On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> And the nice thing about passive energy storage, is that it allows Rossi >>> plausible deniability of intent to commit fraud. He can admit to some >>> storage, but his claim was based on dry steam, which he can insist he >>> believed was the case. So everything is tied up neatly. >>> >> >> Maybe it does for some of the public demos but it hardly takes him off >> the hook for the claim of a 35 kW heater that ran for a year nor does it >> take him off the hook for claiming that 12 explosions took place nor for >> Levi's 18 hour test. And it won't take him off the hook if his customer >> doesn't exist and if the pending order for 13 reactors and all the backlog >> of orders Rossi claim never take place. >> > > I was referring to legal outs. I don't think any of those claims will lead > to accusations of fraud. Or could they? > That I don't know not being a lawyer. Even so, I can visualize a lawsuit in the event it turns out that Rossi had stored energy in the devices and never told anyone. I can see Focardi, Levi, Celani and other notables as witnesses for the prosecution because they would certainly be "steamed" themselves, having been bamboozled. Combined with the short runs and all the extravagant claims about large heaters, explosions, and long (but non public) tests, I think a prosecution could argue that the stored energy had been part of a complex subterfuge to deceive investors, scientists and reporters in order to make money. And that would meet the requirements for fraud, at least in the US as I understand it. But I guess that sort of conjecture is as premature as guessing that the E-cat is real and works as advertised! PS: for non primary English speakers, "steamed" in the above context is slang for angry.
