subject:"\[Vo\]\:Another motion filed in Rossi suit"

a.ashfield  wrote:

So why did you make the claim if you don't know?
>

I do know, but I have agreed not to discuss details which has not been made
public by Rossi or I.H., so I cannot discuss specifics. If you would like
to learn more, you must contact them.

> On 7/5/2016 6:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield < a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I've asked you for a reference to confirm what happened several times and
>> you have not answered it.
>> Who was the customer?
>> When was the offer?
>> What was the offer?
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit


So why did you make the claim if you don't know?


On 7/5/2016 6:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I've asked you for a reference to confirm what happened several
times and you have not answered it.
Who was the customer?
When was the offer?
What was the offer?


You need to ask Rossi or I.H. If Rossi responds, you may find he is 
not telling the truth.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

a.ashfield  wrote:


> I've asked you for a reference to confirm what happened several times and
> you have not answered it.
> Who was the customer?
> When was the offer?
> What was the offer?
>

You need to ask Rossi or I.H. If Rossi responds, you may find he is not
telling the truth.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit


Stephen,
I neither know nor care about the details of Jed's relationship with 
Rossi.  I recall that he fell out with him some time ago.


Jed maybe an expert but he wasn't there and is relying on second hand 
information, so it doesn't matter.  He claims the instrumentation was 
bad/unsuitable but it was chosen by the ERV.


How do you know IH weren't looking for a way out?  It certainly is not 
obvious.  A successful test would require them to pay $89 million.  If 
they thought they already had the IP that they could develop themselves 
or sell what was the incentive?


Has anyone here seen the actual contract?


On 7/5/2016 4:21 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 07/05/2016 04:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed, When you start with certainty that Rossi is a fraud all
becomes clear to you.


I did not start with that idea. On the contrary, as you see in the 
quote from me ending Lewan's book, I started with the assumption that 
his claims are real.


Anyone who's been on Vortex for longer a than a few months surely 
knows this is absolute fact.  Jed was more than willing to give Rossi 
the benefit of an awful lot of doubt before he came to the conclusion 
that the fix was in.





Craig is right. Far better to leave the judgement to an unbiased
expert.



Jed */IS/* an "unbiased expert" in the area of cold fusion experiment 
analysis and calorimetry -- or, if anything, I'd have claimed he was 
biased in Rossi's favor; and if he's not an "expert" he'd make a 
pretty good stand-in for one.  The available data is more than 
adequate to draw conclusions -- arguing otherwise is like arguing that 
we "need more research" to determine if global warming is real.


And just to point out the obvious, IH was */not/* looking for a way to 
avoid paying Rossi anything and get out of the deal -- at least not to 
start with, they weren't.  They were more like, "Shut up and take my 
money!" and it's only the totally failed year long test that changed 
their minds. If -- */IF/* -- the Rossi process had been real, it would 
have been cheap at $89 million dollars (or even $890 million dollars), 
given that they were apparently expecting IP as well as a gadget.


It's absurd to act as though Rossi somehow strong-armed them into 
signing the contract, and all they wanted was a way out!

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit


Jeds,
"It is obvious IH were stalling for time. Do you really believe they 
could not find a customer in a year?


They found a customer. Rossi rejected that customer in favor of his own 
pretend company."


I've asked you for a reference to confirm what happened several times 
and you have not answered it.

Who was the customer?
When was the offer?
What was the offer?


On 7/5/2016 4:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Jed, When you start with certainty that Rossi is a fraud all
becomes clear to you.


I did not start with that idea. On the contrary, as you see in the 
quote from me ending Lewan's book, I started with the assumption that 
his claims are real. I now believe he is a fraud because his test was 
dreadful, there was no heat detected from his customer site, and there 
is no plausible reason why he would keep people out of the customer 
site other than fraud.



Someone will always come up with a scheme about how Rossi cheated
on any test.


The scheme is obvious for his 1 MW one year test. As I.H. described 
it, he used the wrong kinds of instruments in the wrong way. It was 
not subtle at all; it was blatant, in-your-face fraud. Or extreme 
stupidity. Take your pick.


Craig is right.  Far better to leave the judgement to an unbiased
expert. Even then some will doubt it, as we now see.


Any expert who looks at the data will conclude that the test was 
useless at best, and with 99.9% certainty, negative. Any expert who 
does additional testing will see no possibility there was excess heat. 
All you have to do is measure the heat from the pretend customer site. 
There wasn't any.



It is obvious IH were stalling for time. Do you really believe
they could not find a customer in a year?


They found a customer. Rossi rejected that customer in favor of his 
own pretend company.



For commercial sales it was absolutely necessary to have the
experience of a year's operation.


There were no commercial sales. There was no measurable heat coming 
from the customer site, no employees seen going in there, no noise 
from it, and no inspections of equipment there. The customer was a 
blatant fake, owned by Rossi and his lawyer.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-05 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 07/05/2016 04:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Jed, When you start with certainty that Rossi is a fraud all
becomes clear to you.


I did not start with that idea. On the contrary, as you see in the 
quote from me ending Lewan's book, I started with the assumption that 
his claims are real.


Anyone who's been on Vortex for longer a than a few months surely knows 
this is absolute fact.  Jed was more than willing to give Rossi the 
benefit of an awful lot of doubt before he came to the conclusion that 
the fix was in.





Craig is right.  Far better to leave the judgement to an unbiased
expert.



Jed */IS/* an "unbiased expert" in the area of cold fusion experiment 
analysis and calorimetry -- or, if anything, I'd have claimed he was 
biased in Rossi's favor; and if he's not an "expert" he'd make a pretty 
good stand-in for one.  The available data is more than adequate to draw 
conclusions -- arguing otherwise is like arguing that we "need more 
research" to determine if global warming is real.


And just to point out the obvious, IH was */not/* looking for a way to 
avoid paying Rossi anything and get out of the deal -- at least not to 
start with, they weren't. //They were more like, "Shut up and take my 
money!" and it's only the totally failed year long test that changed 
their minds. If -- */IF/* -- the Rossi process had been real, it would 
have been cheap at $89 million dollars (or even $890 million dollars), 
given that they were apparently expecting IP as well as a gadget.


It's absurd to act as though Rossi somehow strong-armed them into 
signing the contract, and all they wanted was a way out!

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed, When you start with certainty that Rossi is a fraud all becomes clear
> to you.
>

I did not start with that idea. On the contrary, as you see in the quote
from me ending Lewan's book, I started with the assumption that his claims
are real. I now believe he is a fraud because his test was dreadful, there
was no heat detected from his customer site, and there is no plausible
reason why he would keep people out of the customer site other than fraud.

> Someone will always come up with a scheme about how Rossi cheated on any
> test.
>

The scheme is obvious for his 1 MW one year test. As I.H. described it, he
used the wrong kinds of instruments in the wrong way. It was not subtle at
all; it was blatant, in-your-face fraud. Or extreme stupidity. Take your
pick.

> Craig is right.  Far better to leave the judgement to an unbiased expert.
> Even then some will doubt it, as we now see.
>

Any expert who looks at the data will conclude that the test was useless at
best, and with 99.9% certainty, negative. Any expert who does additional
testing will see no possibility there was excess heat. All you have to do
is measure the heat from the pretend customer site. There wasn't any.

> It is obvious IH were stalling for time. Do you really believe they could
> not find a customer in a year?
>

They found a customer. Rossi rejected that customer in favor of his own
pretend company.

For commercial sales it was absolutely necessary to have the experience of
> a year's operation.
>

There were no commercial sales. There was no measurable heat coming from
the customer site, no employees seen going in there, no noise from it, and
no inspections of equipment there. The customer was a blatant fake, owned
by Rossi and his lawyer.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

Jed, When you start with certainty that Rossi is a fraud all becomes 
clear to you.


Someone will always come up with a scheme about how Rossi cheated on any 
test.  Craig is right.  Far better to leave the judgement to an unbiased 
expert.  Even then some will doubt it, as we now see.


It is obvious IH were stalling for time.  Do you really believe they 
could not find a customer in a year?  As for setting up an independent 
test, see above.


For commercial sales it was absolutely necessary to have the experience 
of a year's operation.  It is no good selling a plant that dies in a few 
months and the only way to be sure of that is a long trial.




On 7/5/2016 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Craig Haynie > wrote:


If I were Rossi, what I would want is an independent evaluation of
the device, from which, neither side could dispute the results.


He did not do that. On the contrary, his test was a farce. It was as 
bad as his previous tests. Anyone with knowledge of calorimetry will 
dismiss the results.


It is just way too much time to waste on another demonstration
test for IH.


In one week, he could have easily proved to everyone's satisfaction 
that the machine works. There was never any need to spend one year. 
That was his idea. He insisted on it. There was also no need to make a 
1 MW reactor. He insisted on that as well. A small reactor would have 
been much easier to test and it would have given better results.



So Rossi may be a fraud, but if he's legitimate, then his behavior
during the test is totally expected.


I do not understand why you would expect this. But I would say this 
behavior would only be totally expected from someone who is committing 
fraud.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

Craig Haynie  wrote:

> If I were Rossi, what I would want is an independent evaluation of the
> device, from which, neither side could dispute the results.
>

He did not do that. On the contrary, his test was a farce. It was as bad as
his previous tests. Anyone with knowledge of calorimetry will dismiss the
results.

> It is just way too much time to waste on another demonstration test for IH.
>

In one week, he could have easily proved to everyone's satisfaction that
the machine works. There was never any need to spend one year. That was his
idea. He insisted on it. There was also no need to make a 1 MW reactor. He
insisted on that as well. A small reactor would have been much easier to
test and it would have given better results.

> So Rossi may be a fraud, but if he's legitimate, then his behavior during
> the test is totally expected.
>

I do not understand why you would expect this. But I would say this
behavior would only be totally expected from someone who is committing
fraud.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-05 Thread Lennart Thornros

Craig, I like your analysis.
Therefore I think any statements in regards to technial,legal and moral
status is very disturbing. Personal judgment based on the situation is just
slander.
I am not a betting man, but I think the odds are reversed.
On Jul 4, 2016 20:13, "Craig Haynie"  wrote:

>
>
> On 07/03/2016 08:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> But I have reason whatsoever to believe that somebody's idea of how Rossi
>> could cheat was actually implemented.
>>
>
> Yes, you do have a clear idea. The person who told you how Rossi cheats is
> Rossi himself. He said refused to allow anyone into his pretend customer
> site. The only plausible reason for doing that is to hide the fact that
> there is only a 15 kW radiator in there. Other reasons that have been
> suggested are absurd. If there was an actual machine in there, Rossi would
> be paid $89 million for showing it to the I.H. experts. There is no way he
> would fail to do that.
>
> It is obvious he is covering up fraud by doing that. Add to that the fact
> that there is no heat or noise coming from the pretend customer site, and
> it is case closed.
>
>
> This may be the case, but there's also another valid reason why Rossi
> wouldn't allow anyone to come into this customer site. First of all, let me
> say that I think there's probably only a 30% chance that Rossi has a
> working device. So if I was a betting man, I would give odds. Also, if I
> was IH, there is no way in hell that I would give Rossi 89 million dollars
> unless I was convinced, absolutely, that the thing worked. So I don't doubt
> that the device may not work, and that IH may not believe in it, either.
>
> But having said all this, if I was Rossi, I would not want anyone in the
> customer site during the year long trial, either before or after, and I
> would write the agreement accordingly -- and Rossi did this. He wrote an
> agreement which prevented IH from doing any evaluations of their own on the
> device, during this one year test. The reason to prevent them from
> interfering or doing any type of evaluation on their own, is simply because
> the test is going to take a year. If I were Rossi, what I would want is an
> independent evaluation of the device, from which, neither side could
> dispute the results. It is just way too much time to waste on another
> demonstration test for IH. Two years had already passed. The IP had already
> been used by IH to build the Lugano reactor. So much time has already gone
> by, that if IH did not believe the device worked at this time, then they
> should be out the door -- before any type of one year test was performed.
>
> From Rossi's point of view, the purpose of the one year test was not to
> prove to IH that the device worked -- but to finalize the deal; to
> demonstrate to both Rossi and IH how it performed over the course of a
> year. This was a test to objectify the results; nothing more. This is how
> the agreement was written, and why I believe that Rossi could very well win
> this lawsuit -- without the court ever trying to ascertain if the device
> works, because the agreement does not depend on whether the device works.
>
> So Rossi may be a fraud, but if he's legitimate, then his behavior during
> the test is totally expected.
>
> Craig
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-04 Thread Craig Haynie




On 07/03/2016 08:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

But I have reason whatsoever to believe that somebody's idea of
how Rossi could cheat was actually implemented.


Yes, you do have a clear idea. The person who told you how Rossi 
cheats is Rossi himself. He said refused to allow anyone into his 
pretend customer site. The only plausible reason for doing that is to 
hide the fact that there is only a 15 kW radiator in there. Other 
reasons that have been suggested are absurd. If there was an actual 
machine in there, Rossi would be paid $89 million for showing it to 
the I.H. experts. There is no way he would fail to do that.


It is obvious he is covering up fraud by doing that. Add to that the 
fact that there is no heat or noise coming from the pretend customer 
site, and it is case closed.




This may be the case, but there's also another valid reason why Rossi 
wouldn't allow anyone to come into this customer site. First of all, let 
me say that I think there's probably only a 30% chance that Rossi has a 
working device. So if I was a betting man, I would give odds. Also, if I 
was IH, there is no way in hell that I would give Rossi 89 million 
dollars unless I was convinced, absolutely, that the thing worked. So I 
don't doubt that the device may not work, and that IH may not believe in 
it, either.


But having said all this, if I was Rossi, I would not want anyone in the 
customer site during the year long trial, either before or after, and I 
would write the agreement accordingly -- and Rossi did this. He wrote an 
agreement which prevented IH from doing any evaluations of their own on 
the device, during this one year test. The reason to prevent them from 
interfering or doing any type of evaluation on their own, is simply 
because the test is going to take a year. If I were Rossi, what I would 
want is an independent evaluation of the device, from which, neither 
side could dispute the results. It is just way too much time to waste on 
another demonstration test for IH. Two years had already passed. The IP 
had already been used by IH to build the Lugano reactor. So much time 
has already gone by, that if IH did not believe the device worked at 
this time, then they should be out the door -- before any type of one 
year test was performed.


From Rossi's point of view, the purpose of the one year test was not to 
prove to IH that the device worked -- but to finalize the deal; to 
demonstrate to both Rossi and IH how it performed over the course of a 
year. This was a test to objectify the results; nothing more. This is 
how the agreement was written, and why I believe that Rossi could very 
well win this lawsuit -- without the court ever trying to ascertain if 
the device works, because the agreement does not depend on whether the 
device works.


So Rossi may be a fraud, but if he's legitimate, then his behavior 
during the test is totally expected.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-04 Thread Lennart Thornros

Jed (from your kill list),
I think people are entitled to be believed until proven wrong.
You are spewing your 'wisdom; as if you were the only one with a right to
be believed.
Whatever is the result IH has handled this poorly. One could expect better
from an investor of their size. I am disappointed. That in itself makes me
wonder is there a financial agenda in the bottom of this.
Technically you say you know. Well the proof of your knowledge does not
hold water in regards to well known and accepted principals for
establishing proof of any statement. This is regardless we use science,
judicial, moral principals. In my opinion your judgment is showing little
tolerance for other people and a close minded attitude combined with a self
centered way of looking at information.
If you were to be correct in a technical way you anyhow lost. In the
opposite situation you will have egg on your face for a long time. I can
for my life not understand why you put so much prestige on line for an
issue - you have no 100 percent clearity.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> Jed we have been through this twice already.  I do not find anything Rossi
>> has said shows that he was cheating.
>>
>
> There are none so blind as those who will not see.
>
>
> You have no idea what machinery was in the J M Products' plant although
>> you also imply that you know.
>>
>
> Whatever machinery it was, it produced no heat measurable from outside or
> from the vents on the roof.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed we have been through this twice already.  I do not find anything Rossi
> has said shows that he was cheating.
>

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

You have no idea what machinery was in the J M Products' plant although you
> also imply that you know.
>

Whatever machinery it was, it produced no heat measurable from outside or
from the vents on the roof.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

Jed we have been through this twice already.  I do not find anything 
Rossi has said shows that he was cheating.
The agreement at the start of the trial was that no one from IH should 
visit J M Products, nor that anyone from J M Products was allowed to 
visit the 1 MW plant.  Presumably both had proprietary secrets.  You 
keep ignoring this and keep claiming it was Rossi who stopped IH from 
visiting.


You have no idea what machinery was in the J M Products' plant although 
you also imply that you know.
You still have not given a reference for the supposed customer IH found 
before J M Products.


Nether you nor I know if the plant was inspected but if it was it would 
be for safety reasons only and possibly Rossi's safety certificate had a 
bearing on that.



On 7/3/2016 8:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

But I have reason whatsoever to believe that somebody's idea of
how Rossi could cheat was actually implemented.


Yes, you do have a clear idea. The person who told you how Rossi 
cheats is Rossi himself. He said refused to allow anyone into his 
pretend customer site. The only plausible reason for doing that is to 
hide the fact that there is only a 15 kW radiator in there. Other 
reasons that have been suggested are absurd. If there was an actual 
machine in there, Rossi would be paid $89 million for showing it to 
the I.H. experts. There is no way he would fail to do that.


It is obvious he is covering up fraud by doing that. Add to that the 
fact that there is no heat or noise coming from the pretend customer 
site, and it is case closed.


Here is his latest outrageous lie, by the way. These are my comments 
at lenr-forum:



Thinking more about what Rossi said here: "b) Obviously it is false, 
otherwise the plant would have been closed after the inspections . . ."


Parsing this, he claims:

1. There were inspections.
2. After these inspections, the plant remained open.
3. Therefore it passed.

I find this improbable. I think it is extremely unlikely that the 
state of Florida has a set of procedures to inspect or certify an 
aneutronic cold fusion nuclear reactor. Most scientists do not think 
such a thing can exist.


I suppose that if an inspector from Florida came, made measurements, 
and determined that the machine was producing far more output heat 
than the input electricity, he would not merely shrug his shoulders, 
sign off on the safety certificate, and go back to the office. This 
would be an unprecedented inspection. It would be unlike anything that 
has ever happened in Florida, or the U.S. or anywhere in the world. I 
think the inspector would be at a loss as to what to do. He would 
report this to his superiors. A Boiler Safety Section inspector would 
never take full responsibility for certifying such a machine on his 
own authority. They, in turn would be astounded, and they would take 
action and do something about it. Public safety officials when 
confronted by something that sounds very dangerous, with no legal 
codes to guide them, do not merely turn away and ignore it. Their 
first instinct would be to close it down and ask the next higher set 
of officials for guidance. If there was some sort of accident, these 
officials would lose their jobs and possibly face a jail sentence, so 
they would take action.


I find it absolutely impossible to believe that the authorities in the 
Boiler Safety Section would _ignore a nuclear reactor that works by 
unknown principles_, one that is producing dangerous levels of heat in 
a building not zoned for that. They would not let Rossi go on testing 
this device in a building with other people, in a crowded neighborhood.


To be blunt, I think the scenario outlined by Rossi in this one 
sentence is so utterly improbable that it is either a lie or a lunatic 
fantasy. I cannot imagine why anyone believes him, or takes this at 
face value.



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

a.ashfield  wrote:

> But I have reason whatsoever to believe that somebody's idea of how Rossi
> could cheat was actually implemented.
>

Yes, you do have a clear idea. The person who told you how Rossi cheats is
Rossi himself. He said refused to allow anyone into his pretend customer
site. The only plausible reason for doing that is to hide the fact that
there is only a 15 kW radiator in there. Other reasons that have been
suggested are absurd. If there was an actual machine in there, Rossi would
be paid $89 million for showing it to the I.H. experts. There is no way he
would fail to do that.

It is obvious he is covering up fraud by doing that. Add to that the fact
that there is no heat or noise coming from the pretend customer site, and
it is case closed.

Here is his latest outrageous lie, by the way. These are my comments at
lenr-forum:

Thinking more about what Rossi said here: "b) Obviously it is false,
otherwise the plant would have been closed after the inspections . . ."

Parsing this, he claims:

1. There were inspections.
2. After these inspections, the plant remained open.
3. Therefore it passed.

I find this improbable. I think it is extremely unlikely that the state of
Florida has a set of procedures to inspect or certify an aneutronic cold
fusion nuclear reactor. Most scientists do not think such a thing can exist.

I suppose that if an inspector from Florida came, made measurements, and
determined that the machine was producing far more output heat than the
input electricity, he would not merely shrug his shoulders, sign off on the
safety certificate, and go back to the office. This would be an
unprecedented inspection. It would be unlike anything that has ever
happened in Florida, or the U.S. or anywhere in the world. I think the
inspector would be at a loss as to what to do. He would report this to his
superiors. A Boiler Safety Section inspector would never take full
responsibility for certifying such a machine on his own authority. They, in
turn would be astounded, and they would take action and do something about
it. Public safety officials when confronted by something that sounds very
dangerous, with no legal codes to guide them, do not merely turn away and
ignore it. Their first instinct would be to close it down and ask the next
higher set of officials for guidance. If there was some sort of accident,
these officials would lose their jobs and possibly face a jail sentence, so
they would take action.

I find it absolutely impossible to believe that the authorities in the
Boiler Safety Section would *ignore a nuclear reactor that works by unknown
principles*, one that is producing dangerous levels of heat in a building
not zoned for that. They would not let Rossi go on testing this device in a
building with other people, in a crowded neighborhood.

To be blunt, I think the scenario outlined by Rossi in this one sentence is
so utterly improbable that it is either a lie or a lunatic fantasy. I
cannot imagine why anyone believes him, or takes this at face value.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit


Jack,
" You give AR the benefit of the doubt, but everyone else gets the doubt.  "

I said I didn't know if Rossi was right.  But I have reason whatsoever 
to believe that somebody's idea of how Rossi could cheat was actually 
implemented.  Even the author didn't say it was.   All the recent anti 
Rossi stuff can be traced back to feeds from IH.


On 7/3/2016 7:50 PM, Jack Cole wrote:
I understand Adrian.  You give AR the benefit of the doubt, but 
everyone else gets the doubt.  "AR says" carries more weight in your 
opinion than Jed, the people Jed has talked to who have seen the data, 
Dewey Weaver, and IH.  Multiple sources say the swapped out flow meter 
was inappropriate, so it's not just "Dewey said."


If the patent does not include the necessary details, then it is 
invalid.  He either lied or it doesn't work as specified (and he still 
lied).


It is not likely productive for us to continue this discussion, since 
we're not likely to agree or have much influence on each other's opinions.



On Sun, Jul 3, 2016, 5:38 PM a.ashfield > wrote:


Jack,
I give Rossi the benefit of the doubt, until proven otherwise.  As
I said, I don't know, but neither do the skeptics.
If you don't think there have been wild flights of imagination you
have not been following the story. GG's analysis means nothing: it
is just another possible way of cheating.  There are many of those
and most are simpler than his suggestion.
So Dewy said the flow meter was switched.  Did you read my last
post?  Rossi pointed out that it was the ERV's instrument and he
sent it away for calibration at the end of the test.
AR didn't "prevent access to the customer's site."  He pointed out
this was the agreement made in the contract and the ERV backed
this up saying it was not necessary.

I don't know if Rossi lied in the patent.  I'm don't think you
could lie without invalidating the patent. There are other
possibilities such as pretreatment of the materials and how the
operation is controlled that effect the operation.

Any more "Dewey said" items to shoot down?





On 7/3/2016 4:00 PM, Jack Cole wrote:

"I have no reason to thinkDewey Weaver is a credible witness.
I don't know what happened and am quite willing to wait for solid
facts.  The pathological skeptics jump on every wild flight of
imagination and state that is what happened, while in fact being
clueless.

Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be
accepted but it would take the sale of working commercial
reactors to quiet the critics.  As he says he hopes to have at
least one commercial reactor working for the parent company of J
M Products by the end of 2016 perhaps we will see then."

Do you have a reason to true AR more than Jed, DW, IH, and many
others?

There is no wild flight of imagination here.  It is all based on
facts and reasoning.  GG's analysis is based on how the apparatus
design could be used to produce false results.  I gave a
reasonable scenario for how and hypothesis for how AR could have
approached the problem of faking the results.  DW provided an
account of AR switching out the flow meters.  AR himself told you
he prevented access to the "customer" site.  These are not
flights of imagination.

Do you disagree that AR lied in his patent and to IH about the
formula needed to produce the effect?



On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:23 PM a.ashfield > wrote:

I have no reason to think Dewey Weaver is a credible witness.
I don't know what happened and am quite willing to wait for
solid facts.  The pathological skeptics jump on every wild
flight of imagination and state that is what happened, while
in fact being clueless.

Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be
accepted but it would take the sale of working commercial
reactors to quiet the critics.  As he says he hopes to have
at least one commercial reactor working for the parent
company of J M Products by the end of 2016 perhaps we will
see then.


1.
Frank Acland
July 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM




Dear Andrea Rossi:

There are some accusations apparently coming from the IH
group regarding the 1 MW plant test.

a) The flow meter used in the test was not fit for purpose
b) 1 MW plant did not have the required legal
authorizations to work
c) JM Products did not have any employees
d) IH had proposed another customer to you, but you
refused them
e) JM did not use the heat you produced in any

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-03 Thread Jack Cole

I understand Adrian.  You give AR the benefit of the doubt, but everyone
else gets the doubt.  "AR says" carries more weight in your opinion than
Jed, the people Jed has talked to who have seen the data, Dewey Weaver, and
IH.  Multiple sources say the swapped out flow meter was inappropriate, so
it's not just "Dewey said."

If the patent does not include the necessary details, then it is invalid.
He either lied or it doesn't work as specified (and he still lied).

It is not likely productive for us to continue this discussion, since we're
not likely to agree or have much influence on each other's opinions.


On Sun, Jul 3, 2016, 5:38 PM a.ashfield  wrote:

> Jack,
> I give Rossi the benefit of the doubt, until proven otherwise.  As I said,
> I don't know, but neither do the skeptics.
> If you don't think there have been wild flights of imagination you have
> not been following the story.  GG's analysis means nothing: it is just
> another possible way of cheating.  There are many of those and most are
> simpler than his suggestion.
> So Dewy said the flow meter was switched.  Did you read my last post?
> Rossi pointed out that it was the ERV's instrument and he sent it away for
> calibration at the end of the test.
> AR didn't "prevent access to the customer's site."  He pointed out this
> was the agreement made in the contract and the ERV backed this up saying it
> was not necessary.
>
> I don't know if Rossi lied in the patent.  I'm don't think you could lie
> without invalidating the patent.  There are other possibilities such as
> pretreatment of the materials and how the operation is controlled that
> effect the operation.
>
> Any more "Dewey said" items to shoot down?
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/3/2016 4:00 PM, Jack Cole wrote:
>
> "I have no reason to think Dewey Weaver is a credible witness.
> I don't know what happened and am quite willing to wait for solid facts.
> The pathological skeptics jump on every wild flight of imagination and
> state that is what happened, while in fact being clueless.
>
> Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be accepted but
> it would take the sale of working commercial reactors to quiet the
> critics.  As he says he hopes to have at least one commercial reactor
> working for the parent company of J M Products by the end of 2016 perhaps
> we will see then."
>
> Do you have a reason to true AR more than Jed, DW, IH, and many others?
>
> There is no wild flight of imagination here.  It is all based on facts and
> reasoning.  GG's analysis is based on how the apparatus design could be
> used to produce false results.  I gave a reasonable scenario for how and
> hypothesis for how AR could have approached the problem of faking the
> results.  DW provided an account of AR switching out the flow meters.  AR
> himself told you he prevented access to the "customer" site.  These are not
> flights of imagination.
>
> Do you disagree that AR lied in his patent and to IH about the formula
> needed to produce the effect?
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:23 PM a.ashfield < 
> a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I have no reason to think Dewey Weaver is a credible witness.
>> I don't know what happened and am quite willing to wait for solid facts.
>> The pathological skeptics jump on every wild flight of imagination and
>> state that is what happened, while in fact being clueless.
>>
>> Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be accepted but
>> it would take the sale of working commercial reactors to quiet the
>> critics.  As he says he hopes to have at least one commercial reactor
>> working for the parent company of J M Products by the end of 2016 perhaps
>> we will see then.
>>
>>
>>
>>1. Frank Acland
>>July 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM
>>
>> 
>>
>>Dear Andrea Rossi:
>>
>>There are some accusations apparently coming from the IH group
>>regarding the 1 MW plant test.
>>
>>a) The flow meter used in the test was not fit for purpose
>>b) 1 MW plant did not have the required legal authorizations to work
>>c) JM Products did not have any employees
>>d) IH had proposed another customer to you, but you refused them
>>e) JM did not use the heat you produced in any manufacturing process,
>>and the only heat supplied by your plant was 20kW, not 1MW
>>
>>Can you respond to any of these points?
>>
>>Thank you,
>>
>>Frank Acland
>>2. Andrea Rossi
>>July 3, 2016 at 2:03 PM
>>
>> 
>>
>>Frank Acland:
>>Independently from who is the imbecile that wrote such things, please
>>find hereunder my answers, confined within the limits allowed not to touch
>>issues that have to be discussed exclusively in Court, with due evidence.
>>a) The flowmeter used in the test is property of the ERV. The ERV has
>>chosen

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit


Jones Beene,
AA "Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be accepted 
but it


would take the sale of working commercial reactors to quiet the critics."

JB.  Rossi was right, was he? LOL. That is you informed opinion?"

AA.  Is that really the best you can do?  Pray tell me what is not true in that 
forecast.


On 7/3/2016 4:50 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

From: a.ashfield

Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be accepted but it
would take the sale of working commercial reactors to quiet the critics.

Rossi was right, was he? LOL. That is you informed opinion?

Then tell us why the skeptics aren’t they quiet now  – since Rossi has
already announced that he sold 13 commercial reactors in 2012. He has never
withdrawn that announcement.

That big sale should quiet them down, even if only one of the 13 works… but
oops… didn’t he lie about that sale, just as he is lying now?

A pathological liar simply cannot be trusted in any circumstance. It is
unlikely that Rossi will ever sell another reactor until he cannot show that
they work. After 5 years of claims, he has no scientific proof that he has
ever produced a watt of excess energy. Of course, he can easily invent
another fake “customer” but wouldn’t it be a lot easier just to have one the
13 customers from 2012 come forward with their story?

I held out some hope for the quark-X, but that too was another sham. He
didn’t have time to build a credible prop so he submits a blurred blob as
proof it works. What a clown.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit


Jack,
I give Rossi the benefit of the doubt, until proven otherwise.  As I 
said, I don't know, but neither do the skeptics.
If you don't think there have been wild flights of imagination you have 
not been following the story.  GG's analysis means nothing: it is just 
another possible way of cheating.  There are many of those and most are 
simpler than his suggestion.
So Dewy said the flow meter was switched.  Did you read my last post?  
Rossi pointed out that it was the ERV's instrument and he sent it away 
for calibration at the end of the test.
AR didn't "prevent access to the customer's site."  He pointed out this 
was the agreement made in the contract and the ERV backed this up saying 
it was not necessary.


I don't know if Rossi lied in the patent.  I'm don't think you could lie 
without invalidating the patent.  There are other possibilities such as 
pretreatment of the materials and how the operation is controlled that 
effect the operation.


Any more "Dewey said" items to shoot down?




On 7/3/2016 4:00 PM, Jack Cole wrote:

"I have no reason to thinkDewey Weaver is a credible witness.
I don't know what happened and am quite willing to wait for solid 
facts.  The pathological skeptics jump on every wild flight of 
imagination and state that is what happened, while in fact being clueless.


Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be accepted 
but it would take the sale of working commercial reactors to quiet the 
critics.  As he says he hopes to have at least one commercial reactor 
working for the parent company of J M Products by the end of 2016 
perhaps we will see then."


Do you have a reason to true AR more than Jed, DW, IH, and many others?

There is no wild flight of imagination here.  It is all based on facts 
and reasoning.  GG's analysis is based on how the apparatus design 
could be used to produce false results.  I gave a reasonable scenario 
for how and hypothesis for how AR could have approached the problem of 
faking the results.  DW provided an account of AR switching out the 
flow meters.  AR himself told you he prevented access to the 
"customer" site.  These are not flights of imagination.


Do you disagree that AR lied in his patent and to IH about the formula 
needed to produce the effect?




On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:23 PM a.ashfield > wrote:


I have no reason to think Dewey Weaver is a credible witness.
I don't know what happened and am quite willing to wait for solid
facts.  The pathological skeptics jump on every wild flight of
imagination and state that is what happened, while in fact being
clueless.

Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be
accepted but it would take the sale of working commercial reactors
to quiet the critics.  As he says he hopes to have at least one
commercial reactor working for the parent company of J M Products
by the end of 2016 perhaps we will see then.


1.
Frank Acland
July 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM




Dear Andrea Rossi:

There are some accusations apparently coming from the IH group
regarding the 1 MW plant test.

a) The flow meter used in the test was not fit for purpose
b) 1 MW plant did not have the required legal authorizations
to work
c) JM Products did not have any employees
d) IH had proposed another customer to you, but you refused them
e) JM did not use the heat you produced in any manufacturing
process, and the only heat supplied by your plant was 20kW,
not 1MW

Can you respond to any of these points?

Thank you,

Frank Acland

2.
Andrea Rossi
July 3, 2016 at 2:03 PM




Frank Acland:
Independently from who is the imbecile that wrote such things,
please find hereunder my answers, confined within the limits
allowed not to touch issues that have to be discussed
exclusively in Court, with due evidence.
a) The flowmeter used in the test is property of the ERV. The
ERV has chosen that instrument based on his experience. It is,
by the way, a very common flowmeter, that everybody can buy,
even if it is quite expensive. The flowmeter has been
certified and after the test the ERV has retrieved it and sent
it to make a certification of its margin of error after the
test of 1 year, specifically with a flow of water with the
same temperature and the same flows of water that we had
during the test, minimum, maximum, average. So the ERV told us
he was going to do when he retrieved his flowmeter after the
shut down of the plant at the end of the test.
b) Obviously it is false,

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-03 Thread Jones Beene

From: a.ashfield 

Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be accepted but it
would take the sale of working commercial reactors to quiet the critics.  

Rossi was right, was he? LOL. That is you informed opinion?

Then tell us why the skeptics aren’t they quiet now  – since Rossi has
already announced that he sold 13 commercial reactors in 2012. He has never
withdrawn that announcement.

That big sale should quiet them down, even if only one of the 13 works… but
oops… didn’t he lie about that sale, just as he is lying now? 

A pathological liar simply cannot be trusted in any circumstance. It is
unlikely that Rossi will ever sell another reactor until he cannot show that
they work. After 5 years of claims, he has no scientific proof that he has
ever produced a watt of excess energy. Of course, he can easily invent
another fake “customer” but wouldn’t it be a lot easier just to have one the
13 customers from 2012 come forward with their story?

I held out some hope for the quark-X, but that too was another sham. He
didn’t have time to build a credible prop so he submits a blurred blob as
proof it works. What a clown.



<>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-03 Thread Jack Cole

"I have no reason to think Dewey Weaver is a credible witness.
I don't know what happened and am quite willing to wait for solid facts.
The pathological skeptics jump on every wild flight of imagination and
state that is what happened, while in fact being clueless.

Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be accepted but it
would take the sale of working commercial reactors to quiet the critics.
As he says he hopes to have at least one commercial reactor working for the
parent company of J M Products by the end of 2016 perhaps we will see then."

Do you have a reason to true AR more than Jed, DW, IH, and many others?

There is no wild flight of imagination here.  It is all based on facts and
reasoning.  GG's analysis is based on how the apparatus design could be
used to produce false results.  I gave a reasonable scenario for how and
hypothesis for how AR could have approached the problem of faking the
results.  DW provided an account of AR switching out the flow meters.  AR
himself told you he prevented access to the "customer" site.  These are not
flights of imagination.

Do you disagree that AR lied in his patent and to IH about the formula
needed to produce the effect?



On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:23 PM a.ashfield  wrote:

> I have no reason to think Dewey Weaver is a credible witness.
> I don't know what happened and am quite willing to wait for solid facts.
> The pathological skeptics jump on every wild flight of imagination and
> state that is what happened, while in fact being clueless.
>
> Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be accepted but
> it would take the sale of working commercial reactors to quiet the
> critics.  As he says he hopes to have at least one commercial reactor
> working for the parent company of J M Products by the end of 2016 perhaps
> we will see then.
>
>
>
>1. Frank Acland
>July 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM
>
> 
>
>Dear Andrea Rossi:
>
>There are some accusations apparently coming from the IH group
>regarding the 1 MW plant test.
>
>a) The flow meter used in the test was not fit for purpose
>b) 1 MW plant did not have the required legal authorizations to work
>c) JM Products did not have any employees
>d) IH had proposed another customer to you, but you refused them
>e) JM did not use the heat you produced in any manufacturing process,
>and the only heat supplied by your plant was 20kW, not 1MW
>
>Can you respond to any of these points?
>
>Thank you,
>
>Frank Acland
>2. Andrea Rossi
>July 3, 2016 at 2:03 PM
>
> 
>
>Frank Acland:
>Independently from who is the imbecile that wrote such things, please
>find hereunder my answers, confined within the limits allowed not to touch
>issues that have to be discussed exclusively in Court, with due evidence.
>a) The flowmeter used in the test is property of the ERV. The ERV has
>chosen that instrument based on his experience. It is, by the way, a very
>common flowmeter, that everybody can buy, even if it is quite expensive.
>The flowmeter has been certified and after the test the ERV has retrieved
>it and sent it to make a certification of its margin of error after the
>test of 1 year, specifically with a flow of water with the same temperature
>and the same flows of water that we had during the test, minimum, maximum,
>average. So the ERV told us he was going to do when he retrieved his
>flowmeter after the shut down of the plant at the end of the test.
>b) Obviously it is false, otherwise the plant would have been closed
>after the inspections
>c) False
>d) Tragicomic: Leonardo Corporation delivered, as per contract, the
>plant on August 2013, and we were ready to start immediately the test, as a
>continuation of the preliminar test made in Ferrara two months before with
>IH. IH had 1 year of time to start the 1 year test, but they always delayed
>with the excuse that they did not have the authorization from the
>Healthcare Office of North Carolina, due to the fact that there was the
>“nuclear reactions” issue. I have been able to get such permission in
>Florida and therefore I proposed the Customer, that has been accepted by
>IH. Evidence of it is the contract that IH made with JM. Since the plant
>was property of IH and it was in the factory of IH, obviously they could
>choose the Customer they wanted, if they had one.
>e) When you have not the burden to give evidence of what you say, you
>can say every stupidity. This is exactly the case. Anyway, what counts
>related to the contract is the energy produced by the 1 MW E-Cat, and such
>energy gets evidence from the report of the ERV.
>Warm Regards,
>A.R.
>
>
>
>
> On 7/3/2016 12:54 PM, Jack

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit


I have no reason to think Dewey Weaver is a credible witness.
I don't know what happened and am quite willing to wait for solid 
facts.  The pathological skeptics jump on every wild flight of 
imagination and state that is what happened, while in fact being clueless.


Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be accepted but 
it would take the sale of working commercial reactors to quiet the 
critics.  As he says he hopes to have at least one commercial reactor 
working for the parent company of J M Products by the end of 2016 
perhaps we will see then.



1.
   Frank Acland
   July 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM
   


   Dear Andrea Rossi:

   There are some accusations apparently coming from the IH group
   regarding the 1 MW plant test.

   a) The flow meter used in the test was not fit for purpose
   b) 1 MW plant did not have the required legal authorizations to work
   c) JM Products did not have any employees
   d) IH had proposed another customer to you, but you refused them
   e) JM did not use the heat you produced in any manufacturing
   process, and the only heat supplied by your plant was 20kW, not 1MW

   Can you respond to any of these points?

   Thank you,

   Frank Acland

2.
   Andrea Rossi
   July 3, 2016 at 2:03 PM
   


   Frank Acland:
   Independently from who is the imbecile that wrote such things,
   please find hereunder my answers, confined within the limits allowed
   not to touch issues that have to be discussed exclusively in Court,
   with due evidence.
   a) The flowmeter used in the test is property of the ERV. The ERV
   has chosen that instrument based on his experience. It is, by the
   way, a very common flowmeter, that everybody can buy, even if it is
   quite expensive. The flowmeter has been certified and after the test
   the ERV has retrieved it and sent it to make a certification of its
   margin of error after the test of 1 year, specifically with a flow
   of water with the same temperature and the same flows of water that
   we had during the test, minimum, maximum, average. So the ERV told
   us he was going to do when he retrieved his flowmeter after the shut
   down of the plant at the end of the test.
   b) Obviously it is false, otherwise the plant would have been closed
   after the inspections
   c) False
   d) Tragicomic: Leonardo Corporation delivered, as per contract, the
   plant on August 2013, and we were ready to start immediately the
   test, as a continuation of the preliminar test made in Ferrara two
   months before with IH. IH had 1 year of time to start the 1 year
   test, but they always delayed with the excuse that they did not have
   the authorization from the Healthcare Office of North Carolina, due
   to the fact that there was the “nuclear reactions” issue. I have
   been able to get such permission in Florida and therefore I proposed
   the Customer, that has been accepted by IH. Evidence of it is the
   contract that IH made with JM. Since the plant was property of IH
   and it was in the factory of IH, obviously they could choose the
   Customer they wanted, if they had one.
   e) When you have not the burden to give evidence of what you say,
   you can say every stupidity. This is exactly the case. Anyway, what
   counts related to the contract is the energy produced by the 1 MW
   E-Cat, and such energy gets evidence from the report of the ERV.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.




On 7/3/2016 12:54 PM, Jack Cole wrote:
"Your bias is showing again.  Goatguy suggested a possible method to 
scam the results and then you take it as read that that was done.  
Really?"


It is altogether possible that he was not so clever as GG thinks, as 
Jed suggests, but could have still taken advantage of the design flaw 
noted by GG.  I hope we get to see the raw data from the very 
beginning of the test eventually.  My speculation previously was that, 
if the test were to be faked, he would have played around with the 
variables he could tweak to get the meters to show what he wanted.  
This would have taken some time, so the closer to the beginning of the 
test, the more likely you would be to see a COP of 1.  We know from 
Dewey Weaver that the Rascal was caught sneaking the flow meter out by 
some folks from IH who arrived early for the post-test inspection.  
Photographs are said to reveal that the serial number of the flow 
meter used did not match the one used originally.  If he had trouble 
fooling the original meters, he must have had to switch them out.  So 
again, if there is raw data that was not deleted from the beginning of 
the test, I would expect this to be the most accurate.


Maybe people think there is a conspiracy of lies by DW and IH that 
would have to extend to others.  Although it is not completely 
impossible (very low probability) that IH and others have conspired to 
lie, it is much

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit


What "fabrications of a delusional career criminal"?
You just repeated what Goatguy said without an iota of evidence to show 
it was true, writing that that was what happened.  So no, you haven't 
"got this straight."



On 7/3/2016 12:49 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

So let me see if I’ve got this straight. It’s not biased to the repeat the
fabrications of a delusional career criminal, and to persist with non-stop
trolling of this “Rossi says” crap, but it is biased for anyone else to
comment on the most likely way he pulled off the latest scam?

From: a.ashfield

"It was clever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaver that can cost him
dearly, in the end."

Your bias is showing again.  Goatguy suggested a possible method to scam the
results and then you take it as read that that was done.  Really?

It would have been easier to fudge the sensors or the instrumentation
reading them.  That does not mean that was what happened either.

Jones Beene wrote: From: Jed Rothwell
Someone pointed out to me that at such low temperatures, you would probably
use the hot fluid to heat the equipment directly before returning it, rather
than going through a heat exchanger.
- Jed
Didn’t you see the post on NBF from GoatGuy - which nails the easy way to
cheat with this type of setup? It’s all about letting air in the line, in
the “hidden room” where IH was not permitted to even take a look. This is
not accidental air leakage, but planned that way – to deceive. Of course,
GoatGuy’s explanation doesn’t work if you have a real customer buying real
steam, since they immediately know they are getting shortchanged.
That is why this case will likely be dismissed before it ever gets to trial.
When the swindle of claiming for months that “the customer" is buying a
$1000 per day of steam, is shown to be a make-believe customer with no use
for steam at all (instead it is your own business partner who is buying
nothing) … when this fraud is brought to the attention of the Court, the
claim against IH will likely be tossed.
Goat guy, who seems to have an excellent grasp of this situation, came up
with the explanation -- which can be seen here by scrolling down to his post
in the comments.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/rossi-1-megawatt-energy-catalyzer-is.html
Basically, in the center of the “reactor shelter” is a box labeled “water
reservoir” which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.
Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1
Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2
All that would be needed would be for the steam-condenser loop to have a
planned amount of air in the line for this to be a really misleading COP > 1
system. Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% steam from
50:50 steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit of flim-flam, most of the
heat emitted could be combined back into the circulating loop (of which
there are 2: (water tank 1) → (input to ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir
tank water) → (back into ECat₁) → (back to water tank 1) … repeated for the
bottom half…. Etc. Etc. An ingenious scam.
It was clever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaver that can cost him
dearly, in the end.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-03 Thread Jack Cole

"Your bias is showing again.  Goatguy suggested a possible method to scam
the results and then you take it as read that that was done.  Really?"

It is altogether possible that he was not so clever as GG thinks, as Jed
suggests, but could have still taken advantage of the design flaw noted by
GG.  I hope we get to see the raw data from the very beginning of the test
eventually.  My speculation previously was that, if the test were to be
faked, he would have played around with the variables he could tweak to get
the meters to show what he wanted.  This would have taken some time, so the
closer to the beginning of the test, the more likely you would be to see a
COP of 1.  We know from Dewey Weaver that the Rascal was caught sneaking
the flow meter out by some folks from IH who arrived early for the
post-test inspection.  Photographs are said to reveal that the serial
number of the flow meter used did not match the one used originally.  If he
had trouble fooling the original meters, he must have had to switch them
out.  So again, if there is raw data that was not deleted from the
beginning of the test, I would expect this to be the most accurate.

Maybe people think there is a conspiracy of lies by DW and IH that would
have to extend to others.  Although it is not completely impossible (very
low probability) that IH and others have conspired to lie, it is much
easier to believe that a known Rascal is the one doing the lying.  In fact,
nearly everyone agrees that he has been known to lie about a number of
things along the way.  The hopeful ones hold out hope that the lies stop at
having a working formula.  A formula even hidden from IP patent protection,
because he would have had to lie there too.  Or, best case scenario, works
very rarely producing a COP between 1.1 and 1.3.

In short, to believe the Rascal, you must accept a whole truckload of lies
and hold out hope that the one thing he is not lying about, is that the
reactor works.  He has not even asserted that he has held anything back
from the patent or from IH, and is quick to praise anything that looks like
a replication.  Now, if you know you are holding something back, and the
reaction won't work without it, would you praise something that you know
probably doesn't work?  It is easier to believe the simpler alternative: he
doesn't have anything else to share and it doesn't work.

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 10:49 AM a.ashfield  wrote:

> "It was clever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaver
> that can cost him dearly, in the end."
>
> Your bias is showing again.  Goatguy suggested a possible method to scam
> the results and then you take it as read that that was done.  Really?
>
> It would have been easier to fudge the sensors or the instrumentation
> reading them.  That does not mean that was what happened either.
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-03 Thread Jones Beene

So let me see if I’ve got this straight. It’s not biased to the repeat the
fabrications of a delusional career criminal, and to persist with non-stop
trolling of this “Rossi says” crap, but it is biased for anyone else to
comment on the most likely way he pulled off the latest scam?  

From: a.ashfield 

"It was clever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaver that can cost him
dearly, in the end."

Your bias is showing again.  Goatguy suggested a possible method to scam the
results and then you take it as read that that was done.  Really?

It would have been easier to fudge the sensors or the instrumentation
reading them.  That does not mean that was what happened either.

Jones Beene wrote: From: Jed Rothwell 
Someone pointed out to me that at such low temperatures, you would probably
use the hot fluid to heat the equipment directly before returning it, rather
than going through a heat exchanger.
- Jed
Didn’t you see the post on NBF from GoatGuy - which nails the easy way to
cheat with this type of setup? It’s all about letting air in the line, in
the “hidden room” where IH was not permitted to even take a look. This is
not accidental air leakage, but planned that way – to deceive. Of course,
GoatGuy’s explanation doesn’t work if you have a real customer buying real
steam, since they immediately know they are getting shortchanged.
That is why this case will likely be dismissed before it ever gets to trial.
When the swindle of claiming for months that “the customer" is buying a
$1000 per day of steam, is shown to be a make-believe customer with no use
for steam at all (instead it is your own business partner who is buying
nothing) … when this fraud is brought to the attention of the Court, the
claim against IH will likely be tossed.
Goat guy, who seems to have an excellent grasp of this situation, came up
with the explanation -- which can be seen here by scrolling down to his post
in the comments.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/rossi-1-megawatt-energy-catalyzer-is.html
Basically, in the center of the “reactor shelter” is a box labeled “water
reservoir” which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.
Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1
Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2
All that would be needed would be for the steam-condenser loop to have a
planned amount of air in the line for this to be a really misleading COP > 1
system. Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% steam from
50:50 steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit of flim-flam, most of the
heat emitted could be combined back into the circulating loop (of which
there are 2: (water tank 1) → (input to ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir
tank water) → (back into ECat₁) → (back to water tank 1) … repeated for the
bottom half…. Etc. Etc. An ingenious scam.
It was clever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaver that can cost him
dearly, in the end.

<>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit


Jed,
You never replied to my request for a reference confirming what you said 
that IH offered a customer but Rossi turned it down.


On 7/3/2016 11:16 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Jones Beene > wrote:

Basically,in the center of the “reactor shelter” is a box labeled
“water reservoir” which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.

Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line

Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers

Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water
tank 1 . . .

That sounds complicated. I think the people from I.H. would have found 
that out sooner or later. I do not think Rossi does complicated 
sleight of hand tricks. He uses crude methods that do not fool anyone 
who takes a close look. You are only fooled when he releases a vague 
summary of the test leaving out most details and data, as he has done 
in the past.


People who looked at the actual setup, and others who reviewed the 
configuration and sample data (including me), saw many problems that 
made the 1 MW claim impossible, and probably preclude any excess heat. 
It was not difficult to find the problems. There is no indication that 
some clever trick is in use that makes it look as if there is 1 MW. 
Nothing makes it look like that.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

There you go again.  IH was not allowed in the building but you claim 
there was nothing there, based on what IH told you.  To think that IH 
could discern anything from an IR reading of the building walls is 
really pathetic.


Jed.  "If that were the case, the waste heat would be easily detected. 
There was not 1 MW or even 100 kW."


Not clear to me.  Please explain.


On 7/3/2016 11:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

As far as I know, nobody has any idea what was in the customer's
equipment.


Nothing was in there. I.H. and others used various methods to look for 
heat from the customer site. They found no trace of it. There was no 
equipment using a detectable level of process heat. Nor was the heat 
simply dumped out of the vent. It is not possible to dump that much 
heat into the water system, as I pointed out earlier.



 Presumably it started as steam and the condensate was later
returned to the 1 MW plant at varying temperatures.  The
implication is that the customer's side was less than 60C.


If that were the case, the waste heat would be easily detected. There 
was not 1 MW or even 100 kW.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

"Itwasclever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaverthat can cost him 
dearly, in the end."


Your bias is showing again.  Goatguy suggested a possible method to scam 
the results and then you take it as read that that was done.  Really?


It would have been easier to fudge the sensors or the instrumentation 
reading them.  That does not mean that was what happened either.



On 7/3/2016 10:45 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

*From:*Jed Rothwell

Someone pointed out to me that at such low temperatures, you would 
probably use the hot fluid to heat the equipment directly before 
returning it, rather than going through a heat exchanger.


- Jed

Didn’tyou see the post on NBFfrom GoatGuy -which nails the easy way 
tocheatwiththis type of setup?It’s all aboutlettingair in theline,in 
the “hidden room” where IHwas not permitted toeven take a look.This is 
not accidental airleakage, but planned that way– todeceive.Of 
course,GaotGuy’sexplanationdoesn’t work if you have a real customer 
buyingrealsteam, since they immediately know they are getting 
shortchanged.


That is why this case willlikelybe dismissedbefore it ever gets to 
trial.Whentheswindleofclaiming for months that“the customer"isbuying 
a$1000 per day of steam,isshown to bea make-believe customerwith no 
use for steamat all(instead itisyour own business partnerwho isbuying 
nothing)… when thisfraudis brought to the attention of the Court, 
theclaim against IHwilllikelybe tossed.


Goat guy, whoseems to havean excellentgrasp of thissituation,came up 
withthe explanation--whichcan be seen here by scrolling down to his 
post in the comments.


_http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/rossi-1-megawatt-energy-catalyzer-is.html_

Basically,in the center of the “reactor shelter” is a box labeled 
“water reservoir” which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.


Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line

Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers

Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1

Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2

All that would be needed would be for the steam-condenserloop to havea 
planned amount ofair in the line for this to be a really misleading 
COP > 1 system. Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% 
steam from 50:50 steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit of 
flim-flam, most of the heat emitted could be combined back into the 
circulating loop (of which there are 2: (water tank 1) → (input to 
ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir tank water) → (back into ECat₁) → 
(back to water tank 1) … repeated for the bottom half…. Etc.Etc. An 
ingenious scam.


Itwasclever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaverthat can cost him 
dearly, in the end.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

Jones Beene  wrote:

> Basically, in the center of the “reactor shelter” is a box labeled “water
> reservoir” which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.
>
> Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
>
> Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
>
> Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1 . .
> .
>
That sounds complicated. I think the people from I.H. would have found that
out sooner or later. I do not think Rossi does complicated sleight of hand
tricks. He uses crude methods that do not fool anyone who takes a close
look. You are only fooled when he releases a vague summary of the test
leaving out most details and data, as he has done in the past.

People who looked at the actual setup, and others who reviewed the
configuration and sample data (including me), saw many problems that made
the 1 MW claim impossible, and probably preclude any excess heat. It was
not difficult to find the problems. There is no indication that some clever
trick is in use that makes it look as if there is 1 MW. Nothing makes it
look like that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

a.ashfield  wrote:

As far as I know, nobody has any idea what was in the customer's equipment.
>

Nothing was in there. I.H. and others used various methods to look for heat
from the customer site. They found no trace of it. There was no equipment
using a detectable level of process heat. Nor was the heat simply dumped
out of the vent. It is not possible to dump that much heat into the water
system, as I pointed out earlier.

 Presumably it started as steam and the condensate was later returned to
> the 1 MW plant at varying temperatures.  The implication is that the
> customer's side was less than 60C.
>

If that were the case, the waste heat would be easily detected. There was
not 1 MW or even 100 kW.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

As far as I know, nobody has any idea what was in the customer's 
equipment.  Presumably it started as steam and the condensate was later 
returned to the 1 MW plant at varying temperatures.  The implication is 
that the customer's side was less than 60C.


On 7/3/2016 9:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Jed,  "Correction: With a counterflow heat exchanger, the cold
fluid will be an average temperature somewhere between 104 and 60
deg C."
What cold fluid are you talking about?


The warm fluid and cold fluid in the heat exchanger.

Someone pointed out to me that at such low temperatures, you would 
probably use the hot fluid to heat the equipment directly before 
returning it, rather than going through a heat exchanger.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-03 Thread Jones Beene

From: Jed Rothwell 

Someone pointed out to me that at such low temperatures, you would probably use 
the hot fluid to heat the equipment directly before returning it, rather than 
going through a heat exchanger.

- Jed

Didn’t you see the post on NBF from GoatGuy - which nails the easy way to cheat 
with this type of setup? It’s all about letting air in the line, in the “hidden 
room” where IH was not permitted to even take a look. This is not accidental 
air leakage, but planned that way – to deceive. Of course, GaotGuy’s 
explanation doesn’t work if you have a real customer buying real steam, since 
they immediately know they are getting shortchanged.

That is why this case will likely be dismissed before it ever gets to trial. 
When the swindle of claiming for months that “the customer" is buying a $1000 
per day of steam, is shown to be a make-believe customer with no use for steam 
at all (instead it is your own business partner who is buying nothing) … when 
this fraud is brought to the attention of the Court, the claim against IH will 
likely be tossed.

Goat guy, who seems to have an excellent grasp of this situation, came up with 
the explanation -- which can be seen here by scrolling down to his post in the 
comments.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/rossi-1-megawatt-energy-catalyzer-is.html

Basically, in the center of the “reactor shelter” is a box labeled “water 
reservoir” which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.

Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1
Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2

All that would be needed would be for the steam-condenser loop to have a 
planned amount of air in the line for this to be a really misleading COP > 1 
system. Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% steam from 50:50 
steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit of flim-flam, most of the heat 
emitted could be combined back into the circulating loop (of which there are 2: 
(water tank 1) → (input to ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir tank water) → (back 
into ECat₁) → (back to water tank 1) … repeated for the bottom half…. Etc. Etc. 
An ingenious scam.

It was clever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaver that can cost him 
dearly, in the end.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed,  "Correction: With a counterflow heat exchanger, the cold fluid will
> be an average temperature somewhere between 104 and 60 deg C."
> What cold fluid are you talking about?
>

The warm fluid and cold fluid in the heat exchanger.

Someone pointed out to me that at such low temperatures, you would probably
use the hot fluid to heat the equipment directly before returning it,
rather than going through a heat exchanger.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

Jed,  "Correction: With a counterflow heat exchanger, the cold fluid 
will be an average temperature somewhere between 104 and 60 deg C."
What cold fluid are you talking about?  I thought we were told the 
return temperature to the 1 MW plant varied but was typically ~60C.   
Because it varied it made the precise heat flow difficult to calculate 
and Rossi told the ERV to ignore it entirely to be on the conservative 
side.


On 7/2/2016 7:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

I wrote:

The fluid leaving Rossi's reactor room was just above 100 deg C.
Returning it was at 60 deg C. That is what Rossi told Lewan. The
reservoir remained level so it was the same water looping around.
So if there was any process heat in the next room, it came from a
heat exchanger and it had to be cooler than 60 deg C.


Correction: With a counterflow heat exchanger, the cold fluid will be 
an average temperature somewhere between 104 and 60 deg C.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

The steam pressure would be closer to 2 psig at 104.  What you discount 
is that the temperature would have been higher if the pressure needed to 
be higher.   It is not unreasonable to assume 2 psi was all that was 
needed with the outlet pipe size used. Remember that Rossi used  a 
stethoscope to listen to the water boiling as a simple way of 
checking.   If IH was concerned about this there are various simple ways 
to check on the water content of the steam, so why didn't they do this 
or ask the ERV to do it?  It doesn't make sense.  IH had a year to think 
about it.  Right now all we have is second hand information - the actual 
temperature is not known.  Presumably the ERV's report spells it out.


On 7/2/2016 7:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > 
wrote:


Jed.  "The fluid leaving Rossi's reactor room was just above 100
deg C. "
Other sources say the temperature was ~104C  in which case it
would probably be steam.


Not if there is any pressure. Which I am sure there was. 104 deg C = 
219 deg F. 3 psi would be enough:


https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-02 Thread Jed Rothwell

I wrote:


> The fluid leaving Rossi's reactor room was just above 100 deg C. Returning
> it was at 60 deg C. That is what Rossi told Lewan. The reservoir remained
> level so it was the same water looping around. So if there was any process
> heat in the next room, it came from a heat exchanger and it had to be
> cooler than 60 deg C.
>

Correction: With a counterflow heat exchanger, the cold fluid will be an
average temperature somewhere between 104 and 60 deg C.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-02 Thread Jed Rothwell

a.ashfield  wrote:


> Jed.  "The fluid leaving Rossi's reactor room was just above 100 deg C. "
> Other sources say the temperature was ~104C  in which case it would
> probably be steam.
>

Not if there is any pressure. Which I am sure there was. 104 deg C = 219
deg F. 3 psi would be enough:

https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-02 Thread a.ashfield

Jed. "I.H. did find a customer, but Rossi rejected that customer in
favor of a fake company that he and his lawyer owned."

Reference please.

Jed. "The fluid leaving Rossi's reactor room was just above 100 deg C. "
Other sources say the temperature was ~104C in which case it would
probably be steam.

On 7/2/2016 4:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Whatever the heat use by the customer, the arrangement was only
made because IH had failed to provide the customer for over a year
that they said they would.

I.H. did find a customer, but Rossi rejected that customer in favor of
a fake company that he and his lawyer owned.

The customer did not use any of the heat. Certainly not anything like
1 MW. We know this because I.H. and others took steps to detect the
heat from the roof and walls, with IR cameras and other devices. No
significant heat was found. Also because the customer had no
employees, conducted no business, and no one answered the telephone there.

If anyone was operating a boiler over 117 kW or similar industrial
equipment in that building, they were violating Florida law, because
no boiler is listed at that address:

http://www.myfloridacfo.com/Division/SFM/portalFiles/boilerSafetyPortal.html?Action=ShowBoilersPage

Here are the regs for boilers:

http://www.myfloridacfo.com/Division/SFM/BFP/BoilerSafety/documents/BoilerSafetyBookletWEBEffective04102016.pdf

"Water heaters that exceed 400,000 btu/hr heat input [117 kW]; or
210 degrees F at the outlet; or 120 gallons nominal water
containing capacity, are classified as hot water supply boilers,
and are regulated by the Boiler Safety Section of the Bureau of
Fire Prevention, Division of State Fire Marshal."

Rossi's device only produces 20 kW, with no excess heat, so it does
not need an inspection. If it really produced 1 MW as claimed, it
would be a violation. It is so badly constructed and instrumented I
expect it would explode at 1 MW.

The heat was low grade, and there are not many industrial processes
that could use it. The fluid leaving Rossi's reactor room was just
above 100 deg C. Returning it was at 60 deg C. That is what Rossi told
Lewan. The reservoir remained level so it was the same water looping
around. So if there was any process heat in the next room, it came
from a heat exchanger and it had to be cooler than 60 deg C.

I am sure there was only a 15 kW radiator in there. That is why Rossi
refused to allow anyone in. A small radiator in the customer site
would be proof that the whole test was a fraud. Rossi removed
instruments and set up the test in ways that made it difficult to
measure the heat balance in his own room. It gave a false indication
of excess heat. This also made the test dangerous, even at 20 kW.
Despite his efforts to obscure the truth, I could see from his sample
data that there was little or no excess heat. I.H. was able to make
additional measurements confirming there was no excess heat at all.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-02 Thread Axil Axil

Section 16.9 of the licence agreement allows for a party to suspended the
agreement if any provision of the agreement is violated by the other party.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a duly
> executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally cancel that
> after money has changed hands.  Pragmatically he could not even give the
> $11.5M back and take back his license unless IH accepted that deal with
> other signed documents.  The courts will decide (eventually) to whom the
> license belongs.  In the mean time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to
> jail by offering the license to anyone else.
>
> It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very definition
> of fraud.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie 
> wrote:
>
>> No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing, (unless
>> he has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for is a null
>> contract; not the rights to the IP.
>>
>> On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>>
>>> It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have
>>> unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having
>>> accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet
>>> Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as though he had no
>>> other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put
>>> Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative period.  He should be
>>> collecting his reading material on antigravity.
>>>
>>> I couldn't help myself.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-02 Thread Jed Rothwell

a.ashfield wrote:

> Whatever the heat use by the customer, the arrangement was only made
> because IH had failed to provide the customer for over a year that they
> said they would.
>

I.H. did find a customer, but Rossi rejected that customer in favor of a
fake company that he and his lawyer owned.

The customer did not use any of the heat. Certainly not anything like 1 MW.
We know this because I.H. and others took steps to detect the heat from the
roof and walls, with IR cameras and other devices. No significant heat was
found. Also because the customer had no employees, conducted no business,
and no one answered the telephone there.

If anyone was operating a boiler over 117 kW or similar industrial
equipment in that building, they were violating Florida law, because no
boiler is listed at that address:

http://www.myfloridacfo.com/Division/SFM/portalFiles/boilerSafetyPortal.html?Action=ShowBoilersPage

Here are the regs for boilers:

http://www.myfloridacfo.com/Division/SFM/BFP/BoilerSafety/documents/BoilerSafetyBookletWEBEffective04102016.pdf

"Water heaters that exceed 400,000 btu/hr heat input [117 kW]; or 210
degrees F at the outlet; or 120 gallons nominal water containing capacity,
are classified as hot water supply boilers, and are regulated by the Boiler
Safety Section of the Bureau of Fire Prevention, Division of State Fire
Marshal."

Rossi's device only produces 20 kW, with no excess heat, so it does not
need an inspection. If it really produced 1 MW as claimed, it would be a
violation. It is so badly constructed and instrumented I expect it would
explode at 1 MW.

The heat was low grade, and there are not many industrial processes that
could use it. The fluid leaving Rossi's reactor room was just above 100 deg
C. Returning it was at 60 deg C. That is what Rossi told Lewan. The
reservoir remained level so it was the same water looping around. So if
there was any process heat in the next room, it came from a heat exchanger
and it had to be cooler than 60 deg C.

I am sure there was only a 15 kW radiator in there. That is why Rossi
refused to allow anyone in. A small radiator in the customer site would be
proof that the whole test was a fraud. Rossi removed instruments and set up
the test in ways that made it difficult to measure the heat balance in his
own room. It gave a false indication of excess heat. This also made the
test dangerous, even at 20 kW. Despite his efforts to obscure the truth, I
could see from his sample data that there was little or no excess heat.
I.H. was able to make additional measurements confirming there was no
excess heat at all.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-02 Thread Bob Cook

The assessment below is right-on IMHO.

  I would also guess that some of the so-called trolls   were funded by some 
vested interest.  I think the funding must have been based on the number of 
words written multiplied by the blogs attended to.  Also I would guess that 
there was a bonus for appropriate likes to troll comments posted in recognition 
to the orchestrated other-troll comments.

Bob Cook

From: Russ George<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 8:27 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

There is a cacophony of petulant voices from those with a vested interest in 
Rossi. LENR, and Cold Fusion as made clear by the many who are  behaving like 
jilted groupies at best with more than a few far over the line into becoming 
outrageous slanderous trolls. That Rossi has kept and keeps secrets enrages 
those with vested interests, aka competitors, who want to know how he makes his 
technology tick. They are it seems made up of the cheapskates who are unwilling 
to invest either the time or money to do faithful research. Dang few have any 
semblance of experimentalist skills and creativity as evidenced by their abject 
failures. It is clear that in this case social media is at its worst with its 
powerful tendency toward making the worst of everything floating to the top 
prevailing.



From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 8:48 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit



Jones Beene,
You make several assumptions that are far from proven.
Whatever the heat use by the customer,  the arrangement was only made because 
IH had failed to provide the customer for over a year that they said they would.

Why do you think IH has any rights to the license when they still owe $89 
million for it?  The initial $11 million was essentially a down payment with 
the balance to be paid after confirmation that the process worked.

You appear certain that the I MW plant doesn't work based Jed's comments that 
in turn are based on IH.  It seems most unlikely that Rossi would take the 
matter to court unless he was convinced it did work.  So the question of 
whether the plant worked at > COP 6 is not proven yet.   Never-the-less, 
preferring Napoleonic law,  you claim Rossi is guilty of fraud until he is 
proven innocent.



On 7/2/2016 11:08 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

From: Bob Higgins

It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have unilaterally 
declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having accepted money 
for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet Rossi seems intent 
to market that license to others as though he had no other contract.  This is 
clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put Rossi back in jail for a good 
long contemplative period.

Bob,

This is a pretty accurate assessment, but ask yourself who in their right mind 
would buy a license now? Most likely, this is the same kind of delusional 
hot-air as the 13 megawatt units claimed to have been sold in 2012 and the 
hundreds of other lies. You couldn’t make a mini-series out of this unfolding 
farce, or could you… is Kevin Spacey available?

The sleaziest detail in the Rossigate scam appears to be this continuing 
charade about “the customer”… you remember, the bogus chemical company that 
supposedly paid $1000 per day for steam, yet without zoning permits for 
chemical production on file, and with no confirming evidence that it ever 
existed outside a shell company owned by Rossi’s business partner, and with the 
premises being listed in the Miami Real Estate market for rent the same month 
as the fake test ended, and with no evidence of any payment received for steam. 
You would think they could fake a few checks back and forth, just for the fun 
of it.

Did Rossi really think he could sustain a falsehood of this magnitude 
throughout a legal proceeding with sworn testimony? The fiction of a fake 
customer buying megawatts of steam for a year to use in a non-existent 
production process … that lie alone could be his downfall.

Curiously, IH appears to be sitting on this fake customer detail for now, as it 
is not mentioned in the pleadings AFAIK… but they will be poised to spring a 
trap during depositions. Crafty attorneys love to do that.

At any rate, we are in for months of amusement, reminiscent perhaps of (the 
perversely fabulous) “House of Cards”… matter of fact … maybe AR has already 
pitched the story to HBO… part of his nexxt reincarnation as the Most 
Interesting Man in the World.

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-02 Thread Russ George

There is a cacophony of petulant voices from those with a vested interest in 
Rossi. LENR, and Cold Fusion as made clear by the many who are  behaving like 
jilted groupies at best with more than a few far over the line into becoming 
outrageous slanderous trolls. That Rossi has kept and keeps secrets enrages 
those with vested interests, aka competitors, who want to know how he makes his 
technology tick. They are it seems made up of the cheapskates who are unwilling 
to invest either the time or money to do faithful research. Dang few have any 
semblance of experimentalist skills and creativity as evidenced by their abject 
failures. It is clear that in this case social media is at its worst with its 
powerful tendency toward making the worst of everything floating to the top 
prevailing. 

 

From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net] 
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 8:48 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

 

Jones Beene,
You make several assumptions that are far from proven.
Whatever the heat use by the customer,  the arrangement was only made because 
IH had failed to provide the customer for over a year that they said they would.

Why do you think IH has any rights to the license when they still owe $89 
million for it?  The initial $11 million was essentially a down payment with 
the balance to be paid after confirmation that the process worked.

You appear certain that the I MW plant doesn't work based Jed's comments that 
in turn are based on IH.  It seems most unlikely that Rossi would take the 
matter to court unless he was convinced it did work.  So the question of 
whether the plant worked at > COP 6 is not proven yet.   Never-the-less, 
preferring Napoleonic law,  you claim Rossi is guilty of fraud until he is 
proven innocent.



On 7/2/2016 11:08 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

From: Bob Higgins 

It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have unilaterally 
declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having accepted money 
for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet Rossi seems intent 
to market that license to others as though he had no other contract.  This is 
clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put Rossi back in jail for a good 
long contemplative period.  

Bob,

This is a pretty accurate assessment, but ask yourself who in their right mind 
would buy a license now? Most likely, this is the same kind of delusional 
hot-air as the 13 megawatt units claimed to have been sold in 2012 and the 
hundreds of other lies. You couldn’t make a mini-series out of this unfolding 
farce, or could you… is Kevin Spacey available?

The sleaziest detail in the Rossigate scam appears to be this continuing 
charade about “the customer”… you remember, the bogus chemical company that 
supposedly paid $1000 per day for steam, yet without zoning permits for 
chemical production on file, and with no confirming evidence that it ever 
existed outside a shell company owned by Rossi’s business partner, and with the 
premises being listed in the Miami Real Estate market for rent the same month 
as the fake test ended, and with no evidence of any payment received for steam. 
You would think they could fake a few checks back and forth, just for the fun 
of it.

Did Rossi really think he could sustain a falsehood of this magnitude 
throughout a legal proceeding with sworn testimony? The fiction of a fake 
customer buying megawatts of steam for a year to use in a non-existent 
production process … that lie alone could be his downfall. 

Curiously, IH appears to be sitting on this fake customer detail for now, as it 
is not mentioned in the pleadings AFAIK… but they will be poised to spring a 
trap during depositions. Crafty attorneys love to do that.

At any rate, we are in for months of amusement, reminiscent perhaps of (the 
perversely fabulous) “House of Cards”… matter of fact … maybe AR has already 
pitched the story to HBO… part of his nexxt reincarnation as the Most 
Interesting Man in the World.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-02 Thread a.ashfield


Jones Beene,
You make several assumptions that are far from proven.
Whatever the heat use by the customer,  the arrangement was only made 
because IH had failed to provide the customer for over a year that they 
said they would.


Why do you think IH has any rights to the license when they still owe 
$89 million for it?  The initial $11 million was essentially a down 
payment with the balance to be paid after confirmation that the process 
worked.


You appear certain that the I MW plant doesn't work based Jed's comments 
that in turn are based on IH.  It seems most unlikely that Rossi would 
take the matter to court unless he was convinced it did work.  So the 
question of whether the plant worked at > COP 6 is not proven yet.   
Never-the-less, preferring Napoleonic law,  you claim Rossi is guilty of 
fraud until he is proven innocent.



On 7/2/2016 11:08 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

*From:*Bob Higgins

It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have 
unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void. 
Having accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding 
contract.  Yet Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as 
though he had no other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud 
that will quickly put Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative 
period.


Bob,

This isaprettyaccurateassessment, butask yourselfwhoin their right 
mindwould buya licensenow? Most likely,this is the same kind of 
delusionalhot-airas the13 megawatt unitsclaimed to havebeensold in 
2012and the hundreds of other lies.You couldn’tmake a mini-series out 
of thisunfolding farce, or could you… is Kevin Spacey available?


The sleaziestdetailin theRossigatescamappears to 
bethiscontinuingcharade about “the customer”… you remember, thebogus 
chemical companythatsupposedlypaid $1000 per day for steam,yetwithout 
zoning permits for chemicalproductionon file, and with no confirming 
evidence that it ever existedoutside a shell company owned by Rossi’s 
business partner, and with the premisesbeinglisted in theMiamiReal 
Estate market for rent the same month as thefaketest ended, and with 
no evidence of any payment receivedfor steam.You would think they 
could fake a few checksback and forth, just for the fun of it.


DidRossireally think he couldsustainafalsehoodof 
thismagnitudethroughoutalegal proceedingwithsworn testimony? The 
fiction of a fake customer buyingmegawattsof steamfor a yearto use in 
a non-existent production process … thatliealonecould behis downfall.


Curiously,IHappears to besitting onthisfake customerdetailfor now,as 
it is not mentioned in the pleadings AFAIK…buttheywillbe poised 
tospringatrap during depositions.Crafty attorneys love to do that.


At any rate, we are in for months of 
amusement,reminiscentperhapsof(theperversely fabulous)“House of 
Cards”… matter of fact…maybeARhas alreadypitchedthe story to HBO…part 
of his nexxt reincarnationas theMostInterestingMan in the World.

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-02 Thread Jones Beene

From: Bob Higgins 

It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have unilaterally 
declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having accepted money 
for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet Rossi seems intent 
to market that license to others as though he had no other contract.  This is 
clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put Rossi back in jail for a good 
long contemplative period.  
Bob,
This is a pretty accurate assessment, but ask yourself who in their right mind 
would buy a license now? Most likely, this is the same kind of delusional 
hot-air as the 13 megawatt units claimed to have been sold in 2012 and the 
hundreds of other lies. You couldn’t make a mini-series out of this unfolding 
farce, or could you… is Kevin Spacey available?

The sleaziest detail in the Rossigate scam appears to be this continuing 
charade about “the customer”… you remember, the bogus chemical company that 
supposedly paid $1000 per day for steam, yet without zoning permits for 
chemical production on file, and with no confirming evidence that it ever 
existed outside a shell company owned by Rossi’s business partner, and with the 
premises being listed in the Miami Real Estate market for rent the same month 
as the fake test ended, and with no evidence of any payment received for steam. 
You would think they could fake a few checks back and forth, just for the fun 
of it.

Did Rossi really think he could sustain a falsehood of this magnitude 
throughout a legal proceeding with sworn testimony? The fiction of a fake 
customer buying megawatts of steam for a year to use in a non-existent 
production process … that lie alone could be his downfall. 

Curiously, IH appears to be sitting on this fake customer detail for now, as it 
is not mentioned in the pleadings AFAIK… but they will be poised to spring a 
trap during depositions. Crafty attorneys love to do that.

At any rate, we are in for months of amusement, reminiscent perhaps of (the 
perversely fabulous) “House of Cards”… matter of fact … maybe AR has already 
pitched the story to HBO… part of his nexxt reincarnation as the Most 
Interesting Man in the World.

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-01 Thread Bob Cook




Adrian—

I would say you are correct about the license not being established, since the 
payment was not made.  I would suspect that Rossi wanted the extra $89M  after 
the 1 week test and only agreed to delay payment of the entire amount based on 
a proposal from Darden to do the 1 year test.  Notes from the negotiations are 
probably very important to add to full understanding of the agreement.  This 
would be especially important if, IH did not intend to pay the full amount and 
still signed the agreement knowing that Rossi expected the full $99M.

Bob Cook


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: a.ashfield<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2016 4:14 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

Bob,
So you say, but it is not that simple.
The contract and the license are only valid if both parties follow the
agreement.  Right now Rossi has done so as reported by the ERV. IH have
not as they have not paid up.  It is not IH taking Rossi to court for
failure to comply and IH don't own rights to the IP until they have paid
for it.   The price was $100 million and IH reasonably said they would
not pay it all until the concept was proven.  The ERV says it has been
proven to work.  The court will decide but before payment IH do not own
the license


On 7/1/2016 6:31 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
> Of course, Rossi may have a case.  Also, he may not have a case.  This
> would be for the courts to decide.  No matter what, Rossi cannot
> unilaterally nullify the license.  He would have to sue in civil
> courts to have the license contract dissolved for cause.  Until the
> court says otherwise, the license is as valid as it was the day it was
> signed and money changed hands.  We do not know whether the court will
> side with IH or Rossi.  If, in the mean time, Rossi sold another
> license for the same region, there would be no question that he would
> be getting fitted for a striped suit immediately.
>
> Basically this means that Rossi cannot sell licenses for anything that
> could even potentially fall under the original license agreement with
> IH in any of the regions licensed to IH until a court rules the
> license contract is dissolved.  This probably puts licensing of his
> "quarkX" technology in limbo in all of those regions as well.  Rossi
> seems happy with the 400+ days to trial, which I cannot understand.
> Unless he gets some kind of motion to have the license dissolved in
> the mean time, he could go to jail for selling licenses to regions
> already licensed to IH, and anyone who bought such a license from him
> would stand to lose all of their money.
>
> Of course, it is important for his case for Rossi to keep up
> appearances of being in the high ground.  However, this will not keep
> him out of jail if he commits fraud.
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:42 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
> <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
>
> Bob,
> He has a case if IH have not fulfilled their side of the contract
> and paid him for a successful trial of the 1 MW plant.
>
> On 7/1/2016 5:12 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>> I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a
>> duly executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally
>> cancel that after money has changed hands. Pragmatically he could
>> not even give the $11.5M back and take back his license unless IH
>> accepted that deal with other signed documents. The courts will
>> decide (eventually) to whom the license belongs.  In the mean
>> time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to jail by offering
>> the license to anyone else.
>>
>> It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very
>> definition of fraud.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie
>> <cchayniepub...@gmail.com <mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the
>> licensing, (unless he has a known faulty product). The best
>> IH can hope for is a null contract; not the rights to the IP.
>>
>> On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>>
>> It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears
>> to have unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH
>> is null and void.  Having accepted money for that
>> license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet Rossi
>> seems intent to market that license to others as though
>> he had no other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a
>> fraud that will quickly put Rossi back in jail for a good
>> long contemplative period.  He should be collecting his
>> reading material on antigravity.
>>
>> I couldn't help myself.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

Another explanation is that this will give him to get one of more 
commercial reactors operating before the trial.
Rossi says he is having at least one 1MW plant being built in America at 
present.



On 7/1/2016 7:47 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Bob Higgins > wrote:


Rossi seems happy with the 400+ days to trial, which I cannot
understand.


One possible explanation: Rossi is acting on a self-destructive impulse.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit


Bob,
So you say, but it is not that simple.
The contract and the license are only valid if both parties follow the 
agreement.  Right now Rossi has done so as reported by the ERV. IH have 
not as they have not paid up.  It is not IH taking Rossi to court for 
failure to comply and IH don't own rights to the IP until they have paid 
for it.   The price was $100 million and IH reasonably said they would 
not pay it all until the concept was proven.  The ERV says it has been 
proven to work.  The court will decide but before payment IH do not own 
the license



On 7/1/2016 6:31 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
Of course, Rossi may have a case.  Also, he may not have a case.  This 
would be for the courts to decide.  No matter what, Rossi cannot 
unilaterally nullify the license.  He would have to sue in civil 
courts to have the license contract dissolved for cause.  Until the 
court says otherwise, the license is as valid as it was the day it was 
signed and money changed hands.  We do not know whether the court will 
side with IH or Rossi.  If, in the mean time, Rossi sold another 
license for the same region, there would be no question that he would 
be getting fitted for a striped suit immediately.


Basically this means that Rossi cannot sell licenses for anything that 
could even potentially fall under the original license agreement with 
IH in any of the regions licensed to IH until a court rules the 
license contract is dissolved.  This probably puts licensing of his 
"quarkX" technology in limbo in all of those regions as well.  Rossi 
seems happy with the 400+ days to trial, which I cannot understand.  
Unless he gets some kind of motion to have the license dissolved in 
the mean time, he could go to jail for selling licenses to regions 
already licensed to IH, and anyone who bought such a license from him 
would stand to lose all of their money.


Of course, it is important for his case for Rossi to keep up 
appearances of being in the high ground.  However, this will not keep 
him out of jail if he commits fraud.


On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:42 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Bob,
He has a case if IH have not fulfilled their side of the contract
and paid him for a successful trial of the 1 MW plant.

On 7/1/2016 5:12 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a
duly executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally
cancel that after money has changed hands. Pragmatically he could
not even give the $11.5M back and take back his license unless IH
accepted that deal with other signed documents. The courts will
decide (eventually) to whom the license belongs.  In the mean
time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to jail by offering
the license to anyone else.

It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very
definition of fraud.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie
> wrote:

No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the
licensing, (unless he has a known faulty product). The best
IH can hope for is a null contract; not the rights to the IP.

On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears
to have unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH
is null and void.  Having accepted money for that
license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet Rossi
seems intent to market that license to others as though
he had no other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a
fraud that will quickly put Rossi back in jail for a good
long contemplative period.  He should be collecting his
reading material on antigravity.

I couldn't help myself.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-01 Thread Jack Cole

Bob Higgens wrote:
"I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a duly
executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally cancel that
after money has changed hands.  Pragmatically he could not even give the
$11.5M back and take back his license unless IH accepted that deal with
other signed documents.  The courts will decide (eventually) to whom the
license belongs.  In the mean time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to
jail by offering the license to anyone else."

I agree Bob.  Also, what does he suppose the $267,000,000 (triple damages)
that he demands from IH in the lawsuit will be payment for?  Not the
license since he supposedly canceled it through a press release.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:31 PM Bob Higgins  wrote:

> Of course, Rossi may have a case.  Also, he may not have a case.  This
> would be for the courts to decide.  No matter what, Rossi cannot
> unilaterally nullify the license.  He would have to sue in civil courts to
> have the license contract dissolved for cause.  Until the court says
> otherwise, the license is as valid as it was the day it was signed and
> money changed hands.  We do not know whether the court will side with IH or
> Rossi.  If, in the mean time, Rossi sold another license for the same
> region, there would be no question that he would be getting fitted for a
> striped suit immediately.
>
> Basically this means that Rossi cannot sell licenses for anything that
> could even potentially fall under the original license agreement with IH in
> any of the regions licensed to IH until a court rules the license contract
> is dissolved.  This probably puts licensing of his "quarkX" technology in
> limbo in all of those regions as well.  Rossi seems happy with the 400+
> days to trial, which I cannot understand.  Unless he gets some kind of
> motion to have the license dissolved in the mean time, he could go to jail
> for selling licenses to regions already licensed to IH, and anyone who
> bought such a license from him would stand to lose all of their money.
>
> Of course, it is important for his case for Rossi to keep up appearances
> of being in the high ground.  However, this will not keep him out of jail
> if he commits fraud.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:42 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>> He has a case if IH have not fulfilled their side of the contract and
>> paid him for a successful trial of the 1 MW plant.
>>
>> On 7/1/2016 5:12 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>>
>> I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a duly
>> executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally cancel that
>> after money has changed hands.  Pragmatically he could not even give the
>> $11.5M back and take back his license unless IH accepted that deal with
>> other signed documents.  The courts will decide (eventually) to whom the
>> license belongs.  In the mean time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to
>> jail by offering the license to anyone else.
>>
>> It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very
>> definition of fraud.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie < 
>> cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing, (unless
>>> he has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for is a null
>>> contract; not the rights to the IP.
>>>
>>> On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>>>
 It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have
 unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having
 accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet
 Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as though he had no
 other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put
 Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative period.  He should be
 collecting his reading material on antigravity.

 I couldn't help myself.


>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-01 Thread Eric Walker

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Rossi seems happy with the 400+ days to trial, which I cannot understand.
>

One possible explanation: Rossi is acting on a self-destructive impulse.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-01 Thread Bob Higgins

Of course, Rossi may have a case.  Also, he may not have a case.  This
would be for the courts to decide.  No matter what, Rossi cannot
unilaterally nullify the license.  He would have to sue in civil courts to
have the license contract dissolved for cause.  Until the court says
otherwise, the license is as valid as it was the day it was signed and
money changed hands.  We do not know whether the court will side with IH or
Rossi.  If, in the mean time, Rossi sold another license for the same
region, there would be no question that he would be getting fitted for a
striped suit immediately.

Basically this means that Rossi cannot sell licenses for anything that
could even potentially fall under the original license agreement with IH in
any of the regions licensed to IH until a court rules the license contract
is dissolved.  This probably puts licensing of his "quarkX" technology in
limbo in all of those regions as well.  Rossi seems happy with the 400+
days to trial, which I cannot understand.  Unless he gets some kind of
motion to have the license dissolved in the mean time, he could go to jail
for selling licenses to regions already licensed to IH, and anyone who
bought such a license from him would stand to lose all of their money.

Of course, it is important for his case for Rossi to keep up appearances of
being in the high ground.  However, this will not keep him out of jail if
he commits fraud.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:42 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Bob,
> He has a case if IH have not fulfilled their side of the contract and paid
> him for a successful trial of the 1 MW plant.
>
> On 7/1/2016 5:12 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a duly
> executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally cancel that
> after money has changed hands.  Pragmatically he could not even give the
> $11.5M back and take back his license unless IH accepted that deal with
> other signed documents.  The courts will decide (eventually) to whom the
> license belongs.  In the mean time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to
> jail by offering the license to anyone else.
>
> It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very definition
> of fraud.
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie < 
> cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing, (unless
>> he has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for is a null
>> contract; not the rights to the IP.
>>
>> On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>>
>>> It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have
>>> unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having
>>> accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet
>>> Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as though he had no
>>> other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put
>>> Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative period.  He should be
>>> collecting his reading material on antigravity.
>>>
>>> I couldn't help myself.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit


Bob,
He has a case if IH have not fulfilled their side of the contract and 
paid him for a successful trial of the 1 MW plant.


On 7/1/2016 5:12 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a duly 
executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally cancel 
that after money has changed hands. Pragmatically he could not even 
give the $11.5M back and take back his license unless IH accepted that 
deal with other signed documents.  The courts will decide (eventually) 
to whom the license belongs.  In the mean time, Rossi could be 
inviting himself back to jail by offering the license to anyone else.


It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very 
definition of fraud.


On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie > wrote:


No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing,
(unless he has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for
is a null contract; not the rights to the IP.

On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to
have unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null
and void.  Having accepted money for that license, he is in a
legally binding contract.  Yet Rossi seems intent to market
that license to others as though he had no other contract. 
This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put Rossi

back in jail for a good long contemplative period.  He should
be collecting his reading material on antigravity.

I couldn't help myself.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit


Bob,
The other side of the argument is this.  Rossi would not agree to the 
deal for just ~$11 million and was counting on the $89 million. The 
terms were set out for the trial in two agreements (that Ampernergo  
didn't sign was a red herring).
The terms were the success of the trial would be judged by the ARV 
Pennon.  Apparently his report was favorable.  Legally it is not clear 
if it matters whether Pennon was right, rather like a referee in a 
sporting event, unless it can be shown Pennon altered the results 
deliberately..


Rossi was the one to take this to court and if his E-Cats didn't work 
why on earth would do that?  He could have walked with what was left of 
the $11 million.  It looks to me that IH may be missing something in how 
to operate them and in these circumstances it gets dodgy for them to 
claim the rights for the next generation QuarkX that Rossi developed 
independently.


On 7/1/2016 3:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have 
unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  
Having accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding 
contract.  Yet Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as 
though he had no other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud 
that will quickly put Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative 
period.  He should be collecting his reading material on antigravity.


I couldn't help myself.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-01 Thread Bob Higgins

I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a duly
executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally cancel that
after money has changed hands.  Pragmatically he could not even give the
$11.5M back and take back his license unless IH accepted that deal with
other signed documents.  The courts will decide (eventually) to whom the
license belongs.  In the mean time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to
jail by offering the license to anyone else.

It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very definition
of fraud.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

> No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing, (unless he
> has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for is a null contract;
> not the rights to the IP.
>
> On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>
>> It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have
>> unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having
>> accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet
>> Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as though he had no
>> other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put
>> Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative period.  He should be
>> collecting his reading material on antigravity.
>>
>> I couldn't help myself.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-01 Thread Craig Haynie

No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing, (unless 
he has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for is a null 
contract; not the rights to the IP.


On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have 
unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  
Having accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding 
contract.  Yet Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as 
though he had no other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud 
that will quickly put Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative 
period.  He should be collecting his reading material on antigravity.


I couldn't help myself.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-01 Thread Lennart Thornros

Bob,
You could be right. However, the situation is far from that simple.
There is no way IH can claim right to licence if they do not prevail in
getting out of Rossi's lawsuit.
Just now they are in a very bad situation with the license. That is my
believe that is why they do not come right out proclaiming the IP is
useless.
That follows the old rule of eating the cake and still have it :) Does not
work.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have
> unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having
> accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet
> Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as though he had no
> other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put
> Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative period.  He should be
> collecting his reading material on antigravity.
>
> I couldn't help myself.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-01 Thread Bob Higgins

It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have
unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having
accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet
Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as though he had no
other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put
Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative period.  He should be
collecting his reading material on antigravity.

I couldn't help myself.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-01 Thread Jed Rothwell

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed,
> IH have two problems.
> 1. They did not display good faith and keep their side of the agreement
> when they failed to pay Rossi $89 million.
>

Good faith?!? Are you joking? Rossi's reactor does not work. It does not
produce any excess heat. They tested multiple reactors and none of them
worked. Do you seriously think any company would pay $89 million for a
machine that does not work? Why?

No one would pay even one dollar for a cold fusion reactor that does not
produce any excess heat. There is no point.

It makes no difference what the contract says, or what Penon said. No sane
person will pay money for a machine that does not do what it is supposed to
do. If Rossi built an airplane that does not fly, they would not pay. If he
built a computer that never computes the right answer, they would not pay.
This is how the real world works. Contract or no contract; agreement or no
agreement; when a product fails to do the primary thing it is supposed to
do, NO ONE EVER PAYS FOR IT.

You may have the notion that it did work, but the data from Rossi proves it
did not, as does an additional data collected by IH experts.

> 2. It is not clear if the agreement with Rossi covered the later
> development of the QuarkX.
>

I wouldn't know about that. Lawyers tell me the QuarkX is covered. Anyway,
that is not relevant to the lawsuit, and it is not relevant to whether the
one year test worked or not.

I think it is unlikely the QuarkX exists.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-07-01 Thread Chris Zell

In reading the legal document,  I could not find any clear discussion as to if 
the device worked or was claimed to have worked.  The document began by saying 
that the court needed to take note of other exhibits – so perhaps they dealt 
with that question.

From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

Jed,
IH have two problems.
1. They did not display good faith and keep their side of the agreement when 
they failed to pay Rossi $89 million.
2. It is not clear if the agreement with Rossi covered the later development of 
the QuarkX.
On 6/30/2016 9:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Contrary to Jed's comments, I expect there will be commercial plants running by 
the time this reaches court.

If that happens, Rossi will lose. He will have to provide I.H. with the IP as 
originally agreed.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit


Jed,
IH have two problems.
1. They did not display good faith and keep their side of the agreement 
when they failed to pay Rossi $89 million.
2. It is not clear if the agreement with Rossi covered the later 
development of the QuarkX.


On 6/30/2016 9:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Contrary to Jed's comments, I expect there will be commercial
plants running by the time this reaches court.


If that happens, Rossi will lose. He will have to provide I.H. with 
the IP as originally agreed.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-06-30 Thread Jed Rothwell

a.ashfield  wrote:


> Contrary to Jed's comments, I expect there will be commercial plants
> running by the time this reaches court.
>

If that happens, Rossi will lose. He will have to provide I.H. with the IP
as originally agreed.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-06-30 Thread Jack Cole

Yes, but sadly people are jumping the gun in interpreting this.  Seems like
probably just something that they have to do should the judge rule it will
go to trial.  But, I don't know that either.  Best to wait to hear from the
judge.

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:34 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> Sorry but this document is not a ruling on the motion to dismiss.
>
> If there has been such an ruling, where is it?
>
> It is doubtful that the motion to dismiss has been heard, since it was
> only filed recently.
>
> This document does not imply that the motion has been heard.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: a.ashfield
>
> The motion to dismiss has been rejected.  Rossi v. Darden will go to a
> trial by jury starting on Sept 18th 2018
>
>
> http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0020.1.pdf
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-06-30 Thread Jones Beene


Sorry but this document is not a ruling on the motion to dismiss.

If there has been such an ruling, where is it? 

It is doubtful that the motion to dismiss has been heard, since it was only 
filed recently. 

This document does not imply that the motion has been heard.


-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 

The motion to dismiss has been rejected.  Rossi v. Darden will go to a trial by 
jury starting on Sept 18th 2018 

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0020.1.pdf

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-06-30 Thread a.ashfield

Ooops I made a Freudian slip.  I thought the trial would probably be 
delayed and typed 2018 instead of 2017

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-06-30 Thread a.ashfield

The motion to dismiss has been rejected.  Rossi v. Darden will go to a 
trial by jury starting on Sept 18th 2018

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0020.1.pdf

Contrary to Jed's comments, I expect there will be commercial plants 
running by the time this reaches court.

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-06-28 Thread Jones Beene

Rossi’s past legal problems in Italy are probably not admissible in this case, 
that is true… although otherwise inadmissible evidence which shows a “pattern 
of conduct” can be admissible for that purpose… but that is not what I am 
talking about.

Let’s focus on a dismissal of the complaint. The judge in this case will have 
access to historical and background material which is all over the internet – 
and to letters and complaints from interested parties. If he believes that 
negative information is valid, he can dismiss the case on a technicality which 
he otherwise might let slide. Part of his action may be completely off the 
record. This kind of trial could take weeks and cost the taxpayer tens of 
thousands,

A judge might never admit to doing his own research on the personalities 
involved, or having his clerk do it, but he is human and his time is valuable. 

If the judge becomes convinced that Rossi is dishonest, or even if he doesn’t - 
he is fully empowered to dismiss the complaint on a valid technicality, such as 
lack of signatures – yet part of his complete rationale for the dismissal may 
not ever be disclosed. 

From: Jed Rothwell 

I know little about the law, but based on a jury I once sat on, I do not think 
that would be admissible. It is not relevant to the case. Rossi is not the 
defendant.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

Jones Beene  wrote:

> It should not surprise anyone who has followed the Rossi saga over the
> years to learn that Gary Wright or Mary Yugo, etc. etc. could have fully
> informed the Court of the Petrodragon details and the failed Army
> contracts, etc. It is almost a certainty that this information will be known
> but now formally acknowledged.
>
I know little about the law, but based on a jury I once sat on, I do not
think that would be admissible. It is not relevant to the case. Rossi is
not the defendant. Even if he were, his history would be off limits, I
think. You have to stick to the facts about the present case. You also have
to stick what the lawsuit says. You can't suddenly bring up other things,
the way they do on TV.

Penon is presumably an Italian citizen on a work visa and probably cannot
> be ruled an expert in a technical field where US licensing is required,
> since he has none here. Big problem.
>
That's my guess. Rossi will have a hard time finding a licensed engineer
who will testify that the calorimetry is valid. As far as I can tell, it
violates every code from A to Z. An engineer who testifies in court that it
is valid may lose his license, as I pointed out earlier.


> Rossi’s other huge problem is this: if sworn depositions show that there
> was no bona fide customer using the steam, as Rossi has claimed over and
> over on his blog, but instead that all of the testing was built on the
> fiction of a make-believe customer . . .
>
I do not think that would come up. It is not mentioned in the lawsuit. That
would be raised if I.H. were suing Rossi, or if the state or Feds were
prosecuting him for fraud, which is a criminal trial, not civil.

I guess if it reaches the point where I.H. has to prove the gadget does not
work, then the fake customer site may come in.


> Before anyone says it – yes – IH is not faultless here, and probably has
> dirty hands as well on some points … especially in selling investment
> packages which included a technology which they were pretty sure did not
> work – but … with one massive difference: they did not file a lawsuit.
>
That would be another lawsuit, as you say. That's not related to this
trial. That would be a civil suit by I.H. investors against I.H.

I do not think they told their investors Rossi's gadget works.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-06-28 Thread Jones Beene

From: Jed Rothwell 

*   Whether the gadget works or not is a matter of fact that must be 
established by expert testimony. 

Perhaps, but will it get that far? Rossi’s claim could be dismissed on the 
issue of lack of signatures for the second amendment, or actually any of the 3 
arguments in this document. They are far from knee-jerk or canned arguments.

Some may disparage the lack of signatures as a “technicality” but this looks 
like just the kind of detail that a judge will use to clear the docket quickly 
– technicality or not … and do not think for a second that Rossi’s past conduct 
will go unappreciated in any decision in Florida, even though it is never 
admitted into the formal record. 

It should not surprise anyone who has followed the Rossi saga over the years to 
learn that Gary Wright or Mary Yugo, etc. etc. could have fully informed the 
Court of the Petrodragon details and the failed Army contracts, etc. It is 
almost a certainty that this information will be known but now formally 
acknowledged.

Has David French or Randy Wuller weighed in on this? To me, there is not much 
chance of the “big pay day” for AR, but it would be curious to hear a valid 
legal argument (I am not a member of the Bar, but both of them practice Law and 
have followed this soap opera … yet understandably, may not wish to comment). 

But, the next show-and-tell, if Rossi’s complaint is not dismissed immediately, 
will be sworn depositions. Penon is presumably an Italian citizen on a work 
visa and probably cannot be ruled an expert in a technical field where US 
licensing is required, since he has none here. Big problem. Plus he is probably 
back home in Italy anyway -- but his sworn testimony is so important to the 
case that IH can probably demand his physical presence. 

Rossi’s other huge problem is this: if sworn depositions show that there was no 
bona fide customer using the steam, as Rossi has claimed over and over on his 
blog, but instead that all of the testing was built on the fiction of a 
make-believe customer, then that dishonesty alone will invoke the “clean hands 
doctrine,” and the complaint could be tossed on that account whether the ERV 
report is positive or not.

The clean hands doctrine is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues 
that the plaintiff is not entitled to remedy due to ethical lapse, dishonesty 
or bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint. Clearly, if there 
was no real customer, and the testing was staged to make it look like there was 
one, then Rossi’s game is over. Why else was IH forbidden to see where the 
steam went?

Before anyone says it – yes – IH is not faultless here, and probably has dirty 
hands as well on some points … especially in selling investment packages which 
included a technology which they were pretty sure did not work – but … with one 
massive difference: they did not file a lawsuit. 

Moreover, IH could face the same clean hands doctrine if their own shareholders 
sue them; but they were smart enough to fund others in the field - and we can 
only hope that one those others being funded can produce results which Rossi 
could not produce.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

a.ashfield  wrote:


>- not enough signatures, so a working MW reactor doesn’t matter. It
>came too late.
>
> I.H. claims it does not work. If it worked, they would pay $89 million.
Regardless of whether it actually works or not, Sifforkoll should not
misrepresent I.H.'s position. I.H. did *not* say "a working MW reactor
doesn't matter." They said, "the reactor is inoperative."


>- IH can distribute IP as they wish … [because of malicious wording in
>the license]
>- IH can file patents as they wish … [because of malicious wording in
>the license]
>
> Malicious or not, if that is what the license says, Rossi cannot sue for
it now. It is too late. And do not say, "it is too late for I.H. because
Penon says it works." Whether the gadget works or not is a matter of fact
that must be established by expert testimony. If the experts convince the
judge or jury that Penon is wrong, Penon is overruled. Whereas what the
license says is cut and dry, and cannot be overruled.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-06-28 Thread a.ashfield


It seems this is a second effort by IH/Cherokee to dismiss Rossi's charges.
Sifferkoll comments as follows.

Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0019.0 



It seems that in the US lawyer bot docs has been made into an art form … 
but with some interesting nuggets though.


Fast executive summary;

 * not enough signatures, so a working MW reactor doesn’t matter. It
   came too late.
 * also they argue that they knew from already when the 2nd amendment
   was (not) signed that the MW test did not matter … [is that
   malicious or what?]
 * IH can distribute IP as they wish … [because of malicious wording in
   the license]
 * IH can file patents as they wish … [because of malicious wording in
   the license]
 * IH can raise money as they wish since raising money on claims of
   owning IP (ie. lying) is not the same as selling products …
   [something for Woodford to think about]
 * and a lot of text aimed at keeping Darden, Vaughn and Cherokee out
   of the lawsuit (this seems REALLY important)

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-06-28 Thread H LV

Argument Clinic - Monty Python's The Flying Circus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Harry


On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> Is this not the old response of IH to Rossi's charge?  Rossi has already
>> replied to it.
>> See
>> http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/28/rossi-responds-to-ihs-motion-to-dismiss-in-court-case/
>>
>>
> I do not think so. This document was entered yesterday, 6/27/2016, so
> Rossi has not had time to respond to it. The date is shown at the top. I
> think the most recent document entered by Rossi was on 6/17/2016:
>
> "Plaintiff's memorandum of law in opposition to defendant's motion to
> dismiss"
>
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0018.0.pdf
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

a.ashfield  wrote:

Is this not the old response of IH to Rossi's charge?  Rossi has already
> replied to it.
> See
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/28/rossi-responds-to-ihs-motion-to-dismiss-in-court-case/
>
>
I do not think so. This document was entered yesterday, 6/27/2016, so Rossi
has not had time to respond to it. The date is shown at the top. I think
the most recent document entered by Rossi was on 6/17/2016:

"Plaintiff's memorandum of law in opposition to defendant's motion to
dismiss"

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0018.0.pdf

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-06-28 Thread a.ashfield

Is this not the old response of IH to Rossi's charge?  Rossi has already 
replied to it.
See 
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/28/rossi-responds-to-ihs-motion-to-dismiss-in-court-case/

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

2016-06-28 Thread Chris Zell

Sounds like the E-cat patent may be rejected ( see end of document) – 
independent of this.

I am just reporting this. Don't ask me what it means. I have no clue.

"Defendants' reply in support of motion to dismiss"

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/678-D-E-19-Reply-In-Support-of-Motion-to-Dismiss-pdf/

[Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit