I wrote a post about the Wong report and made a bonehead error, which Simon Derricut kindly pointed out. I have returned it to Draft status and will fix it. If anyone wants it that way, it can be preserved in history … but it was awful.
2) If you look at the T_out data from this file
It appears that it wasn’t to the nearest 0.1 deg C. Here we are working with a discrete set of possible temperature values: 103.9, 104.5, 105.1.
P. 7 shows 4 digit precision.
So more accurate would be to say the temperature data was reported to the nearest 0.5 or 0.6 deg C.
I have never heard of an electronic thermometer that registers to the nearest 0.5 deg C. It is always some decimal value: 1, 0.1, 0.01 . . . This one clearly registers to 4 digits, although I doubt the last 3 are significant.
It is clear that this was not an “electronic thermometer,” but a temperature sensor that generates a signal, often it is a voltage, that varies with temperature. As an example, the TI LM34 sensor generates 10 mV per degree F. This voltage may be sensed and recorded by computer using an ADC, which will have a certain resolution. We are possibly seeing the resolution of the ADC. The voltage reading will be quantized by the ADC.
Looking at the data on page 7, we can see that the only Tout values are 105.0728, 104.5046, and 103.9364. The first jump is 0.5682. The next jump is 0.5682, the same. This is 1.02276 F; the resolution is close to 1 degree F.
I’m suspecting an 8 bit ADC, with full scale being 256 F. Whatever, the resolution sucks. Maybe someone can find the magic approach that explains the exact decimals. (The device provides a voltage which is digitized with the increment being one bit. The temperature is then calculated using an offset and a ratio. This creates the 4-place decimals.)
The Tin temperatures also show quantization. The increment is the same, 0.5682 C., so the values are 63.4544, 64.0226, 64.5908, 65.1590, 65.7272, 66.2954, 66.8636, 67.4318, 68.0000, 68.5682, 69.1364.
That exact value of 68 C pokes me in the eye…. coincidence, perhaps.
There is no sign of calculation roundoff error there; these numbers are likely multiples of 0.5682 C exactly, plus some offset. The recorded data may have been volts, recorded to a certain precision, and then for the spreadsheet this was multiplied by a constant, so the quantized voltage then shows up as quantized temperature. This was not recorded with high precision.
The pressure is also apparently quantized. Now, this is wild: the pressure is close to 1 bar. Absolute pressure, not gauge. The only values shown are 0.9810 and 1.0028, and the value oscillates between them. So the increment is 0.0218 bar. What gauge was this? Penon had said he was going to use PX3098-100A5V, an Omega gauge. This is a 6.9 bar full-scale absolute pressure gauge. The specified accuracy is +/- 0.25% FS, so it would be +/- about 0.02 bar. Then we have possible digitization error, so total error could be 0.04 bar.
The digitization error was unnecessary, at this level. Besides the fact that the pressure gauge selected was too insensitive if pressure was going to be close to 1 bar, the quantization indicates that low-resolution ADC was used. Who chose the ADC hardware? Fabiani?
First, some basic thermodynamics. Just because I can.
At this point I see confusion as to the motions in limine. “Granted in part and denied in part,” what parts? Color my mind boggled. That her reasoning wasn’t given, that’s not surprising, Altonaga can do that. But that an order is entered, that can’t be understood, that is unspecific, is unexpected.
In any case, I decided to pay more attention to the Wong opinions. This is a study of his Expert Disclosure. It’s cabbage, appalling. Continue reading “Wong assumptions, cabbage conclusions.”
Second of the series of posts I promised on the He/excess heat correlation debate, as noted by Shanahan and Lomax. And this one is a little bit more interesting. Still, I’m going to examine the many issues here one by one, so if you expect a complete summary of the evidence from this post or the ones that follow you will be disappointed.
[Quoting Shanahan in italics] On the other hand, the energy/helium ratio does not have this problem. The independent errors in the He and power measurements are unlikely to combine and create a consistent value for this ratio unless the helium and energy both resulted from the same nuclear reaction.
Yes. Very unlikely, in fact. On the order of one chance in a million, or more.
As I have noted the value is not consistent, thus the quoted statement is nonsense.
The value is consistent within experimental error.
There is much more of interest in these comments than might first appear.
Ah, Shahanan, obsessed with proof, lost science somewhere back. Science is about evidence, and testing evidence, not proof, and when our personal reactions colour how we weigh evidence, we can find ourselves way out on a limb. I’m interested in evidence supporting funding for research, and it is not necessary that anything be “proven,” but we do look at game theory and probabilities, etc.
I agree with Lomax’s second statement here. Science is exactly about weighing evidence. And I understand the explicitly acknowledged bias: Lomax wants more research in this area. I disagree with the statement that “Shanahan is obsessed with proof”. It would be accurate to say that Shanahan, both implicitly and explicitly, is looking for a much higher standard of evidence than Lomax. There is no proof in science but when evidence reaches an amount that overwhelms prior probabilities we think something is probably true. 99.99% and we call it proof. The numbers are arbitrary – some would set the bar to 99.9999% but this does not matter much because of the exponential way that probabilities combine.
Let us see in detail how this works. Continue reading “Minds open brains not falling out?”
On LENR Forum, Alainco posted an abstract and link to a new Storms article on LENR. Kirk Shanahan promptly reviewed it. This post will study the Shanahan review. It is possible that we will review the article itself more intensely. But first, a little on the journal itself. Continue reading “Reviewing Shanahan reviewing Storms”
05/22/2017 0309.0_Rossi_Motion for Additional Discovery re Murray and requesting new Rossi expert
Rereading the relevant Order, it seems that Rossi and counsel don’t get it. Continue reading “They don’t get it or don’t care?”
I’ve been watching Judge Judy videos and then I see much, every day, that is, as it were, screaming for comment, examples of how people behave on Planet Stupid. It’s amazing to watch Judge Judy in action — and the other “court shows,” they are pretty much the same. The plaintiff or defendant are stupid, sometimes both of them. “Stupid” means that they don’t see, or refuse to see, what is in front of them, but only stand for what they ‘believe,” usually a variety of “I’m right” and/or “they are wrong.” On Hot Bench, they face a panel of judges, all experienced lawyers at a minimum, with real courtroom experience. From behavior and comments after the show, the parties have learned nothing. And that is often what the Judge is telling them. (“Shut up and put on your listening ears,” Judge Judy says to a plaintiff who is interrupting, insistently, obviously obsessed, obviously not listening.)
Once in a while a losing party will say that they learned something. It’s relatively rare! That happens even if the legal and social issues are open and shut. “I’m right” is the foundational belief for many people, for sure! It’s axiomatic Truth.
Some people would rather die than be wrong. Or even merely to listen to the opinions of others about it, without interrupting. Basic skills.
Index to sections of this post
JONP old crap and where it leads
Long and useless on LENR Forum
Clueless rolls on floor laughing
But What If? RossiSays…
Surprise! Pot Calls Kettle Black!
And now for something completely different
That’s the title of the book by Judge Judy that apparently led to her extremely popular TV “arbitration” show, presented as if it were a small-claims court. As an actual judge, Judy Sheindlin, was known as outspoken, but on the TV series, she takes this to extremes. She’s smart, and she’s quick, fully “self-expressed.”
A comment by Sam, here, pointed to Youtube of her work, which I watched.
I think we might get somewhere if they let this
Judge handle Rossi VS Darden.
I dive into the world of Judge Judy, new to me. Continue reading “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”
Just like a Rossi demo! (Those were the days! Live TV!)
The occasion for this brilliant wit, a masterpiece, if I say so myself, and I do, is ele’s continued citation of the Cherokee legal stuff, even though it is completely irrelevant to the topic, Cherokee is an LLC that makes risky investments, and a few fail, and the accounting is complex, and with that, an SEC settlement of $100,000 for an accounting error, with no finding of intention to defraud anyone, is SOP, and equivalent to me being fined $0.05. Yet to ele, this is “very interesting.”
I covered this first on Ele mental my dear, posted 5/18/2017 at 5:10 PM. So today I see another post from ele on the same topic. 5/18/2017 12:41 PM. Continue reading “Takes a licking and keeps on ticking”
The judge. Faced with three motions to dismiss, and not having the time to review all the claimed “undisputed facts,” she punted.
It took me months of study on this case to come to the point where I might be able to see through the fog. I never finished the study pages, though I may still work on them for historical value, but at this point it is moot. An appeal of a dismissed MSJ is not likely, and that it might even be possible is controversial.
The parties’ voluminous, competing briefing and submissions plainly show the record is brimming over with disputed issues of material fact. Indeed, the Court is hard-pressed to locate any material facts on which the parties agree. Disputed factual issues are for the jury to determine.
In reviewing the MSJs, Oppositions, and Replies, what I found, way too commonly, was fact, clear from the record, that was nevertheless “disputed,” ending up as a matter to be adjudicated, when the asserted fact in the Motion was not at all in dispute, but rather possible implications.
I’m compiling the arguments and creating a study pages for the Rossi Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and came across this gem:
61. As early as October 2013, Defendants did not have any intention of making their requisite $89 million payment to Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Composite Ex. 9 at 117-121.
That is the Darden deposition. It struck me as odd, and so even though I hadn’t arrived to that point in the analysis (I need to do this systematically or it will take far too long), I looked it up. Rossi has contradicted his own basic argument about estoppel on the Guaranteed Performance Test, by citing this deposition this way.
Continue reading “Lying liars redux”
Well, I’ve been reviewing Planet Rossi tropes, minding my own business in my “little blog,” — actually it’s a community blog, we get there one step at a time — and apparently I attracted the attention of ele, possible Rossi sock or likely Rossi insider (taking the place of randombit0), on LENR forum. It’s not quite the honor of being noticed on Rossi’s own blog, JONP, but there he did not use my name. Here he did. a poco a poco andiamo lontano.
Summary: to avoid facing his own lies, ele asserts that Cherokee is Bad, but, of course, attributes this opinion to a probably anonymous (fake name) poster on his blog, er, Rossi’s blog, which he just happened to notice. Purely coincidental, mind you. My ass. Continue reading “Ele mental my dear”
By definition, in fact. Pseudoskeptics have their heads wedged in the opposite end, a dark place. Now, if we unwedge our heads, from whatever end, what can we see? That is what I find interesting. Continue reading “Believers have their heads wedged”
I found the raw bird image first at Pet Yak.com. With apologies to Randi Jones. The modified image with Dottore Rossi peeking around the corner, and the bird-speech, was created by “Renzee,” according to Dewey Weaver, the infamous IH Fanatic. Rends? No, Stephenrenzz, May 17. 2016.
The macaw is now the official bird of Planet Rossi. Be proud! The two species shown are endangered, as is Dottore Rossi.
As well, any resemblance between Planet Rossi and the dead parrot sketch is purely coincidental. Purely. No resemblance, no. Move along now, continue reading below. Continue reading “The macaw is the official bird of Planet Rossi”
… Some facts to remember: Rossi was innocent. He has been cleared by all charges.
Petroldragon failed and was closed because he was unjustly jailed for about four years . Rossi was redounded by Italy.
Rossienglish. “Redounded” — to contribute greatly to, a person’s credit or honor. I’ve never seen the word used this way, though. “Innocent” is not a fact, it is a judgment. Nor is “cleared of all charges” a fact, it appears to be false. However, on Planet Rossi words take on special meanings that make RossiSays sort-of-true, if you squint and look sideways.
Perhaps doing the time for the crime clears the charges….
Some commenters here claim that Dott. Rossi was fully acquitted and exhonerated [sic] of all charges related to PetrolDragon, despite being convicted in Italian court and serving jail time there.
I have never seen any evidence to support the notion that Dott. Rossi was ‘cleared’ of all charges, and it contradicts Mats Lewan’s account.
sigmoidal wrote: [Some commenters here claim…]
In fact that is fully true. He was cleared and refunded .
sigmoidal wrote: [I have never seen any evidence … ]
Just ask the Italian Lawyer (another day another troll…. probably) to ask all the documents of the trials from Rossi’s lawyers .
So, great, want evidence? Ask an anonymous troll (if that’s what he is).
The Version of Rossi can be found here: http://ingandrearossi.net/
So the evidence supplied is RossiSays. However, even then, it doesn’t support what ele claimed, and, like Mats Lewan, actually contradicts it. From this page:
Of the 56 prosecutions, all those which led to his incarceration ended with sentences of acquittal. Only 5 indictments (for income tax evasion, as a consequence of the bankruptcy brought about by the closure of Omar and Petroldragon) ended with convictions, which were used to justify the lengthy period of preventive imprisonment linked to the accusations that had led to his arrests. All other judicial processes ended in acquittals.
Knowing how Rossi uses English in imprecise ways, and also because I remember something a little different, I checked Lewan (An Impossible Invention, pp. 62-63).
The details of the sentences against Rossi are difficult to verify, but my information is that he was sentenced to four years in prison, mostly for accounting fraud in connection with bankruptcies. He was also sentenced three times for environmental crimes….
In contrast, Rossi was never convicted of fraud. According to his lawyer, Andrea Ambiveri, four processes concerning criminal fraud were initiated but they all ended up being acquitted or that charges were dropped.
Of the 56 processes, five led to a conviction, according to Rossi, while in the other 51, he was finally acquitted or the case was time-barred. Time already served was deducted from the prison sentence.
Someone is not “cleared of charges,” in the meaning of being found “innocent,” with reputation restored, if a case is dismissed because of a statute of limitations, one is “cleared” only in the sense of criminal prosecution and conviction becoming impossible. On appeal of certain cases, Rossi did win acquittal and reversal of fines, which may be what is talked about by “refunded,” but he did, in fact, spend time in jail for “accounting fraud,” which in a bankruptcy can be serious.
Rossi’s story is that all this was massively unfair, and perhaps it was, but Rossi also set himself up for this by how he conducted his business, rejecting the corporate support that could have allowed him to overcome hostile forces.
Steve Krivit has compiled references from Italian newspaper articles. I do not consider Krivit a reliable source, but there are many hints in the newspaper article titles or brief summaries that remind me of events and incidents coming out in Rossi v. Darden. Rossi plays business fast and loose.
I would not be surprised at all if the QuarkX technology, if it turns out to be a thing, is considered sufficiently derivative to be included. In that case if IH hold onto their license of Rossi’s IP, the QuarkX IP would presumably be theirs to make use of as well.
But IH never prepared any Industrial Plan to exploit the technology.
Don’t you have to really exploit [and] industrially develop a technology to maintain the IP ?
In many agreements that is true.
IH did have a plan, perhaps ele should read those Ampenergo notes. Essentially, the plan was to confirm the technology transfer, showing that there was something practical, independent of Rossi’s presence, and then engage the big guys, the companies with billions to invest, in commercial roll-out. Because of Rossi’s inability or unwillingness to cooperate in creating that independent replication, of course, they never went further. But they did make devices per Rossi’s instructions, with some apparent success, and then found that, when tested more thoroughly than Rossi ever allowed, they didn’t work. Among Rossi’s inventions were test protocols and procedures that didn’t work.
Ele might claim that IH is lying, that is about the only refuge left. As pointed out by another on LF, faced with a choice to decide who is lying, someone who is shown beyond any reasonable doubt to have been lying, strongly and clearly, on many occasions, and someone where the only accusations of deliberate falsehood are vague and unclear, and where there are many examples of fulfilling on agreements (such as IH ending up paying Penon in spite of high doubt as to the probity of his report), a jury will almost certainly conclude that the habits continued in each case.
As to ele, above he lied about Rossi’s Italian history.
Ampenergo is often neglected in recent Planet Rossi ideation. Ampenergo was the original U.S. Licensee for Rossi technology; these people had worked with Rossi before, and I have recent information that they still “like” Rossi. After all, they invested in him, that investment was respected, and they may even have made a profit, because of IH payments to them pursuant to the License Agreement and side-agreements.
They are also investors in Industrial Heat, holding shares issued in lieu of cash payments (but they were also paid mostly in cash). All IH share holdings were converted to equity in IHHI (or repurchased).
Ampenergo deliberately refused to sign the proposed Second Amendment that would have allowed the Guaranteed Performance Test to proceed at a later date than set in the License Agreement. The effect of this was legally clear: beyond the original deadline, any extension would be voluntary, and not binding unless clearly agreed upon; for $89 million, one would imagine that sane partners would insure that all of this was in writing; at that level of importance, relying on vague assurances, easily subject to misinterpretation, would be something that no lawyer would encourage. Unless he wants to earn huge fees later.
Some are puzzled by Ampenergo’s refusal (And Rossi claimed to not understand it either. I don’t find it difficult to understand. They appear to have trusted Industrial Heat. A real Rossi Technology would be worth, easily, billions or even trillions of dollars. No sane investor would piss off Rossi by relying on some technicality, if working with him has the possibility of creating that value.
A single test, evaluated by a single “ERV”? A single test can fail for many reasons, and Ampenergo did not want to risk that. They were not blinded by Rossi fanaticism. A real technology, as demonstrated by an ability of an independent organization to make practical devices, would be unstoppable. And nobody sane would risk losing that by creating possible causes of action, unless they had become convinced that the technology either didn’t work, or had not been transferred.
I had (tentatively) concluded much about the history behind Rossi v. Darden before studying document 243-1, Greg Cassarino’s notes, which have generally verified these impressions.
The amount of ale you rock …
Thank you Ahlfors pointing this out. That 247-01 is interesting read indeed. There are some other details also. Recommend others to dig it, since it is straight from horses mouth without someone says and that copy adds on perspective how things went.
Who is the horse? This is Cassarino’s handwritten notes of conversations with Industrial Heat. It is “someone says,” but dated and backed with depositions. It shows what was being said by IH in 2014 and 2015, recorded by someone who was (and maybe still is) a strong but sane supporter of Rossi. (I know that some think this an oxymoron, but Ampenergo did have successful prior business relationships with Rossi, perhaps in addition to some failures). I join with Argon (who is generally “Planet Rossi”) in recommending careful reading of 247-01. Here, I will transcribe it, as best I can. I will also, because this is a blog, comment on it; but I distinguish comments from fact. Some comments may point to fact, some may be opinion, and that’s the way the world works.
Corrections and additional comments are welcome. Comments are in indented italics. Bold indicates apparent emphasis in notes.
IH 3 Oct 2014
(877) 868-6863 890-948-7873
There is no area code 890, but I have not tested dialing it. Someone may be able to decode this, I’m moving on…
Joe Pike > big investor in IH
Pike is definitely an IH insider. Was this call from Pike? That’s how it could look to me, given the placement at the beginning. Pike had a scandal in his past (long ago), that could militate against full trust in him, but, here, it appears to be his money at stake. However, see page 7. Cassarino notes “IH/JT)” with the same numbers. I.e. Vaughn.
Former Invesco person.
Woodford > first deal / public deal
$25-50 M (up to $200 M) (or more if they need to buy out Rossi)
Dutch entity > will become parent
Dutch entity > currently a subsidiary of IH. IH’s IP has been transferred to Dutch entity
IH will likely
Dewey Weaver > IP attorney
2-50 yrs away?
Test report > as early as the 10th October
Tom and Andrea are recharging reactors.
Swedish report. 16 Oct. 2014
IH (877) 877-868-6863 17 October 2014
Provisional patent application needed prior to test publication but lithium and other things may have been divulged in the past.
This is why that patent app, with Dameron as co-inventor, was thrown together and filed. Without it, the Lugano report would have invalidated all succeeding applications. Ross went ballistic over something harmless (and possibly protecting his IP). If Dameron contributed anything new (even if minor), patent law would require he be listed on the application).
Dewey / IP
David Perry and T. Barker > 4 weeks away to completion of 1 MW
Attorney Johnson – Rossi’s lawyer in Miami; real estate attorney; owner of entity in Miami; may have connection to a chemical company (not verified).
Device sent to Boeing > Rossi does not know.
IH 31 October 2014
Securing initial funding
$50 million > maybe tranched
Netherlands Co. > parent Co.
IH, LLC Shareholder agreement for new entity.
See below, presumably McKubre. Possible non-Rossi consultations.
Post [?} funding > additional testing
2015 > better understanding of theory
Hagelstien [sic] & Storms
Hagelstein acknowledged funding (about theory, it is unclear about relationship with Swartz, Hagelstein’s friend and commercial claimant.). Storms not. May never have come to agreement with IH. (No specific relationship with McKubre is known, as well, but IH is generally tight with the entire CMNS community.)
IH > not involved in test; did not know that fuel and spent fuel would be tested; may be Rossi’s play to get Nobel; he knows he has to reveal this; but still protect the catalyst and other proprietary info.
T. Barker, Barry Wes 7 or 8 guys
Dameron and, presumably, West, people working with the devices. Number of Lugano authors? Reference is unclear.
31 Oct. 2014
Strength of magnetic field
magnetic field of electricity flowing in wire
coils arand iron core T3
1000 x stronger than coils only
9 Jan 2015
Installation of 1 MW > light industrial plant; [using?] steam
Rossi removed gauges to show water level; said it wasn’t part of original specs; (this is a safety issue!) Startup first week of Feb.
Dewey > Russian scientist
did not duplicate But [or ? not] credible; duplicated without knowing key details
30 – 60 days to close on additional funding; may require additional structural changes
AEG 16 Jan 2015
1% IH equity not recorded on AEG books (ref AEG GL 2013 p. 3)
GL= General Ledger
K-1 to AEG from IH notes AEG capital contribution of $500,050, but this is not on AEG books
LLCs pass on profit and loss to investors, per IRS form K-1. That sum was probably a payment of stock in lieu of cash and could represent taxable income; then this could come back as loss as spent. This gets complicated.
How should 1% be recorded by AEG?
27 Jan 2015
Christian Burney and Jim Padden
$505,050 [sic] 721 tax free contribution
707a cash taxable
1% equity IH > 0 cost basis on AEG books
This seems reasonable. It is conditional income. Stock becoming worthless will not represent a deductible loss, but the initial receipt will not be taxable. A bird in the hand, two in the bush. The Devil is in the details, there may be technical details to watch out for. If IH stock is ever worth anything, then a realization of any value will be taxable income.
Planet Rossi seems to consider any investment in IHHI as being into the pockets of Darden and Vaughn. Quick summary: not. If they treat it that way, they could be screwed.
IH/JT 13 Feb 2015
(877) 868-6863 890-948-7873
Woodford Group UK > seeking investment
Wants entity moved from Netherlands to UK
$50M round from Woodford
Woodford (Paul M.) Visited Rossi; Rossi seemed like a crazy inventor.
Provision[al] patents filed on Lugano Report.
Tested One Device > Boeing / No success.
Want to do another test.
IH wants to start their own testing in NC now that Rossi is gone
JTNI [?] looking @ other LENR technologies
20 April 2015
This is printed text, not handwritten.
JT & Karl
Hoping to make other acquisitions in sector
Today, IH, LLC restructuring
4.7% $50M UK investor
Total capital spent to date: low $20’s M
1 Billion valuation
Investor new capital Prev??? can make additional investment [?] $2 B Valuation
JT end game: just crazy enough; just capable enough to make something; then neg. with big players $100B – $150B
IH/JT 26 June 2015
2 more positions in LNER
UK deal closed
Smart [?] / Shawn Spears [?]
Albuquerque [/] Urbana Champagne Miley > new investments
New Facility in Triangle
Rossi > Hernia?
Paul Amercraft [Lamacraft] manager at Woodford Invest Fund with JT [visit] to Rossi and saw Rossi’s “caginess”
1 MW = 4 x 250 KW
Part of units are working; only ones made in Italy; but refueled ones made by IH are not working.
IH never agreed that Penon could do the audit
Real audit must be done > IH must be able to replicate Rossi
What’s behind the wall?
If IH feels good about things, they may not push him on the 1 MW test. IH does not want to piss him off.
IH/JT (877) 868-6863 # 890-948-7873 7 Aug. 2015
6 – 12 weeks
IH trying to support his efforts.
IH goal is for him to be successful.
IH does not have what they need > no more confidence than last time.
IH wants to avoid a confrontation.
UK Investing visiting on 17th.
Share is the attorney for Ampenergo, Bell for IH, and Chaiken for Rossi. The exhibits referred to are the notes above, plus some emails I have not found shown to the public.
2 Q. So let me repeat the question again: These are
3 notes of a telephone conversation between J.T.
4 Vaughan and — at least Mr. Engleman at AEG — on
5 June 26, 2015; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you remember participating in this call
9 A. Let me just look. I — I’m — we had a lot,
11 (Witness reviews document.) Yes, I see
13 Q. Okay. So on June 3rd you had asked Mr. Vaughan by
14 email if Industrial Heat was satisfied with Penon
15 doing the verification, as we just saw; correct?
16 A. Uh-huh.
17 COURT REPORTER: Yes?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And on June 26, did Mr. Vaughan tell you that
20 Industrial Heat never agreed that Penon could do
21 the audit?
22 A. That’s what it says in the notes.
23 Q. If you turn the page, did Mr. Vaughan tell you
1 that a “real” — underscore — “real” audit must
2 be done?
3 A. I guess he did.
4 Q. And so in June of 2015, did AEG understand that
5 Industrial Heat did not agree to accept any report
6 by Penon?
7 A. Well, that says here — what — we were confused
8 after this was why they didn’t do anything to stop
9 the — what was going on.
10 I mean, this was verbal, but we didn’t
11 see any written or — you know, these were
12 conversations that we had, and we were — I mean,
13 we were confused, because I know J.T. —
14 (Phone sounds.)
15 A. We knew that J.T. did not have confidence in
16 Penon; and that was part of this conversation.
17 Q. So putting aside what was said or not said to Mr.
18 Rossi about that, you understood that Industrial
19 Heat did not agree to Penon.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right. Now, in the notes — the handwritten
22 notes of the conversation, it goes on to say “IH
23 cannot replicate. IH must –” underscore “– must
1 be able… replicate.”
2 Do you see that?
3 A. On which page?
4 Q. AEG — AE 5.010. The next page.
5 A. (Witness reviews document.) Yes.
6 Q. Uh-huh. So in June of 2015 it was your
7 understanding that Industrial Heat did not believe
8 that it had been able to replicate the — the
9 Rossi effect; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did AEG at that time understand that Industrial
12 Heat did not intend to pay Rossi or AEG if
13 Industrial Heat could not replicate?
14 A. I — that was always assumed.
15 Q. Now, there’s — there’s a notation in these notes
16 that says “What’s behind the wall.”
17 Do you see that?
18 A. Whereabouts?
19 Q. Just one line down — two lines down from what we
20 just read.
21 A. That’s — I guess that would have been J.T. making
23 Q. Uh-huh. And now — and the next line says “If IH
1 feels good about things, they may not push him on
2 the 1-megawatt test.”
3 Do you see that?
4 A. Uh-huh.
5 Q. What does that mean to you?
6 A. That if he’s — if they feel he was having
7 success, that — I don’t — again, I —
8 conversations we always had with Tom and
9 Industrial Heat was, they were always feeling that
10 the 1 megawatt wasn’t necessary either. I think
11 Andrea felt that he wanted to show that he could
12 commercialize this, and that Industrial Heat felt
13 that, you know, if they — if things were going
14 well, then — then maybe that wasn’t necessary to
15 do the big test.
16 Q. And the last line there says “IH does not want to
17 piss him off.”
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. Do you see that?
20 What does that mean to you?
21 A. It means that Tom always was trying to be
22 sensitive to Andrea and let him develop his — the
23 project. It was — we always had this expression:
1 It was, like, let — you know, Andrea — I mean,
2 Tom would always, like, give — you know, Let
3 Andrea play in his sandbox. Let him do what he
4 wants to do; be — be himself and the inventor.
5 And Tom didn’t want any conflict going on that
6 would upset Andrea so that Andrea would get
7 distracted from his mission of doing 1 megawatt or
8 for finding the…
9 Q. Why do you think he did that?
10 A. Why did Tom do that? ‘Cause —
11 MR. SHARE: Objection to form.
12 A. — I think he just wanted to make all this work.
13 MR. BELL: I’m going to have marked as
14 the exhibit next in order an email dated June 29,
15 2015, stamped AE 345.001.
16 (Exhibit 28, AE 000345.001-002.)
17 A. (Witness reviews document.)
18 Q. Have you had a chance to review that?
19 A. Doing that right now. (Witness reviews document.)
20 Q. Now, on June 29th you wrote an email to Andrea
21 Rossi; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And in that email you asked him whether Industrial
1 Heat had agreed to using Penon for the
2 certification for the test; is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, you knew, based on the exhibits that we just
5 reviewed, that Industrial Heat did not agree to
6 using Penon for the certification.
7 So why did you ask Mr. Rossi that
9 A. ‘Cause we didn’t get an answer from Industrial
10 Heat as to whether there was any agreement or not.
11 This was just a verbal conversation that I didn’t
12 know whether or not Industrial Heat had
13 communicated with Andrea Rossi.
14 Q. Well, those seem — two separate things to me.
15 They — they had clearly — Industrial Heat had
16 clearly communicated it to you —
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. — correct?
19 And you just told me that Mr. Darden
20 went out of his way not to — not to aggravate Mr.
21 Rossi; correct?
22 A. Yeah. Yeah.
23 Q. And you had a concern that they had not —
1 Industrial Heat had not conveyed information to
2 Mr. Rossi —
3 A. Yes. 4 Q. — is that — is that fair?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Were you trying to influence Mr. Rossi to consider
7 a — a different party to validate Mr. Rossi’s
8 work in Florida?
9 MR. SHARE: Objection to form.
10 A. Well, I don’t know if I was trying to convince him
11 to use someone — I — we just wanted to make sure
12 that a third-party evaluation was accepted by both
14 Q. Why not be more direct with Mr. Rossi?
15 MR. SHARE: Objection. Form.
16 A. I’m — I can’t answer that. I’m not sure.
17 Q. Well, in other words, J.T. Vaughan had told you
18 that Industrial Heat doesn’t accept Penon;
20 A. Uh-huh.
21 Q. And you could have said to Mr. Rossi, Hey, I was
22 just talking to J.T. Vaughan on the phone. They
23 don’t accept Penon.
1 A. Well, I assumed that they had that conversation
2 with him.
3 Q. Well, if they had that conversation, why — why
4 would you send an email —
5 MR. SHARE: Objection to form.
6 A. I — I just — I suppose I should have had that
7 conversation with Andrea.
8 Q. In the — on the second page of the document in
9 your email, you ask at the — at the last sentence
10 of the first paragraph, “Do you –” Andrea Rossi
11 “– have any certification or letter from the –”
12 quote/unquote “‘– client’ and invoices for sale
13 of energy?”
14 Do you see that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Why did you ask for that?
17 A. Again, we wanted to make sure that everybody was
18 making — living up to their ends of the
20 Q. What did that have to do with the agreement?
21 MR. SHARE: Objection to form.
22 A. That the invoices from the sale of energy would
23 show that they were producing energy.
1 Q. Okay. Now, let me ask you to look at Mr. Rossi’s
2 reply to your email.
3 Now, you had asked him a direct question
4 as to whether Industrial Heat agreed with Rossi 5 about Penon doing the certification, as we just
6 saw; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And Mr. Rossi did not answer that — did he — in
9 his email?
10 MR. CHAIKEN: Object to form.
11 A. Yes, he did not.
12 Q. Now, with — what did he say with respect to your
13 request for certifications or letters from the,
14 quote, “client,” close quote and invoices for sale
15 of energy?
16 A. Did not have the documents.
17 (Witness reviews document.) Did not
18 have the documents.
19 Q. Related to the commercial agreement between
20 Industrial Heat and their customer?
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. And he goes — he goes on to say he spoke — that
23 he, Rossi, spoke with the director of the factory
1 and the customer, and they are very positive so
2 far; is that right?
3 A. That’s what it says.
4 Q. What did you understand that to mean?
5 A. That everything was going okay.
6 Q. When — on either of your two visits, did you meet
7 with a director of the factory and the customer?
8 A. No.
See July 3, 2014 emails between Cassarino and IH, re Rossi’s request that AEG sign the 2nd Amendment.
See a more extensive exhibit which includes the emails shown above, plus an IH/IPH business plan (which reports the “customer” as Johnson Matthey) and gives many details about IH involvements — and cautions potential investors about high risk. This was dated July, 2014.
April 2014 correspondence between Cassarino and Rossi. (Rossi knows that the Second Amendment has been “cancelled.”)
I suspected that the attorney questioning Cassarino is Chaiken, for Rossi, there are various hints to Rossi legal theories, however, there is also an indication that it is not Chaiken, but presumably Bell, the IH attorney present.
I was originally inspired to write this by reading the Planet Rossi comments on E-Cat World, noticing how many of them seem thoroughly uninformed. Some of that appears on LENR Forum as well.
On ECW, there is complaint about how “confusing” the Rossi v. Darden documents are. People want to be spoon-fed. They come across a word they don’t understand, and conclude that the material is confusing; in fact, they are confused, not the material. Legal language is explicit. I commonly find legal terms that I realize I don’t understand, not being trained as a lawyer, but, instead of falling over, I look them up until I sense that I understand them. I discuss the material with others, including lawyers. It’s work to understand something like Rossi v. Darden.
Any of this material can be explained; I may understand more than most because, involved in business, and having occasion to appear in court (on personal matters or cases involving a close friend), I studied common law and some statutory law years ago. I also have been putting in crazy hours reading and organizing case documents.
There is nothing here that someone of reasonable intelligence, genius not required, cannot understand with patience. What interferes more than anything with understanding is preconception inconsistent with fact, or premature demand for “meaning.” We can see in Rossi v. Darden examples where a fact is asserted by one party, that is clearly a fact, but because it may be thought to “mean something” that a party doesn’t like, they dispute it, thus complicating the case, increasing (greatly!) the issues to be decided by the court and jury.
From Maryanne Macy, in 2016, on the filing of Rossi v. Darden:
The situation of an $89 million dollar lawsuit between the field’s highest profile, highest paid inventor and his environmentally-inclined investors wasn’t akin to the adage of having an elephant in the room. It was like having an elephant with projectile diarrhea who had snorted a kilo of cocaine after mating with Donald Trump in the room. This was a worst case scenario, a four star sriracha-saturated shit storm that could distinctly prove unhelpful to the LENR world’s public profile at the time of its greatest collective acceleration.
For myself, the perpetual struggle for objective reporting was competing with shock. I’d hoped for the success of Rossi’s technology for so long and been so glad that someone like Darden had come along to support it.
The storm continues on LENR Forum, where personal attack has become so common, with even some moderators, or at least one, engaging in it — or tolerating it — that the normal and sane defense against the flood of flabbergas is to stop reading (and some realize that danger).
The basic problem is that users are allowed to derail topic discussions by introducing inflammatory comments, or, at best, irrelevancies to the topic. To handle this well would require multiple moderators, ideally in different time zones and with defined duty periods, to swiftly move irrelevant posts to the Playground or other appropriate threads, or, sometimes, to delete them if they are utterly beyond the pale, and to ban (permanently or temporarily) uncooperative users.
However, LF has never developed clear policy and procedure, and all we see are sporadic and often ineffectual interventions, then bursts of more drastic enforcement. There is no TOS (Terms of Service), and no developed policy, just Whatever a Mod thinks. And some Mods don’t think much, they just react. Continue reading “How to handle a shitstorm”
I.e., to send Infusion Institute funding to keep this work going. I started a GoFundMe campaign:
I intend to go to Miami for the trial in Rossi v. Darden — if it happens, which is seeming likely, though the scope of the trial remains unclear at this point. Getting there is relatively cheap (I’ll probably take the bus), but a hotel would be expensive, I expect, unless I share a room — which is how I managed to afford ICCF-18.
This blog isn’t expensive, though it is beginning to push resource limits and I may need to start paying more for hosting.