Independent testing <> IH must pay

On LENR Forum, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Wyttenbach wrote:

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

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

As is common, Wyttenbach “reminds” us of useless and possibly misleading information. I have myself stated that IH made the reactors used at Doral, but I do not recall where that information came from, it may simply be something based on RossiSays that got picked up and treated as true. There were large reactor assemblies that might be “Big Frankies” that were transported from Italy to North Carolina. Perhaps someone will point to, like, actual evidence?

However, what Jed wrote simply is not so. Evidence of independent testing, if it existed, would still be irrelevant to Rossi’s basic $89 million claim against IH. That is based on nonpayment claimed to be a breach of contract, and to that claim requires that the contract require the payment, whereas there is ample evidence that the opportunity for a GPT was missed, through deliberate refusal to approve of the Second Amendment, on the part of Ampenergo (as well as other problems). That some Rossi device, somewhere else, “worked,” perhaps, even, a truly reliable test, simply doesn’t trigger that payment unless the Agreement conditions were met, and they clearly were not.

What is being confused here is an IH statement of intention to pay if Rossi satisfies them — voluntarily –, with an idea that they must pay.

In the counterclaim, which is distinct and different, whether or not Rossi devices work could be relevant, and evidence of independent testing could be introduced, in defense of Rossi. The original Rossi claim, though, is dead in the water — and, my opinion, very likely to be thoroughly burnt toast shortly, the evidence and facts sufficient to dismiss it being clear, and not at all vague or requiring jury assessment.

What remains and what may possibly require jury review are the counterclaims, against Rossi, and including the claims against Johnson, Bass, and Fabiani. Maybe. I have not completed my review of the MSJs.

However, it does appear that some Rossi claims, signed under penalty of perjury, have been egregiously false; so a risk for him has arisen of criminal prosecution. The “Johnson Matthey” issue is the clearest. He led IH to believe that JM was the real customer behind JMC/JMP, there can be no reasonable doubt of this from Rossi’s emails, plus, of course, there is the testimony of Darden and Vaughn, plus the emails of Johnson and Bass, and then he set up conditions to discourage IH from checking through direct communication with JM. All this makes no sense unless Rossi originally brought up JM — and wanted IH to continue their (mis)understanding.

Meanwhile, Annesser and Chaiken apparently left PBY&A and have set up their own firm, Annesser and Chaiken, PLLC. The email address provided is on a new domain, registered April 17, 2017. It’s parked at godaddy. Annesser and Chaiken are no longer listed on the PBY&A professionals page, as they were on the latest Internet Archive page showing them.

I had noticed an oddity: in the Discover hearing April 20, there was an appearance by Robert Bernstein, who is shown as a Silver Law Group attorney, and who is not listed as counsel for Rossi. Ruth Silver, the principal at SLG, has withdrawn from the case, so what was Bernstein doing there? I suspected Annesser needed some help, asked Bernstein to appear, but without Bernstein making a formal appearance in the case, as counsel for a party, (which I haven’t seen), I’m not at all sure about how that works. (Annesser is still listed as part of the SLG team. But his Linked-in profile shows this association as having ended in 2016. — and it still shows him at PBY&A. The SLG web site is obsolete.)

Actually, I just looked at Bernstein’s Linked-in page. He has been quicker to update. He is now listing himself as an associate attorney with Annesser and Chaiken PLLC. That is why he appeared at that hearing (which was after ACLaw was created as an email domain.)

So Rossi’s lawsuit has taken half the attorneys away from Silver Law Group (the least experienced ones, to be sure). Aw, Ruth, if you read this, to steal a phrase from Lenny Bruce, you betta off. 

Some more comments on LF discussion:

IH Fanboy (with his misleading and perhaps trolling username) repeats himself, over and over, on certain points. Generally, he does not actually cite evidence, but sometimes we can recognize the source. It’s typically misleading.

IH Fanboy wrote:

Nigel Appleton wrote:

Assuming this fascinating business comes to trial, I do hope that counsel for IH ensure that the idea that Rossi could could at any time have openly demonstrated a working eCat . . .

I’m going to break the rest of the IHFB comment into numbered sections.

[1] He did.

Not. NA means a an independently verifiable test, not merely some “demonstration” with Rossi in full control. Planet Rossi generally justifies Rossi secrecy based on his need to protect his IP from being stolen, but it is quite possible to do a black box test. It does require certain additional precautions, that’s all. (Such as running for substantially longer to rule out energy storage.)

[2.] Not only that, IH (i.e., specifically Dameron) built reactors themselves.

They did. They claim that they didn’t “work.” This must be understood, see below.

[3.] Darden (yes, the VC guy) apparently fueled them himself.

He did, and that makes complete sense.

[4.] They produced COPs upwards of 9.

Here IHFB simply assumes that Darden et al are lying. He has lost track of something — or willfully ignores it. Reactors do not “produce” COPs. COP is the result of a measurement analysis, and sane measurement includes the use of controls, etc. It is quite easy to calculate COPs that are wildly off, if measurements or analyses of them are in error. IH did “reproduce” Rossi claims, but then identified artifact; that is far more convincing as a negative replication than merely obtaining different results. It appears that when they used Rossi measurement protocols, they also got these elevated COPs.

Or Darden et al are lying, under oath. There isn’t much more room for middle ground here.

[5.] Dameron was still running them as late as January 2016 in the same building where Murray was just getting set up with his modified version of the reactor.

This is irrelevant. It is not clear what IHFB’s point is. I would expect IH to continue to test well beyond the ordinary “give-up” point. The essential point for IH is that what Rossi taught them to do doesn’t work. Whether the set of reactors under test in Doral “worked” or not is actually irrelevant to the suit: Rossi did not successfully transfer working IP with commercial value. Perhaps he waved his magic wand in Doral, applied liberal amounts of Rossi Grease. It doesn’t matter. The set-up to consider that a “GPT” was radically defective, on many grounds.

[6.] That is, until IH boxed everything up and closed shop, according to Murray, in response to the filing of the lawsuit.

Did Murray say “in response to the filing …”? This probably is based on something from the Murray deposition. You can find it on this page, which lists all deposition exhibits. As it happens, we have the entire deposition. It is 423 pages. Which one?

What appears to me is that IH finally gave up spending more money trying to validate the Rossi IP.

However, what did Murray actually say? Starting on deposition p. 102, he is talking about the Dameron tests (apparently IH wanted some independent testing internally, which makes sense.)

20· · · · A.· · Yeah, I remember he had a thermal imager, and
21· ·he kind of described it to us a little bit.· I recall
22· ·asking him to set up a test plan and test procedure and,
23· ·so we could document what was going on, and that just
24· ·fell by the wayside.
25· · · · Q.· · Did you set up a test plan and test procedure
·1· ·for your test?
·2· · · · A.· · Yes, we did.
·3· · · · Q.· · Do you know if that was produced in
·4· ·discovery?
·5· · · · A.· · I’m pretty sure it was.· We took the entire
·6· ·body of all the data and shared it.· So I would imagine
·7· ·it’s somewhere in there, test plans and test procedures.
·8· · · · Q.· · Okay.· And where is the device that you
·9· ·tested now, if you know?
10· · · · A.· · I can’t say today, but I know before we
11· ·closed up shop we took everything related to the
12· ·litigation under the direction of Jones Day and we put
13· ·it all together, and we boxed it up and we put it into
14· ·the locked facility in the back of the building.· So I’m
15· ·sure it’s all in there.

This does not state that the “closing up shop” was “in response to the lawsuit.” Rather, they simply are not like Rossi, who destroyed possible evidence (much more relevant to the lawsuit than what IH was doing privately). They followed legal advice, and it is unlikely that Rossi spoliated the evidence upon legal advice. If so, there might be an attorney in very hot water.

IHFB makes many claims without evidence, and is unreliable.

Alan Smith wrote:

@THH. What was the claimed input power in Lugano? A figure of 800Watts comes to mind, but that’s from memory. I can get a better insulated (and smaller) reactor to 1500C on 160W. So I would thin that 800W (if I am correct) would not need to be any kind of fiddled input measurement.

Smith is being lazy (and my memory was a power increase from 800 early on to 900 W later). It’s easy to look at the Lugano report. Claimed input power was around 810 W., then increased to 904 – 923 W. Claimed temperature from their defective camera analysis was about 1260 C at the lower power input to 1410 C at the higher power input.

Smith is likely correct in that input power measurement error is unlikely in the Lugano test. COP estimated was 3.13 – 3.74, which appears well within range of the blatant calorimetry error.

It’s been claimed that using a thermal camera for calorimetry was wildly inappropriate. I’ll disagree (as did Jed Rothwell). The problem was that they misused the camera, and botched the analysis, compounded by a failure to calibrate under operating conditions (i.e., using a dummy cell at full input power). It appears that one of the shouting matches with Rossi occurred when IH pointed out to Rossi that the cell he was measuring high COP with was a dummy cell. No fuel. Oops! At that point, I suspect, Rossi concluded they were snakes. Only a snake would steal the fuel!

(I have read this dummy cell story but have not confirmed it. Perhaps someone will point to a source. We really do have a mountain of evidence, see this page where I have collected it. I have started to prepare a timeline. If anyone wants to help, please contact me!)

And then there was this from IHFB:

Nigel Appleton wrote:

Sorry, but you’re wrong. Rossi can do anything he likes with the IP, so long as he doesn’t SELL items made using it in the territories already ceded to IH.

While I agree with you on this point, IH is (humorously) claiming otherwise in the suit. They think their territorial license somehow blocks Rossi globally.

Well, what Nigel wrote is substantially true, but not completely true. He cannot do “anything he likes.” In offering licenses, in other territories, IH has, from the Agreement, a right of first refusal. Hydrofusion and certain other pre-existing licensees are explicitly exempted from this.

As usual, IHFB is making things up when describing what IH “thinks.” He should get his mind-reading crystal ball fixed. They do not think what he wrote; but, hey, if they do, perhaps IHFB could quote the source, or at least give us calibration data on that crystal ball.

The bottom line here is that, no matter what IH “thinks,” Rossi could have continued to market his invention, IH could not stop that, except by matching any new offers, and could not stop him from agreeing with Hydrofusion, for one, and providing them IP, if they are still willing to talk to him.

This gift just keeps on giving. When we argue with b-s’ers, if we are not careful, we can get b-s all over us. Sigmoidal, normally quite cogent, wrote this:

IH Fanboy wrote:

Yes, I think the APCO inspired unable-to-substantiate-all-without-success is BS. And I think Darden and Vaughn did their best to stick to that story line in their depositions. Dewey suggested awhile back that he suspected Rossi’s team is gearing up to impeach witnesses. And it probably has something to do with deposition testimony compared to disclosed test report data.

The connection between “unable to substantiate” and APCO is a Planet Rossi trope based on the fact that an APCO consultant (later in business for himself, and who also visited the Doral Plant — or tried to, he may have been rejected, the Rossi email mentioning him and the list of visitors from IH imply that he was not allowed to visit, which would have been the first known clear violation of the Term Sheet) was on cc from the March 2016 announcement, which proves almost nothing. Darden and Vaughn would not care much about publicity, certainly not enough to perjure themselves. Darden and Vaughn are personally at very low risk here, the Rossi attempt to pierce the corporate veil is doomed, it is clearly contrary to law and precedent. However, Sigmoidal replied:

Well, not suprisingly I think your thinking is absurd, as I have implied over and over again.

But even with the extremely remotely possibilty that you are not simply seriously deceiving yourself and Rossi actually has something, there is nothing stopping him from demonstrating his high COP system, right now, this instant.

Well, if he has a high-reliability Quark-X system, nothing would actually be stopping him — other than, perhaps, his health. As to an E-Cat system, it is not at all clear that he has any devices ready to test.

This would have the effect of demolishing IH, winning the court case, awarding him over a quarter of a billion (with a ‘b’) dollars, completely destroying Darden’s reputation, opening up vast amounts of VC capital in Europe and other regions not covered by the license, result in fabulously increased quality of life for all, be the greatest discovery since fire (and that is no exaggeration), result in a virtual lock for the Nobel Prize Rossi so covets, and more.

No, it would not have that effect. First of all, the primary case is about $89 million. The “triple damages” thing is entirely separate, and a demonstration of a real device would have no effect on it, this is about a claim that Darden and Vaughn never intended to pay, and deceived Rossi about Cherokee, etc., all of which is terminally weak, with no substantial evidence having appeared other than Rossi hysteria.

Rossi already ran “demonstrations.” But let’s assume that Sigmoidal actually means rigorous independent testing by reliable experts.

“Greatest discovery since fire” is an exaggeration. Rossi did not discover LENR, nor did he discover NiH. He may have discovered a particular engineering approach, if he hasn’t been entirely a con …. but that latter possibility is looking very, very likely at this point.

No, he would not get the Nobel Prize. There is no Nobel for inventions.

However, Rossi has moved on to even better inventions. The mind boggles trying to imagine how awesome that will be!

Yes, Sigmoidal is being sarcastic, but is feeding certain tropes in doing so. Sarcasm in posts like this doesn’t come across cleanly.

IH Fanboy wrote:

sigmoidal wrote:

But if there were any doubt, we know that a dummy reactor was measuring high COP.

Yep, according to Darden’s story, he must have known as early as January of 2014 that it was all a big scam, because a dummy reactor gave the same COP as the other reactors.

This is based on a deposition, and testimony in a deposition, unless controverted, is legally “fact.” However, what IHFB says here is a conclusion from Darden’s testimony, not the testimony. This confusion between fact and conclusions is common for IHFB — and others as well. What that testimony indicates is the possibility or probability of error in measuring COP, which has already been widely suspected. This does not prove it was “all a big scam,” though it certainly raises questions of major error.

The problem is that we have these little things called facts.

IHFB should have his mouth washed out with soap for presenting implications and imaginations as “fact.”

Such as, Darden then proceeded to secure tens of millions of outside investment over the course of the next year and a half,

If Darden had done that and then threw the money at Rossi, it would have been a major problem. Rather, Darden et al continued to investigate, and the major funding raised was used for other projects, not Rossi. IHFB has pointed again and again to the quick reaction of Woodford to the draft IH press release in March, 2016 as if it proved that Woodford was really investing in Rossi and had been deceived. It doesn’t show that at all. There was a hope, obviously, that Rossi technology would pan out and the various failures would have been fixed.

and also required everyone to leave the lab in Dec/January 2016 so that he could carefully and secretively load the scam fuel into Murray’s modified reactor. Wouldn’t want the secrets of the scam fuel to get out.

IHFB is implying that this is inconsistent, but, in fact, it is fully consistent with what we know. That fuel mixture is not “scam fuel,” it would be what Rossi disclosed in 2013, and the failed test (control showing the same apparent heat as the experimental device) does not prove “scam.” It could just as easily show that Rossi had decided to torpedo the IH effort, perhaps feeling that he had not been paid or promised enough. IH simply continued with their plan (to “crush the tests”), and the fuel details divulged by Rossi (real or scam) were kept as a closely-guarded secret. IHFB is sarcastically implying that the appearance of contradiction (in his mind) proves that Darden was lying. This is how IHFB thinks, apparently. It’s not uncommon on Planet Rossi.

Rossi’s reported reaction to that no-fuel finding demonstrates that he is definitely not a scientist. A scientist would be very interested, not angry. However, if that was a no-fuel test without telling Rossi, it would have been (1) brilliant, and (2) very likely to set him off. Rossi clearly cannot stand independent testing, and a test that might show him up, proof that they are snakes.

IHFB went on and on with preposterous claims, as the LF thread on Rossi v. Darden wanders far from the nominal topic with the full collaboration of at least one LF moderator, now over 7000 posts.

JedRothwell wrote

Wyttenbach wrote:

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

No, in the U.S. court system the burden of proof is on Rossi. The defendant is assumed innocent. You have to show strong evidence that the test worked, I.H. knows it, and it tried to cheat Rossi. I.H. cannot be found guilty if they have a legitimate difference of opinion regarding the test results.

Jed is confusing civil with criminal liability. “Guilt” is not an issue in civil cases. A clue is that mens rea (guilty intention) is not required to find civil fraud. The basic Rossi case was a claim of breach of contract, so for a court to find liability under the contract, the elements would have to be shown. The test “working” was not actually part of the contract, this was first noticed by Planet Rossi, which thought that the case was ironclad.

Basically, test results were up to the “ERV.” That is how it was written, Wyttenback is correct about that. However, there are some problems for the Rossi claim. First of all, the Agreement was not followed in setting up the faux GPT. To allow a postponed GPT, the Second Amendment was attempted, but that failed because of Ampenergo refusal to sign, a fact that Rossi left out of his complaint. IH only claimed, in their MTD, a technical failure, missing signatures (and then the “6 cylinder unit” issue, which simply shows that the Second Amendment, never having been completely executed, was ignored (until it came time for Rossi to make his $89 million claim). Easily, IH and Rossi could have made a side-agreement, but Rossi did not attempt that, apparently. Instead, he set up a faux customer to encourage IH to give him possession of the reactors, and arranged for Penon to measure heat — all of this without mentioning “GPT.” Far from getting the signatures of “all parties” to the start of a GPT, as the Second Amendment required, had it been valid.

If Rossi and IH had clearly agreed on Doral as a GPT, and Penon as the ERV for it, Rossi’s case would have been far stronger. Yes, IH could possibly defend on various bases, and a claim of fraud would be one of these. But the initial presumption would be as the Agreement had it: the ERV report was binding. I think IH felt safe with that because the originally contemplated GPT would have been in their facility where they could observe it very closely.

There is no presumption as Jed describes in civil cases. Rather, the judge or a jury is looking for equity, and a jury decision must be unanimous — in Federal Court — and there is no presumption at law as to which party is right. A requirement for absolute proof (“beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases) could be quite unfair. The standard is merely the preponderance of the evidence, for the trier of fact (i.e., the judge or the jury in a jury trial).

(That is why O.J. Simpson could be found “not guilty” in a criminal trial for murder, but responsible for damages in a civil case.)

oldguy wrote:

By the way, can you point out to me where Penon’s deposition was under oath? I have “lost” that. I would think that it is in there but not finding it.

The attestation of the notary.

By the way, there is a list of all deposition exhibits, with a Table of Contents at the top, so that any deposition can be quickly found, and I’m going over it to list what pages are included in each copy. I may then create composites with all the pages we have.

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax


17 thoughts on “Independent testing <> IH must pay”

  1. You wrote: “However, what Jed wrote simply is not so. Evidence of independent testing, if it existed, would still be irrelevant to Rossi’s basic $89 million claim against IH.”

    Well, okay. I exaggerated. However, imagine Rossi had commissioned a successful, independent test soon after the 1-year test failed. I think he would be a stronger position in the trial. In fact, I think I.H. would have negotiated a settlement, provided it included transfer of the intellectual property.

    1. Yes, you exaggerated. Now, have some … whatever, your favorite beverage or snack. Do you think you might go to Florida for the trial, if it comes to that?

      Bottom line, the problem is that a successful test cannot substitute for technology transfer that would allow IH to make devices that pass independent testing. If Rossi managed that, satisfying IH that this was real heat, yes. They would have paid Rossi or at least negotiated strongly for settlement on terms favorable to Rossi. I don’t think that a promise of transfer would be enough. They already had that, and Rossi didn’t succeed at it, and apparently if he does have anything real — which is looking quite doubtful — he refused to support IH efforts to confirm it. So it’s same old same old.

      Suing them as he did was a giant and very expensive Fuck You. On Planet Rossi this is considered an unbelievably smart move. What a genius! They messed with the wrong guy!

      By the way, the legal arguments for including Cherokee and for suing Darden and Vaughn totally sucked from the get-go and were almost dismissed immediately, but there was enough misleading information in the Rossi complaint and arguments that Altonaga decided to wait for discovery. She now has enough uncontradicted fact to slap Rossi down. The legal issues are quite clear, not vague. She will take her time, will read the arguments carefully. Judges hate to be reversed on appeal.

      1. I will not go to Florida for the trial. It is far too depressing. Plus I know little about the law or trials, so I wouldn’t know what is going on. For me, it would be like watching an Italian Opera without a translation. Someone is terribly upset and carrying on at high decibels about something, but who knows what.

        Rossi probably hopes it will resemble an Italian Opera.

  2. The change in COP seen at Lugano is exactly (to within 0.5%) predicted from a real COP=1 system with correct IR calorimetry taking into account the alumina surface. That is strong validation of the (correct, as in TC’s paper) calorimetry, and also shows that done properly the technique would not have been too bad, though I agree wildly inappropriate because complex and difficult for a non-expert to validate.

    IH did “reproduce” Rossi claims, but then identified artifact; that is far more convincing as a negative replication than merely obtaining different results. It appears that when they used Rossi measurement protocols, they also got these elevated COPs.

    Or Darden et al are lying, under oath. There isn’t much more room for middle ground here.

    One of the telling things, not often remarked, is what Rossi did not say when on oath. There is no defence of his position (other than quoting Lugano) and no contradiction of IH’s sworn testimony. Nor has Rossi found, even after those Gigabytes of discover material, any such evidence.

    Makes you realise just how one-sided this things looks aas a Court case – let alone morally.

    1. Yeah, the method isn’t as bad as has been claimed, used properly, and the lack of a full power control was immediately obvious to many (including me). I didn’t trust those complex calculations, too easy to make some mistake. However, a proper set of control experiments showing, effectively, what apparent temperature — assuming consistent camera settings, they would not have to be correct! — corresponded to what input power, would have been far more convincing. So then the camera ends up measuring, not temperature, but power. There are ways to get that wrong, but they are far less likely.

      What was truly horrible was the excuse given for not doing that control experiment with the dummy reactor. This was almost certainly RossiSays, but without attributing it to him. This absolutely sucked as an “independent confirmation.” That they were fooled, okay, real people can be fooled. That they have absolutely stonewalled the criticism is a real problem that can quite fairly impact their academic reputation.

    2. Yes. I think Mr Rossi should be asked under oath whether his amaxing e-cat has a COP in excess of 6. Or even 60, since the GPT claims a long term average of over 60.
      (GPT- Guaranteed Performance Test! What a joke!
      A Rossi controlled test in a Rossi controlled facility selling the excess heat to Rossi controlled ‘third party’ employing Rossi controlled staff, to manufacture nothing at all, other than to dissipate 750 kilowatts out of a Rossi controlled ceiling vent and window.
      And of course, all verified by an ERV – Entity Responsible for Verification carefully selected by ,.. well, Mr Rossi of course. And the incredibly amazing results are Guaranteed?
      Good grief! Who would buy that argument? )

  3. Abd – Ruth Silver died awhile back – I believe that her son perpetuates the practice specializing in, wait for it, investment fraud and Ponzi schemes. The un-fueled reactor story with the high COP is 100% accurate. Rossi stormed out of the building screaming obscenities and other absurdities after being caught red-faced handed.

    1. You wrote: “Rossi stormed out of the building screaming obscenities and other absurdities after being caught red-faced handed.”

      Jim Dunn said that is how he reacted when Jim showed that the reactor was plugged up and in danger of exploding. He got angry. Then he got much more angry later on – that day or the next day. He refused to fix the problem and do second test. So Dunn and Nelson told him that NASA could not offer any support, that being the case. He blew up. He was furious, ranting and raving and screaming obscenities, as you say.

      That’s what I heard.

    2. Sorry to hear that about Ruth Silver. Actually, I had that wrong. It was Patricia M. Silver. Is this true? Dewey, there appears to be more than one Silver Law web site. There is The attorneys there are Scott Silver, Adolfo Anzola, David Silver, and

      then there is Silver Law Group, principal is Patricia M. Silver. These are clearly distinct firms. The first firm is in that investment fraud practice. Patricia Silver’s firm represented Rossi. She did die, October 26, 2016, after a “brief illness,” she was 63 years old. One more beautiful person gone. The obituary does not mention sons, other than stepsons. The motion removing her as counsel for Rossi was filed September 20, 2016, so a month before she died.

      I don’t think the first firm is actually related as a continuation of her firm. The domain was originally registered 11/23/2004. was created 8/27/2003. However, it looks like her practice might be gone, nobody maintaining the web site.

      Now, Dewey, ahem. Red faced and red-handed are as different as faces and hands. I suppose, though, if I were caught red-handed in something truly embarrassing, and were prone to blaming others, getting angry that they have demonstrated a mistake, I might also be red-faced with anger.

      This is against the Rossi Rules. Rossi is supposed to be completely in charge of all tests. He was upset about the Boeing tests, because he wasn’t there to manage them. Of course they failed to find anything! There was nobody to stop the Russians from stealing the fuel. Uh, how do the Russians get involved here?

      Technically, Dewey, reading all these documents sensitizes me to this: Unless you were there, you cannot confirm that the story is accurate. (If you were a witness to this, the matter shifts). What you can say is that you have heard or read this from a source you trust, and you could even say who that was, and, truly spectacular, could point to a document. I think there is something about this in that vast pile of copies of depositions over in the corner. Some of these are searchable, but some are not. There are OCR’d copies out there, maybe I’ll pick some up. I looked, didn’t find anything yet.

      The story is quite interesting, and that would be a crackerjack trick to pull on Rossi, like what happened with N-rays. It is a quick and definitive test, not demonstrating that no excess heat was possible, but that the measurement methods were effed.

      1. The question would then be, why would IH go ahead and invest anything in the Rossi circus if the tests showed an unfueled reactor tested similarly to a fueled reactor? That sounds a bit strange, to say the least. They must be playing the ‘very log odds’ if they thought there was still the chance Rossi had something real after that performance. Plus of course, all the other info on the web which was available at that time indicating the Rossi circus was nothing more than horse feathers.

        1. 1. That was “a test,” not “the tests.”
          2. The investment was a very long shot, ab initio, but I’ve concluded that what they did was necessary.
          3. Because of what they did, we now know with far higher certainty about the “horse feathers.”
          4. “Rossi had nothing” is still not proven, and may never be proven unless Rossi confesses. And a major possibility is that he is insane, believes his own lies or, not quite so insane, believes that they are justifiable because of conditions.
          5. I still have not found confirmation of the empty reactor story, I assume it’s in that pile of largely-redundant text somewhere. A simple search did not pick it up.

      2. Abd – there is apparently more to the story about the Silver Law Firm’s book of business after Mrs Silver passed. It chalks up to match the caliber of people in the mix.

        Regarding Darden’s busting of Rossi with the high COP reports from an unfueled reactor – I wasn’t there but got an update almost immediately after it happened. Darden advised Rossi that there was a big problem in Raleigh and had to practically order him to leave his Florida lair to come “help figure it out”. The set-up / details are fascinating and the takedown brilliant. Those details will fully be disclosed one day.

        1. Thanks, Dewey. Please understand that it is not that I don’t believe you, I simply distinguish between direct evidence and hearsay, and even though it’s strong hearsay, from how you report it, it is still hearsay and not as strong as direct evidence. The depositions are direct evidence, where they report personal experience.

          I recall Rossi answering a question in 2011 about doing control experiments with a claim that they weren’t necessary, since he claimed to know what a control experiment (an unfueled reactor) would show: nothing. That was obviously incorrect when he said it, and remained a major and glaring shortcoming in many demonstrations.

          What I’d find maximally interesting would be if the control run were accidental, i.e., the researchers didn’t know it was empty of fuel.

          1. Abd – The unfueled / high COP reactor saga in Raleigh is not completely covered in TD’s deposition. It had something to do with a “mix-up” between “reactor 6” and “reactor 9”. Regarding control testing and the R’ster, recall the sudden independent power shut-off of the control run in Lugano by Rossi when temps reached around 550C.

            1. Yeah, I know that one well. It makes no sense, and Levi et al simply repeated, it’s obvious, RossiSays. If that dummy run had been done at full input power, Lugano would not have been a disaster (or would have been an honest failure), the camera would have effectively been calibrated and emissivity error would have been either discovered or of no effect.

              So the reactors got mixed up, but, of course, when the test was done, the fuel could have been examined. OMG! I think it’s hilarious.

Leave a Reply