but simply an advanced prototype.

          • Another out is that QuarkX is so valuable that it would cost IH $150Billion or more just to have the same kind of contract.

        • Rossi transferred the IP, the materials, a working reactor and the knowhow for Ecat. IH figured they could get it to work right because, after all, someone as pedestrian as Rossi got it to work.

    • Michael W Wolf

      I think because the quarkX is still in R&D, it doesn’t apply to the contract. Once Rossi gets it out of R&D, IH would have to sue at that point if they think it applies to the contract. But if IH loses, it won’t matter because of breach of contract.

    • No one can own technology you are developing on your own dime and it’s extracontractual. When I signed on with my last 3 employers, they explicitly had me write down the things I was working on that would not apply to their IP ownership.

  • Gerard McEk

    Frank, I can be very boring from the 26th of June till the 24th of July, because AR will not answer questions on his blog. Have you got any idea how to overcome this period of information stop? 😉 See:

    Pablo
    June 15, 2017 at 8:00 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Will this blog give information of what happens in the trial on course of it?
    Pablo

    Andrea Rossi
    June 15, 2017 at 9:51 AM
    Pablo:
    Absolutely not.
    During the period of the trial with the Jury, which means from June 26th through July 24th, the activity of this blog will be suspended, because any energy of mine will be focused exclisively on the trial, without any form of distraction.
    The activity will be resumed from July 25th, after the verdict.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Frank Acland

      I’m not sure, Gerard — I guess we’ll have to see what kind of reports come from other sources.

      • NT

        MFMP Indian test? Has anybody heard when this will occur?

        • Gerard McEk

          As far as I know there is no date set yet.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Is anyone from this site planning to attend the trial?

        • Eyedoc

          Seems that Lomax is !;

      • Chapman

        To pass the time during the blackout, may I suggest a rolicking round of Pictionary?

        OR… How about a Poetry Contest.

        I am not much of a poet, but I know some Limericks that will make you blush!

        • Chapman

          Or BETTER YET… we could start a drinking game! Everybody grab a fifth of vodka, and every time Axil mentions “Bose Einstein Condensates” EVERYBODY has to down a shot!

          We will show those college frat boys what DRUNK really looks like!

    • MasterBlaster7

      Gerard McEk…boring from the 26th of June till the 24th of July? Pffft. It has been boring ever since Rossi announced a COP of 22,0000. Its like…where do you go from there….you win the internet for all time. The only real next points of interest are 1. the verdict of this trial and 2. when the e-cat/quark-x will show up in commerce. Those are the really only two points of interest before the rest of the world catches on. But, seriously…what has been interesting since the 22k COP? If you saw something I missed I would like to know.

      • Gerard McEk

        I do not think the COP of 22,000 is right. I expect more in the order of 1000 for the QuarkX. BTW a COP > 20 is good enough. I wouldn’t work hard to improve on that, but more on the reliability.
        And er, what should have been interesting was the MFMP test of the EM356 reactor, but that was really a disappointment. I hope ECCO will be the opposite, although I do not understand how someone can invent such a complex procedure to prepare fuel for LENR. When it actually works then I would assume it is more like a lucky guess.

        • MasterBlaster7

          Sounds about right. Yah, anything COP over about 200 is game over. Virtually free energy for pennies of input.

        • kenko1

          uuuuh….. dosen’t a COP of 1.000000001 violate all known physics? Oh! You say you’d be satisfied with a little ‘ole COP of 2 or 3? 😉

          • Gerard McEk

            Not at all! It depends where the energy comes from. A heat-pump can have a COP of 6 (electrical in, heat out), it uses low level energy, available in the environment to produce heat at a higher level with al little bit of electrical power to drive the pump. For atomic fusion energy you need energy to release the energy of mass according the equation of Einstein: E=m.c^2. Hot fusionists have not (yet) reached a COP over 1 and they may never be able to do that.
            On this site we are convinced (based on thousands of peer reviewed reports) that cold fusion will be able to prove that a COP over 10 is possible at high levels of energy. A COP over 10 is needed to efficiently convert heat to electricity.
            BTW: Neither of these examples violates the first law of thermodynamics where you seem to refer to.

          • Navdrew

            I asked AR a while back if the planned Quark Demo would still go on even if he lost the lawsuit. My question was never posted on the Journal of Nuclear Physics website and I never received a reply. Not sure what this means.

          • You asked him to consider what would happen if he lost. That’s what it means.

          • cashmemorz

            Yes. That would be like asking AR for his plan “B” in case his plan “A”, which would be his attempt to get justice for himself via the court case against IH, did work in his favor. No one lets anyone know their plan “B”. That plan tends to be a last resort way of winning and therefore is something AR would not let anybody know except maybe his lawyers and other closest to his heart, maybe Penon.

    • I doubt there will be a verdict that quickly. Judges are notorious procrastinators.

      • Omega Z

        Jury. Not Judge…

    • sam

      Kurt

      June 18, 2017 at 6:29 AM

      Dear Andrea:
      You wrote that from June 26 to July 24 your blog will be put on hold, but I did not understand: you will limit the hold to your answers, in a word you will remain silent, or you will also spam the comments sent by the Readers?
      Cheers,
      Kurt

      Andrea Rossi

      June 18, 2017 at 4:05 PM

      Kurt:
      The blog will remain open to receive and publish all the comments sent by the Readers; I will not respond or publish any comment from June 26th through July 24th.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

  • Gerard McEk

    Frank, it can be very boring from the 26th of June till the 24th of July, because AR will not answer questions on his blog. Have you got any idea how to overcome this period of information stop? 😉 See:

    Pablo
    June 15, 2017 at 8:00 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Will this blog give information of what happens in the trial on course of it?
    Pablo

    Andrea Rossi
    June 15, 2017 at 9:51 AM
    Pablo:
    Absolutely not.
    During the period of the trial with the Jury, which means from June 26th through July 24th, the activity of this blog will be suspended, because any energy of mine will be focused exclisively on the trial, without any form of distraction.
    The activity will be resumed from July 25th, after the verdict.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Frank Acland

      I’m not sure, Gerard — I guess we’ll have to see what kind of reports come from other sources.

      • NT

        MFMP Indian test? Has anybody heard when this will occur?

        • Gerard McEk

          As far as I know there is no date set yet.

        • coolabuelo

          Hi NT, This is Mr. Rossi’s answer to question from Tom Conover
          Andrea Rossi
          June 16, 2017 at 1:26 PM
          Tom Conover:
          The Judge has fixed the calendar of the trial, it will begin on June 26th and will end on July 24th.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Is anyone from this site planning to attend the trial?

        • Eyedoc

          Seems that Lomax is !;

      • Chapman

        To pass the time during the blackout, may I suggest a rolicking round of Pictionary?

        OR… How about a Poetry Contest.

        I am not much of a poet, but I know some Limericks that will make you blush!

        • Chapman

          Or BETTER YET… we could start a drinking game! Everybody grab a fifth of vodka, and every time Axil mentions “Bose Einstein Condensates” EVERYBODY has to down a shot!

          We will show those college frat boys what DRUNK really looks like!

    • MasterBlaster7

      Gerard McEk…boring from the 26th of June till the 24th of July? Pffft. It has been boring ever since Rossi announced a COP of 22,0000. Its like…where do you go from there….you win the internet for all time. The only real next points of interest are 1. the verdict of this trial and 2. when the e-cat/quark-x will show up in commerce. Those are the really only two points of interest before the rest of the world catches on. But, seriously…what has been interesting since the 22k COP? If you saw something I missed I would like to know.

      • Gerard McEk

        I do not think the COP of 22,000 is right. I expect more in the order of 1000 for the QuarkX. BTW a COP > 20 is good enough. I wouldn’t work hard to improve on that, but more on the reliability.
        And er, what should have been interesting was the MFMP test of the EM356 reactor, but that was really a disappointment. I hope ECCO will be the opposite, although I do not understand how someone can invent such a complex procedure to prepare fuel for LENR. When it actually works then I would assume it is more like a lucky guess.

        • MasterBlaster7

          Sounds about right. Yah, anything COP over about 200 is game over. Virtually free energy for pennies of input.

        • kenko1

          uuuuh….. dosen’t a COP of 1.000000001 violate all known physics? Oh! You say you’d be satisfied with a little ‘ole COP of 2 or 3? 😉

          • Gerard McEk

            Not at all! It depends where the energy comes from. A heat-pump can have a COP of 6 (electrical in, heat out), it uses low level energy, available in the environment to produce heat at a higher level with al little bit of electrical power to drive the pump. For atomic fusion energy you need energy to release the energy of mass according the equation of Einstein: E=m.c^2. Hot fusionists have not (yet) reached a COP over 1 and they may never be able to do that.
            On this site we are convinced (based on thousands of peer reviewed reports) that cold fusion will be able to prove that a COP over 10 is possible at high levels of energy. A COP over 10 is needed to efficiently convert heat to electricity.
            BTW: Neither of these examples violates the first law of thermodynamics where you seem to refer to.

    • I doubt there will be a verdict that quickly. Judges are notorious procrastinators.

      • Omega Z

        Jury. Not Judge…

    • sam

      Kurt

      June 18, 2017 at 6:29 AM

      Dear Andrea:
      You wrote that from June 26 to July 24 your blog will be put on hold, but I did not understand: you will limit the hold to your answers, in a word you will remain silent, or you will also spam the comments sent by the Readers?
      Cheers,
      Kurt

      Andrea Rossi

      June 18, 2017 at 4:05 PM

      Kurt:
      The blog will remain open to receive and publish all the comments sent by the Readers; I will not respond or publish any comment from June 26th through July 24th.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

  • US_Citizen71

    A black box test of the QuarkX would give LENR and Rossi more credibility but it wouldn’t help with the lawsuit much. What your implying would be the same as saying because the 2017 Volkswagen diesels have no problems with emissions the 2015 models didn’t have problems. Apples and oranges.

  • kenko1

    even if rossi win he still loses. lawyers will eat up 60-75 5percent in commissions and fees. the ooold cats arent quarks. let ih have them if the quark is such a far better technology. else its much ado about nothing.

    • DrD

      Doesn’t the loser pay all of the costs?

      • Omega Z

        NOPE.

        But one can make a request of such. The judge could take it under advisement as to whether the legal claim was frivolous. There is concern of making such arrangement standard as it may(WOULD) favor those of financial means squashing those with legitimate claims. Think “You” against Microsoft, Apple, Google etc. They can easily win even when they did the misdeed.

    • Omega Z

      Rossi already has a preset agreement.

  • kenko1

    even if rossi win he still loses. lawyers will eat up 60-75 5percent in commissions and fees. the ooold cats arent quarks. let ih have them if the quark is such a far better technology. else its much ado about nothing.

    • DrD

      Doesn’t the loser pay all of the costs?

      • Omega Z

        NOPE.

        But one can make a request of such. The judge could take it under advisement as to whether the legal claim was frivolous. There is concern of making such arrangement standard as it may(WOULD) favor those of financial means squashing those with legitimate claims. Think “You” against Microsoft, Apple, Google etc. They can easily win even when they did the misdeed.

    • Omega Z

      Rossi already has a preset agreement.

  • The Swedes did a black box testing of Rossi’s device and we haven’t heard anything from them.

  • My understanding of the ERV report was that it was generated by someone that both IH AND Rossi trusted. That’s going to be important to a jury.

    The ERV report was positive. IH didn’t start balking at it until they couldn’t get their reactor to work several months later.

  • The ERV report says that Rossi had a working reactor when he handed it over to IH. The ERV report was written by someone that both IH and Rossi agreed was suitable. That’s what the jury will see. But admittedly, Rossi’s credibility will be a big issue.

  • The ERV report was part of the contract, and it described a working reactor. IH dismantled the reactor so it’s their problem if they can’t get it to work. They want another demo? $200M cash on the barrel head, please.

  • Omega Z

    If the Quark works, Rossi can’t lose.
    He can merely sell full Ownership to the IP to China for $100 Billion after taxes lock stock and barrel.

  • Omega Z

    I wouldn’t judge anything performed by the average student today.
    Most of them just want to party on mom & dads credit card or the proceeds of a student loan. Average maturity age has increased about 12 years.

  • It was in the contract that IH would be diligent about monitoring the results. They accepted the ERV report. Then, several months later, that’s when they started hemming and hawwing about paying because the reactor no longer worked. And that’s when they started criticizing the ERV report. This is a straightforward contractual dispute. If it was in the contract that Rossi had to keep the device working for x number of months, then they’ll bring it up. I didn’t see that in the contract. Rossi pulled a Fred Flintstone, making sure his dinosaur earthmover only worked right when he was at the controls. Nothing in the contract against that.

    • Brent Buckner

      I can not find the word “diligent” in the License Agreement. Please point me to the section that you’re paraphrasing about monitoring the results.

      • It is part of every contract. Just like the phrase “time is of the essence”. When you agree to a contract you are agreeing to be diligent about monitoring the aspects of the contract.

        And, quit playing dumb. Those kinds of games wouldn’t play well with a jury.

        • Brent Buckner

          OK, so I shouldn’t expect to see it in the written contract. Thanks for your responsiveness.

  • Steve D

    The “customer” was so pleased that they ordered another (was it?) six new plants. What ever happened to this story? it’s all become a bit pie in the sky.

  • Steve D

    Both parties clearly have a strong belief in their position and have placed big money on the table to prove it. So strap yourself in, it promises to be a rough ride as the Rossi rocket prepares for re-entry to earths atmosphere. There will be a brief communications black out during this phase, but once safely on the ground all systems will return to normal. Shake hands and come out fighting. May the best scam man win.

    • cashmemorz

      Now that is a down to earth scenario. But we won`t know who the scammer(s) are until either Rossi or IH produce a long term working device, open for scrutiny or supported by testimonials by long term usage of several high profile customers. That part brings it down to earth even more. Patience and close look at what said devices are actually doing, producing.

  • Steve D

    Both parties clearly have a strong belief in their position and have placed big money on the table to prove it. So strap yourself in, it promises to be a rough ride as the Rossi rocket prepares for re-entry to earths atmosphere. There will be a brief communications black out during this phase, but once safely on the ground all systems will return to normal. Shake hands and come out fighting. May the best scam man win.

    • cashmemorz

      Now that is a down to earth scenario. But we won`t know who the scammer(s) are until either Rossi or IH produce a long term working device, open for scrutiny or supported by testimonials by long term usage of several high profile customers. That part brings it down to earth even more. Patience and close look at what said devices are actually doing, producing.

  • Navdrew

    I asked AR a while back if the planned Quark Demo would still go on even if he lost the lawsuit. My question was never posted on the Journal of Nuclear Physics website and I never received a reply. Not sure what this means.

    • You asked him to consider what would happen if he lost. That’s what it means.

      • cashmemorz

        Yes. That would be like asking AR for his plan “B” in case his plan “A”, which would be his attempt to get justice for himself via the court case against IH, did work in his favor. No one lets anyone know their plan “B”. That plan tends to be a last resort way of winning and therefore is something AR would not let anybody know except maybe his lawyers and other closest to his heart, maybe Penon.

    • ebevogon

      Very easy, Rossi has a “robot” with the incredible facility to select the mails which might be useful for his purposes.

  • Veblin

    New York Law Journal June 19, 2017
    On the Move
    Rimon welcomes Dr. Letao Qin as a partner. She comes to the firm from Industrial Heat, a start-up company engaged in nuclear energy research and development, where she served as in-house counsel.
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjHi-bts8vUAhUo7IMKHe3QBIQQqQIIJSgAMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorklawjournal.com%2Fid%3D1202790565416%2FOn-the-Move&usg=AFQjCNHD0GwpNjDNqO0unUXehMZV-bvHtw&sig2=a9WNu0CphGgj-POlBBtKMQ

  • Veblin

    New York Law Journal June 19, 2017
    On the Move
    Rimon welcomes Dr. Letao Qin as a partner. She comes to the firm from Industrial Heat, a start-up company engaged in nuclear energy research and development, where she served as in-house counsel.
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjHi-bts8vUAhUo7IMKHe3QBIQQqQIIJSgAMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorklawjournal.com%2Fid%3D1202790565416%2FOn-the-Move&usg=AFQjCNHD0GwpNjDNqO0unUXehMZV-bvHtw&sig2=a9WNu0CphGgj-POlBBtKMQ

    Rimon Partner Letao Qin
    Prior to joining Rimon, Dr. Qin was an in-house counsel at Industrial Heat, a start-up company engaged in nuclear energy research and development. As an in-house counsel, Dr. Qin helped to establish the company’s IP program, working with the engineering team on validation of these innovations. She was pivotal in the establishment of a multi-prong IP protection strategy aimed to protect the company’s business interests, regarding patents and trade secrets.
    https://rimonlaw.com/team/letao-qin

  • Steve Swatman

    That would be the personal friend of Mr Rossi who vetted and accepted by IH and their legal team at the time of the test starting, I think You are wrong that a live demo will be the only thing that sways the jury. The Quark-x is not relevant to the e-cat test.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    I’m packing to go to Miami, leaving today, so a few comments. First of all, I have information I have not been able to confirm yet that the trial will begin July 28, not the 26th.

    There are many comments here that are counterfactual. I’m not just talking about opinions, but about established facts. Way too many to respond. I occasionally cover these things on http://coldfusioncommunity.net, and, of course, God willing and the creek don’t rise, I’ll be covering the trial on that blog. Meanwhile, as soon as I have time (maybe on the bus…) I will be looking at the voir dire questions for Rossi and IH recently added to the docket. They are remarkable and remarkably different.

    As a reminder, there is a docket index with descriptions and access to all the docket entries (all those as yet released) at http://coldfusioncommunity.net/rossi-v-darden-docket-and-case-files/

    • LION

      Hi Abd, I understand that you supplied a special sensitive film as part of a cold fusion kit for the film- THE BELIEVERS, my question is do you still have any useful BARGIN basement stuff, kicking around in a draw at home from when you were selling cold fusion kits that you would be glad to get rid of, if so please let me know what and how much, THANKS.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        I have LR-115. Cool stuff, easier to use than CR-39. I’m not home until sometime around August 1. You can write to abd at lomaxdesign dot com. Say “cold fusion” in the subject header. I may not be able to respond until I’m back.

        • LION

          Hi Abd, thanks for responding, I will be in touch after August 1st.

  • sam

    Gerard McEk
    June 24, 2017 at 6:50 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    I wish you a lot of strength, intelligence and most of all good luck for the coming weeks.
    1. I assume your team will continue testing the Quarkx’s?
    2. How important is the outcome of the litigation for the development/industrialization of the QuarkX?
    Kind regards, Gerard

    Andrea Rossi
    June 24, 2017 at 12:08 PM
    Gerard McEk:
    1- yes
    2- if we win, the industrialization will run faster, for obvious financial reasons.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • sam

    Gerard McEk
    June 24, 2017 at 6:50 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    I wish you a lot of strength, intelligence and most of all good luck for the coming weeks.
    1. I assume your team will continue testing the Quarkx’s?
    2. How important is the outcome of the litigation for the development/industrialization of the QuarkX?
    Kind regards, Gerard

    Andrea Rossi
    June 24, 2017 at 12:08 PM
    Gerard McEk:
    1- yes
    2- if we win, the industrialization will run faster, for obvious financial reasons.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Recieved some docs and made some comments about previous Cherokee adventures in the “environmental” domain … Smells a little bit …
    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/are-tomas-darden-cherokee-simply-fake-environmentalists-in-business-only-to-defraud-the-tax-payer-investor/

    • gdaigle

      So in summary, Cherokee’s business acumen in creating successful projects appears low, while their ability to get financing appears high.
      Not the kind of people I would want to do business with.

      CALIFORNIA – RICHMOND
      PROJECT : ZENECA SITE REDEVELOPMENT – CAMPUS BAY
      Result: Bankruptcy

      TEXAS – SUGAR LAND
      PROJECT : IMPERIAL SUGAR LAND
      Result: Bankruptcy

      SOUTH CAROLINA – CHARLESTON
      PROJECT : MAGNOLIA DEVELOPMENT
      Result: Bankruptcy

      NEW JERSEY
      MAIN PROJECTS :

      1. MEADOWLANDS
      Result: Bankruptcy

      2. CAMDEN – CRAMER HILL
      Result: Project failed

      3.PENNSAUKEN AND PETTY’S ISLAND
      Result: Project failed

      4.ASBURY PARK
      Result: had to pay out for unfair pricin

      COLORADO – DENVER
      PROJECT : GATES REDEVELOPMENT – METROPOLITAN GARDEN
      Result: Project failed

  • Recieved some docs and made some comments about previous Cherokee adventures in the “environmental” domain … Smells a little bit …
    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/are-tomas-darden-cherokee-simply-fake-environmentalists-in-business-only-to-defraud-the-tax-payer-investor/

    • gdaigle

      So in summary, Cherokee’s business acumen in creating successful projects appears low, while their ability to get financing appears high.
      Not the kind of people I would want to do business with.

      CALIFORNIA – RICHMOND
      PROJECT : ZENECA SITE REDEVELOPMENT – CAMPUS BAY
      Result: Bankruptcy

      TEXAS – SUGAR LAND
      PROJECT : IMPERIAL SUGAR LAND
      Result: Bankruptcy

      SOUTH CAROLINA – CHARLESTON
      PROJECT : MAGNOLIA DEVELOPMENT
      Result: Bankruptcy

      NEW JERSEY
      MAIN PROJECTS :

      1. MEADOWLANDS
      Result: Bankruptcy

      2. CAMDEN – CRAMER HILL
      Result: Project failed

      3.PENNSAUKEN AND PETTY’S ISLAND
      Result: Project failed

      4.ASBURY PARK
      Result: had to pay out for unfair pricin

      COLORADO – DENVER
      PROJECT : GATES REDEVELOPMENT – METROPOLITAN GARDEN
      Result: Project failed

  • clovis ray

    Hello everyone,
    So i guess tomorrow will start the beginning of the trial, last i checked.
    any thing in particular we should know will they launch straight in.

  • clovis ray

    Hello everyone,
    So i guess tomorrow will start the beginning of the trial, last i checked.
    any thing in particular we should know will they launch straight in.

  • clovis ray

    Hello everyone,
    So i guess today will be the beginning of the trial, last i checked.
    my dad use to say a bad start made for a good windup .
    Dr. R as the old bronco buster would say take a deep seat, a tight hold,and a far away look, and open the gate.

  • Karl Venter

    Has the trial started? its 28th today?

  • Keith Barker

    I am one of several people who invested significant sums in Rossi distribution agreements for distribution rights to the 1MW system following his E-Cat demonstrations in Zurich in 2012.
    The agreements were for three years duration and produced by Rossi and his lawyer.
    During the three years Rossi made no product available to us so we were unable to perform any sales. After three years Rossi told us our agreements were no longer valid and we no longer had any rights.
    I am hoping he gets his comeuppance at this trial.