Conversations: Simon Derricutt 3

Simon again. Quoted in full, my comments in indented italics.

The only evidence that points to the 1MW having been produced is the ERV report, with the quantity of water turned to steam and the measured temperature of that steam. As has been noted many times, the data we’ve heard about doesn’t seem consistent with what might reasonably be expected as a set of real measurements, but it is nevertheless the data that exists.

It exists in a sense, yes. That is, there is a report, incompletely presented, just the data tables without explanatory material, and without attestation of any kind. 

Countered to that is the soft evidence that there doesn’t seem to have been any product from J-M Products that would have paid for the power bill, and there seems to have been no transport of raw materials or finished product in and out of the site, and that there were no employees or contractors of J-M Products in the locked room overseeing such a process – JMP seems to have just one part-time employee and one MD who also functioned as CEO, Treasurer, etc..

This is circumstantial evidence that in a civil case may have high probity, unless factual evidence to the contrary can be shown. “MD” probably meant “JD,” i.e., a lawyer, Johnson. I think Dewey has asserted that Rossi paid the electric bill. (IH subpoenaed Florida Power & Light records and we can be sure they also requested and obtained bank records. This kind of stuff could be hidden, but it would have been a lot of work and it appears that it was not anticipated, when the fraud was set up, that there would be judicial inquiry, so it was clumsy.) I assume that Rossi also would have paid the $1000 per day to IH, had IH invoiced. $300,000, small price to pay to win $89 million. Rossi appears to have been paying all JMP bills, including employment taxes. It’s pretty obvious what was going on. If anyone questions this, I’ll put in links.

There is also Jed’s claim (not yet in evidence at court) that an IR survey of the site was done by IH which did not see a heat-plume consistent with 1MW, and that there seems to have been no attempt by Rossi to deal with getting rid of that 1MW by other means such as down the drains as cooling water. There was at some point a reference (I can’t remember by whom) that the locked room was not uncomfortably hot.

I think that the IR survey information came from Dewey. It’s quite plausible, once IH recognized that Rossi really was going to try to pull the “GPT” trick. It’s easy to do. Routinely, marijuana growers have been busted by helicopter IR surveys, seeing the tens of kilowatts of power dissipated by grow-lights. A megawatt should be extremely visible. I think that Dewey mentioned that this would be visible from space, and that’s a hint that the IR survey may have simply consisted of looking for IR satellite data, which exists.

Though these points are not hard evidence yet, I find them convincing enough that it seems certain that the ERV report is bad data, and that the output power cannot have been substantially greater than the input power, and that this was known by Rossi before he started the Doral test.

This is not weak evidence, it is direct evidence, basically independent calorimetry. Imprecise, to be sure, but not a lot of precision is needed to approximate the amount of energy being released from what I’ve called the “room calorimeter.” HVAC engineers know how to estimate temperature rise from power dissipation under various cooling conditions. The limit on temperature rise from the fact that people worked in the plant, without discomfort (or worse), places, then, a limit on Plant power dissipation. Rossi claimed “endothermic process” at first, and then, when he realized this was a seriously losing argument, he then claimed a combination of methods. His original story was that the heat was simply vented through the roof, and apparently did not realize — or hoped his audience would not realize — that this would take duct work and forced air to handle that heat without a huge temperature rise. This is all standard HVAC engineering, and IH will have no difficulty establishing this in court.

The metering was thus designed from the start to inflate the measurement of the output power, though whether the ERV was cognisant of that remains moot.

It is possible that IH found the smoking gun. What could it be? Okay, here is my idea: an air compressor in the customer area, combined with a broken pressure gauge — or simply disconnected, even better, since the gauge, removed, would test as perfect. The air could also be piped from else where, all it would take is a line into the customer area and into the coolant loop. In this idea, the reservoir is open to the air. The air flow through the pipe would turn the vane of the flow meter without water flow.

This procedure could fool Penon if he paid no attention to the room calorimeter — and he apparently told Lewan, do I have it right? — that the “customer area” didn’t matter — which establishes Penon’s incompetence as an engineer for this purpose. Penon’s experience was with nuclear power plants, where “fake” could result in massive damage and loss of life, his training would not even suspect it.

There are many other possibilities. This is the bottom line: to be conclusive, a test must be independent, not merely an observation of a demonstration controlled by the inventor. Rossi was upset, apparently, that the Boeing test was done without his presence. This was classic Rossi, he absolutely wanted to avoid, and avoided for years, independent testing. The major exception was Lugano, which was not actually independent, it was only that Rossi left during the middle, while the “independent professors” sat around and watched paint dry. Who set up the lack of calibration at full input power? Who told them that this might damage the reactor? Who determined the emissivity value to use?

Peter is concentrating on the wrong things, in my opinion. Instead of looking at what effects all that heat should have, and seeing that those effects were not there, he’s looking at trying to prove that the metering was correct in the hope that Rossi will Save The World by producing cheap and non-polluting power.

Seems likely. There is a similar argument advanced by Lewan, who really ought to know better, that it is better to err on the side of supporting Rossi, because it is so important for the energy future of humanity. However, this assumes that the energy future of humanity could not be harmed by fraud. It assumes that if Rossi is not “supported” — by us, the public — that he would be stopped. But Rossi has always claimed that the market is the judge, and if there were a water heater I could buy, powered by Rossi (c), and with a few real and actually satisfied customers, showing “energy amplification” of 6X, I would buy it and many would. Even if everyone on the blogs was yelling at him.

The problem is that Rossi’s strategy (which Lewan seems to grasp) of making himself look like a fraud damages the overall field. I.e., supporting Rossi polarizes what requires consensus: breaking through the rejection logjam. This is why Jed is so pessimistic.

We need honesty and genuine skepticism. We all know that pseudoskepticism is harmful, precisely because it’s fake skepticism, skepticism that forgets to be skeptical of whatever the skeptic believes. If cold fusion is real, genuine skepticism will discover this! Pseudoskepticism relies on inertia and fuzzy pseudoscience, scientism, Cargo Cult Science.

He’s told me that Rossi will have a good explanation for where that heat disappeared to without any evidence of it passing, but until now Rossi has remained silent on that, and has instead stated that the independent customer J-M Products had to deal with the heat and it wasn’t his concern.

Does Mats know this “good explanation”? Rossi has not remained silent, he attempted to answer this issue quite a while ago. Mats is avoiding the obvious. Rossi has been lying to him, and it’s hard for him to see that and admit it. Rossi’s position has been twofold: outwardly, he can’t comment because lawsuit in progress, yatta yatta, but also he then says a lot of crap about “Industrial Heat,” or the “puppets,” often radically distorted (just today I saw one of his socks — probably — claim that they were saying that the flow meter was not proper for the temperature. Has that been said? If so, I’ve missed it). Does Mats read JONP and compare it with known fact?

Mats fell down and failed to investigate, he has not pursued what he declared as his intention. He could recover, and I hope he does.

If there is a good explanation, surely someone who knows it would could leak the information. Rossi cannot keep necessary information from IH discovery, so a idea that he can pull a Wabbit out at trial would be foolish. He’d be sanctioned by the court, which might include a dismissal of his claims. 

Peter’s experience as an industrial chemist should have indicated that that amount of steam heat will need to be dissipated after use and won’t just disappear, and also that J-M Products would need to make a profit on their energy costs if they wanted to stay in business – there has to be a valuable product from that much investment. It would be surprising if IH hadn’t got some way of monitoring the Doral site, with so much money at stake, so deliveries and people on site should have been noted. That’s not in evidence at the moment, but it’s a logical thing to do.

Dewey has claimed that IH has massive evidence, not so far revealed. It ‘s plausible. There is no requirement that all the evidence be disclosed in the pleadings, other than enough, in the way of specific allegations, that a motion to dismiss can be avoided. IH’s massive exhibit collection is overkill, legally. However, all this must be known to Rossi by the time discovery is complete, so the lawyers can then see what is a likely outcome at trial and settlement becomes possible, at least if one or more parties are sane. Going to trial with a losing case is insane if it can be avoided.

The court-case will probably go on for a while yet. It seems to me the prospects of Rossi succeeding are pretty slim, and rest on some technical point of law being found that lets him escape.

His case seems legally impossible, from what we have seen. He’s obviously searching for proof of deliberate deception on IH’s side, and it appears to me that his Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions would have included his strongest evidence. What he showed there was terminally weak. It only looked like evidence to someone with paranoid thinking. I doubt that Annesser would have filed this on his own, he’d have to be dumber than he looks. So Rossi is calling the shots, with Annesser being a yes-man, paid for that.

However, the counterclaims are less certain. It still looks fairly solid to me, there are technical details that may not be.

Lawyers are after all pretty good at twisting the meanings of language. On the technical side, though, I can’t see any other conclusion other than that the Doral test failed to produce much excess energy, if any at all. Rossi’s technology does not work as claimed, and may not work at all.

That is, at this point, and in my opinion, a preponderance of the evidence conclusion — which is what civil cases turn on. Peter wants “proof.” Those who demand proof die without it, or death is the ultimate proof.

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax


9 thoughts on “Conversations: Simon Derricutt 3”

  1. Short:
    a) PWEET
    Bold hypothesis- so Rossi’s task is to present inactive as active, zero excess heat as kW excess heat, COP 1 as COP 100.
    Now if you are a professional thta is you know the things, can you develop this idea considering what we know (actually you know) about the plant what has he done- explain how he has proceeded- one equivalent of this is an eunuch acquiring the fame of Don Juan. How? PLEASE do not forget that ZERO excess heat is axiom no 1 of the DeJAvu enclave.
    Simon- I dismiss or contradict Ed depending on what I say not what Rossi says.


    1. Peter wrote: Bold hypothesis- so Rossi’s task is to present inactive as active, zero excess heat as kW excess heat, COP 1 as COP 100.

      Well, it appears that he did this, and it’s no mean trick. Let’s be a little more precise. “Excess heat” is a construct, and abstraction. The reality would be heat, and the task would be to make 20 kilowatts of heat appear as a megawatt. Or 10 KW if COP is to appear as 100. In the October, 2011, demonstration of the 1 MW plant, the claim was generation of about 500 KW. There was a 500 KW genset sitting there. Was there any recording of the operation of that genset? At that point, Rossi was claiming COP of around 6, so he’d need that genset, since 166 KW from the grid would not have been possible, we think. Certainly it was not possible in Doral, Florida.

      So the Florida test, given Ptweet’s assumptions, required something else than simply providing more heat than was “measured.” Peter, if you are to recover from the pit you have dug for yourself, you are going to start to need to at least see things from the perspective of others, which is not all that difficult if you drop the assumption that they are lying or massively deluded by the “IH puppets.” Once we look at the “problem” from this perspective, it’s rather obvious that there are ways to do it. Admitting these possibilities is not accepting or “believing” that this is actually what happened.

      There may be many, many ways to fake a megawatt, as long as one has high control of the environment and nobody has the ability to look too closely. However, some of these ways might be easily “defeated” by simply looking at the demonstration in some way that the “magician” did not anticipate or handle, such as what I call the “room calorimeter,” i.e., the heat rise in the warehouse. Rossi did speak about this early on, I just read it the other day. He said that the heat would simply rise out of the roof vents. He did not do a careful analysis of this, and Jed Rothwell has presented very cogent arguments that reasonably show that, no, that kind of cooling would not avoid a major heat rise from a megawatt in the warehouse. There are HVAC engineers who could easily calculate all this, it’s their bread and butter, or do you think that expensive duct work and exhaust systems are installed just on guesswork? Now, did Rossi ever let an HVAC engineer get close to his devices? No, his favorite “expert” was a nuclear engineer, who would have no experience at all dealing with something like this.

      Rossi fooled you, Peter, because you very much wanted to believe him; you are the best one to understand why.

      Could I be wrong? Of course I could. Anyone can. However, where is that damn Wabbit!

      chk chk chk, Mr. Wabbit, I have some dried coconut here! Come out, wherever you are hiding! (Marley, the Rex Rat who is my cage mate here, loves dried coconut more than anything else, more even than dried bananas. Lab block, the standard food, he’ll eat if he doesn’t have bananas or coconut. The blocks disappear.)

    2. Peter, you wrote and emphasized: “PLEASE do not forget that ZERO excess heat is axiom no 1 of the DeJAvu enclave.”
      You are approaching a boundary, take heed. The “DeJAvu enclave” is your invented term — nobody has taken it up that I’ve seen but you — for Dewey Weaver, Jed Rothwell, and Abd, as if we were some isolated enclave, a few fanatics surrounded by … by what? For none of these writers is “ZERO excess heat” an “axiom.” Those words have meanings, and this has been explained to you before. As a “member” of this august company, I can speak for myself. I do not “believe in” zero excess heat, and I have many times stated that this could never be proven. In effect, Peter, you are lying as you claim that others lie. This is not about “excess heat” or “no excess heat,” it is about what people believe and say, and you are misrepresenting what has been said. If not, it should be easy to show. Peter, you are hereby challenged to show where I have taken “zero excess heat” as an “axiom,” as anything other than a possible hypothesis. Axioms are relationships or concepts taken as basic truth — or as elements in a formal system of logic, but I don’t think you mean that here.
      This is one place, Peter, where you will be held responsible for what you write. The possible immediate penalty for lying is exposure of the lies, but the long term consequences of lying are far worse, Peter. The rest of your life is at stake.
      You are, here, directly insulting the host. In the absence of other administrators, I will be slow to act on that, but I also have rights.

  2. Abd – the air flow through the flowmeter would indeed work, but it’s then unlikely that you’d get exactly 3600kg per day registered, unless of course there was a manual turn-on and turn-off of the compressor to spin it to the right number just before the reading was taken. Then again, that exact number each day is suspicious anyway.

    If anyone had a good explanation of “where the 1MW went” then they would most likely have expressed it. I’ve seen a few attempts at that, from leaving the loading-bay doors open to installing a big extractor fan, but so far they’d all have been very visible/audible to any witness and would also have been very visible on an IR survey. By my calculations, if they’d put the heat down the drains then the input water-pipe (a 3″ supply) would have been at cavitation velocity and the drains would be very visible on an IR survey, as well as killing any vegetation above them. The water-bill would also be evidence, since consumption would be about equivalent to 5500 local houses. Basically, I can’t think of any way that such a large amount of heat would not leave an evidence-trail as to where it went.

    As such, there may not be a smoking gun at all. The easiest way to get those figures is to simply ignore the meters and write the calculated numbers in the logbook. The meters would then be simply decoration for when visitors came. This of course implies that the ERV was told what to write and did so, and wasn’t told when the system was switched off so didn’t write the appropriate figures in on those days. That could be why Penon is unavailable for comment. Maybe we’re just looking for tricky technical explanations where there’s a simpler (if less-honest) way of explaining the numbers.

    In order to improve my understanding, it’s necessary to explain what I understand and to read the responses to that. Thanks for improving my knowledge. I don’t understand the legal niceties (and probably never will) so it helps to have a digested version. I’ve tried reading the legal arguments and found it very easy to get lost. Physics is a lot easier, especially when dealing with steam heat.

    At this point, this ColdFusionCommunity site seems mainly to deal with Rossi’s court case and the somewhat-fruitless arguments about it on the other blogs. There’s not a lot of discussion from theorists or experimenters on their ideas, which would be much more useful. Peter Gluck does bring up some experiments, often from Russia, though they mostly seem to be following Rossi’s techniques. He also has comments from Ed Storms that are good, except that he dismisses them as not what RossiSays. At times there are some interesting thoughts on Vortex, with Jones chucking some good speculations into the air that are worth thinking about. Maybe we’ll have to wait for the noise of Rossi to subside before there will be more generally-useful discussions of LENR itself. Some theories, for example those involving magnetic monopoles, I dismiss as unreal, and others can be shown to be wrong or incomplete by the lack of evidence of predicted products or ratios being wrong. Still, ideas that can be chewed over, and the good parts retained while the bits that are actually impossible chucked out, may be worth the discussion. Do the predictions match what is measured? That’s really the core of what a reasonable theory should give us.

    1. The ERV was not physically there to write in a logbook. There is a clue in the total coincidence of Penon data (from the section of the Final Report published by Rossi in a recent Exhibit) and the Fabiani data (presumably provided by Fabiani to IH and shown by them in their own response to that Rossi Exhibit). There was one collection of data, not by Penon, but either by Fabiani or Rossi or by computer — and I don’t think the flow meter had a computer output, so this was read manually and entered somewhere, either in a written logbook or into a computer — and then that became the Fabiani data and the Penon data, so Penon was relying on Fabiani or Rossi or the security of a computer system — but still on manual entry of the flow data.

      That the data was exactly the same every day for so many days is a clue, again, that this was not primary data, but filtered by someone. An actual flow meter reading would be cumulative, not “daily.” Flow meter data was critical to the calculation of energy, yet nothing was done to nail this. This is all a sign of, at best, massive incompetence.

      Air flow could be arranged to create whatever flow meter reading was desired. With some testing, one might know exactly what air flow to inject to create the desired result, so it is possible that this would be done. However, this — totally even data, not at all necessary for Plant control — would be totally stupid as a fraud, if anyone was expecting close examination. It would be much stronger to create what would look like statistical variation or at least the occasional deviation from day boundaries and the true exact flow rate.

      This is what I can say with conviction: the data we have from Penon and Fabiani is not trustworthy, something is off, something is unclear and unexplained. It’s not inconceivable, with each of these anomalies that are found, that there is some explanation, and it’s totally true that if we look for faults we can always find them even in something that is actually perfect, because this is what the human brain is fantastic at: finding what it seeks. However, then, if we are sane, we start balancing it all. We look for evidence *contrary* to what seems to be appearing. I’ve been looking. Where is that damn Wabbit! If anyone sees a stray Wabbit wandering around Planet Rossi, please let me know! I love rodents, I have one a few feet from where I sit, a genuine Rattus norvegicus, a Rex Rat. I do have some rabbit food, accidentally left here, and I promise to treat any Wabbit with great care.

    2. At this point, the “site” is reporting on Rossi v. Darden because it is a case of historical importance, unfolding now, and often not understood. I like writing about what I can research and explain. There are other topics discussed here, if you look. At this point, I’m the one one writing blog posts here, because nobody else has requested Author rights. So I write about what I come across. All this can be sorted with Categories, and compilation pages are possible. The true persistent and useful commentary here will consist of compilation or overall study pages, not blog posts.

      (Originally, the Rossi case pages were a blog post here. I fixed that, moving it all to a page, This can be done for any topic, and then hypertext can create pedagogical pathways. I also did this, to some extent, on Wikiversity, preparing for a party that, so far, has not happened. I’m amazed at the number of people who complain about lack of resources, who won’t lift a finger to create them. Eventually, though, some will. There are a few people like Jed Rothwell, who, with all his quirks, nevertheless created the best library on cold fusion that we have, so far. Jed has paid his dues, many times over.)

      Now, as to cold fusion theory, my sense is that generally we don’t have enough data to vet cold fusion theories. Storms has put together a theory that is effectively ad hoc, to explain existing data (and it can be useful that way.) Where he goes beyond the data to imagine something that would then generate something like that data, and where he disregards standard physics, he’s gone a bridge too far, in my opinion, though it is his right to do that. We don’t know enough to overcome standard physics, it is merely a possibility that The Ultimate Cold Fusion Explanation could overturn some standard physics, but, no, standard physics does not prohibit LENR and it was nuts to ever think it did. Those rejections were all, without exception, based on making assumptions about the reaction that were, essentially, invented, and so it was the invention that was contradictory, perhaps, not “cold fusion,” which is, at this point, an anomaly, a set of experimental results that indicate something not understood is happening.

      At this point, my opinion is that debate over theory is largely useless. Nobody has a theory that has been shown to create quantitative predictions that can then be verified, with one exception, and, of course, I harp on it: the “theory” that “cold fusion” (specifically, the FP Heat Effect) is a reaction by unknown mechanism that converts deuterium to helium. That creates clear predictions that not only are verifiable, they have been verified, many times, and work is under way to verify them with increased precision. I call it “cold fusion” because the result is fusion, not because “fusion” is some understood mechanism. Fusion may occur through many pathways, not just one, but the laws of thermodynamics, which we do not set aside, we merely look for improved understanding, predict the release, from that conversion, if there are no “leakages,” 23.8 MeV/4He. For me, for now, that’s what we have as confirmed theory. The rest is fluff, so far, even though some of this fluff might eventually form part of a mature theory. Experiment is King.

      1. Abd – Wabbit safety is not guaranteed here, since the farm cats would enjoy the meal. Considering how much money rested on that ERV data being correct, the obvious discrepancies are really inexplicable in purely scientific terms. There are no internal checks in case any one instrument fails, and at a minimum we can say it was sloppy and amateurish. Since it’s hard for a professional to achieve that level without intending to, since in normal circumstances they would soon be an ex-professional, it’s more reasonable to look for fraud as an explanation.

        Your theory is more of a description of experimental results. Although it’s good to be aware of what we don’t know, it’s also useful to look at the various ideas around, work out what they predict to happen, and compare those predictions with the measured results that we are sure of. W-L theory, for example, should result in a lot of neutron-activation that doesn’t happen, and the gamma-shielding should be easy to check using a pinhole gamma source and a small-aperture sensor. We don’t see that. Brillouin’s theory should result in a lot of D, less T and a bit of He during the reaction, yet only results (we assume) in He. Stepwise addition doesn’t seem an option, and whatever happens must be all-at-once or not happening at all, with a few much-lower probability paths leading to some photons and neutrons. Knowing what theories can’t be right may not seem much of an advance, but it may help in focussing effort on those theories that have not been rejected, and maybe their predictions can likewise be shown to be shown to be wrong by experiment and narrow the field. This ought to help the experimenters to decide what measurement kit they need to set up, and may help in deciding what process to follow.

        I have no right to ask for this, of course, and I’m working on other stuff this year so won’t be doing this myself. Once that’s complete I’ll come back to see what I can add to the opus. This requires someone who isn’t wedded to any particular idea but simply checks as to whether all the predictions of a hypothesis are borne out by measured results.

        For Pd/D, the loading process and the level of loading seem guaranteed to produce cracks. The J-M alloy was developed for use as a Hydrogen filter, and was intended to reduce the size and severity of such cracks so that the filter had a longer working life. Ed Storms’ idea that the cracks are where the magic happens and need to be a certain size thus has a lot going for it. It’s a reasonable guess that there is some form of resonance happening that then gives rise to the reaction. Can we get that resonance by other stimulation? There’s a hint from Brillouin’s Q-wave that this may be possible, there’s increases in output power seen at step-changes of electrolysis current in F+P, and also there’s Holmlid. It’s still strange that Holmlid’s work stands alone, but then people need to have some sort of belief that an experiment has a chance of success before they invest the time and money to replicate.

        Back 4-5 years ago (?) Krivit had such a list of theories on NET. I haven’t checked whether he still has it (but then I won’t pay to see either) but he of course said that W-L was the only one that explained everything.

        Plan B will provide solid information that may in time lead to a good theory for LENR. I’m just a little impatient, and it would be nice to have a workable theory before we do the legwork of finding by experiment what doesn’t work, and gradually by elimination find what does.

        When everyone agrees, there’s no need to find an alternate explanation even if the agreed explanation is wrong. We do need diversity (that seems to be a universal need) in order to get advances and breakthroughs. I’m often asking why things happen, and sometimes the answer arrives.

  3. I think there is little doubt Rossi always knew the real COP of the 1MW plant was nominally one. On that basis, you can be sure the test procedure was arranged from the very beginning to falsify the results to make the COP appear as positive to the extent that the technology would appear valid.
    I think the long hours spent in the supposed development of new and improved e-cat devices was actually spent in discovering new ways to create the illusion of excess energy production in the ongoing variants of the technology. I believe the Quackecat-X is just another one in the magic series, and I believe the low power output of just 20 watts is a critical part of the planned method of establishing the illusion of excess power.

    Knowing what methods could be used to create the illusion of a large amount of
    excess heat, the year long 1 megawatt test plant was set up and the wording of the test protocol was carefully chosen specifically to cover the aspects of the test which Rossi knew could be manipulated in such a way as they could be justified by a collection of data which could simply be read off a few meters and measuring devices by some proposed third party expert, who in all probability, simply read a few meters and wrote down the readings. These could be taken as proof of excess energy so long as some other factors were kept effectively secret. Thus the sealed no-access ‘customer area’.
    Would it really have been such a huge security risk to the ‘customer’ to have someone look through an open door and observe for a minute some sort of industrial process taking place?
    Of course not. But it would be critical to the validity of the test if they noticed there was nothing of any significance happening in the so called ‘customer’ area.

    I think Mr Rossi still believes he can win his case so long as he can have the court consider only the words of the written agreement and that the test actually complies close enough to the wording that the agreement can be ruled to be complied with and completed.
    If he can do this without the court having any regard for whether natural justice has been denied then he has a reasonable chance of winning, and that is why he would continue on with it.
    There are some countries where that would work, but typically, America is not one of them.
    Natural justice demands that if you pay money for a device or a technology, then that device or technology has to work in the manner claimed. If it does not, or worse still, if it is only made to appear to work by deceit, or knowing deception, the agreement, however it may be worded, is void and of no effect.
    On that basis I think it most likely that Mr Rossi is about to lose.

Leave a Reply