Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14040
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#151

Post by Suranis » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:46 pm

Money laundering, maybe? I cant see how a shitty contract to tie a case up in knots would help, though they may have been rigging the thing to collapse so they could sneak away with the money while everyone's attention is on the courtroom. But in that case who is the one sneaking off with the money?

Are some people loading up a no hoper company with cash to squeese out the cash as it goes under?

Anyway I saw this on the Snopes facebook list and it made me laugh.

Image


"I think its pretty troubling when a backyard decoration comes out swinging harder against Nazis than the President of the United States." - Stephen Colbert

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8109
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#152

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:11 pm

Suranis wrote:Money laundering, maybe? I cant see how a shitty contract to tie a case up in knots would help, though they may have been rigging the thing to collapse so they could sneak away with the money while everyone's attention is on the courtroom. But in that case who is the one sneaking off with the money?
If they're trying to tie the case up in knots, they're doing it wrong. And the first mistake would have been filing in SD Fl, which has a longstanding reputation as a "rocket docket." But even by rocket docket standards, this case is moving fast. They're starting a jury trial less than 15 months after filing. That's impressive. It's also one of the reasons that I was so confident that Judge Altonaga hadn't ignored the MSJs in a fit of pique - you don't maintain a rocket docket reputation by missing chances to narrow issues before trial - or, better still, eliminate the need for trial entirely. (But you do maybe get a bit tetchy when a bunch of nimrods are going to make you spend a month in a trial and blow your case management stats because they couldn't be arsed to write a half-decent contract for a $100 mil deal.)


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 1941
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#153

Post by woodworker » Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:04 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
much ado wrote:
Mikedunford wrote:And that's before you get to the big shit. And there's lots of big shit wrong with this contract.
It's almost as if neither party has a clue.
Which is maybe sorta almost approaching understandable in a $100,000 contract. But this is $100 mill. It's the kind of contract you expect the parties to spend a lot of money drafting. I think woodworker has some experience in that area, and would have a better idea than me, but I'd expect that the parties would normally be willing to plop down 6- to 7-figure attorney fee payments on a contract of this magnitude if only to reduce the litigation risk later on.
Mike:

I had a client who was responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars of radio programming decisions every year, e.g., signing on air conservative talent, who approved a contract renewal with a term sheet providing for, among other items, a $42 million dollar G-4 and $6 million in cash as a signing bonus. The term sheet was two short paragraphs, never reviewed by counsel and stated at the bottom, just under his signature, approved, but not read to avoid delay.

Yes, we then spent six months detailing the fine points of the contract, but a lot of business people, e.g., Trump, think that they don't need the lawyers to review the contracts because are smarter than the lawyers.

Another example: why did it take so long for Spiderman to ever hit the big screen? The original agreements were so poorly drafted that nobody was really sure who had the movie rights and people spent years and tens of millions fighting, most of which could have been avoided by spending a few more thousands (or tens of thousands) properly drafting an agreement.

Having said all that, I have posted a fair amount on the Rossi v. Darden forum (https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread ... pageNo=299) as woodworker of course.


My avatar was by my bestest puppy ever, Bruin. I miss him every day.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8109
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#154

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:09 pm

woodworker wrote: Having said all that, I have posted a fair amount on the Rossi v. Darden forum (https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread ... pageNo=299) as woodworker of course.
Why am I totally unsurprised?


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8720
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#155

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:20 pm

If Mike's executive summary of the contract is correct or even largely correct, as I have no reason to think it isn't. Anytime Mike says "because I couldn't quite believe what I'd read, I read it again" is not an auspicious start to a legal issue. What, at least as it appears to me, has happened here is that Rossi has effectively sold International Heat a quantum pig in a poke, it either works or it doesn't. If all he had to do contractually was deliver a presumably working machine to them, i.e. met their test requirements, then that is going to make a lot of things problematic. Once he delivered the machine to them then if they couldn't get it to work it was their problem and they would have nothing to fall back on since they wouldn't really have the process, just the processor.

What this is coming to look like to me is bad contract meets bad science meets bad method equals REALLY expensive litigation and general fail.

I don't have enough background or information to really go on, but everything I've seen so far makes makes me agree with Stern's take. I just can't help feeling that someone is conning someone else, I just can't shake that feeling, and so far I've seen nothing to change that.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8109
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#156

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:46 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:Mike,

I concur with tek and RC regarding kilowatts vs. kilowatt hours. It's the kind of mistake that raises red flags (or at least yellow) regarding competence. And I'm highly amused. Possibly even entertained. It was the most triumphant example of "Duty Calls" that I've seen in quite a while.
Have you figured out what exact quote my sig is referring to? He seems to be slightly frustrated over my strutting (and there's totally some strutting going on), but I don't want to spill the beans if you're still guessing.

(I actually used the cite instead of the quote when I changed the sig because (a) the quote is very important at times like this; (b) easily as pompous-sounding as just using the cite; and (c) I felt like it.)


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14040
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#157

Post by Suranis » Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:58 pm

woodworker wrote: Having said all that, I have posted a fair amount on the Rossi v. Darden forum (https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread ... pageNo=299) as woodworker of course.
Neat. I'll have a read through that tonight. Thanks!


"I think its pretty troubling when a backyard decoration comes out swinging harder against Nazis than the President of the United States." - Stephen Colbert

tjh
Posts: 2879
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#158

Post by tjh » Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:09 pm

If you're a betting man there's an easter egg hidden in woodworker's posts (not that there will be any fogbow takers!)



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41191
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#159

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:37 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:Mike,

I concur with tek and RC regarding kilowatts vs. kilowatt hours. It's the kind of mistake that raises red flags (or at least yellow) regarding competence. And I'm highly amused. Possibly even entertained. It was the most triumphant example of "Duty Calls" that I've seen in quite a while.
Have you figured out what exact quote my sig is referring to? He seems to be slightly frustrated over my strutting (and there's totally some strutting going on), but I don't want to spill the beans if you're still guessing.

(I actually used the cite instead of the quote when I changed the sig because (a) the quote is very important at times like this; (b) easily as pompous-sounding as just using the cite; and (c) I felt like it.)
It is a proposition too plain to be contested that anyone's inability to figure out the sig could be attributed to poor cut and paste and Google skills. (And I say that emphatically, because that is within my province and duty as a Fogbowzer.)



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8109
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#160

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:45 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Mikedunford wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:Mike,

I concur with tek and RC regarding kilowatts vs. kilowatt hours. It's the kind of mistake that raises red flags (or at least yellow) regarding competence. And I'm highly amused. Possibly even entertained. It was the most triumphant example of "Duty Calls" that I've seen in quite a while.
Have you figured out what exact quote my sig is referring to? He seems to be slightly frustrated over my strutting (and there's totally some strutting going on), but I don't want to spill the beans if you're still guessing.

(I actually used the cite instead of the quote when I changed the sig because (a) the quote is very important at times like this; (b) easily as pompous-sounding as just using the cite; and (c) I felt like it.)
It is a proposition too plain to be contested that anyone's inability to figure out the sig could be attributed to poor cut and paste and Google skills. (And I say that emphatically, because that is within my province and duty as a Fogbowzer.)
:rotflmao: :rotflmao:


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14040
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#161

Post by Suranis » Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:55 pm

Found a pretty detailed article on the Rossi reactor and experiments. Its rather poorly laid out, but it has PICTURES!!!

https://www.psiram.com/en/index.php/Foc ... -Catalyzer


"I think its pretty troubling when a backyard decoration comes out swinging harder against Nazis than the President of the United States." - Stephen Colbert

tjh
Posts: 2879
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#162

Post by tjh » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:33 pm

Suranis wrote:Found a pretty detailed article on the Rossi reactor and experiments. Its rather poorly laid out, but it has PICTURES!!!

https://www.psiram.com/en/index.php/Foc ... -Catalyzer
Those are relatively old pictures of early versions. ( L-shaped reactors).

The next version ... and probably the one used in the "1MW" reactor is what I call the "fat cat".

Fat eCat
here's what's inside it : Image

Both the original L and the fat-cat produce relatively low temperature (130C) steam.

Here are both Darden and Vaughn at the 23 1/2 hour (1/2 hour short) acceptance test, with both the 1MW and the hotcat visibleImage


These (on one of Rossi's sites) are photos of the 1MW in Florida.
1MW in Florida
Image

After that came the "Hot Cat" and then the "Dogbone" as used in the "Lugano" test referred to in the trial documents.
He now claims to be working on an ultra-small "Quark-X" version



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8109
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#163

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:40 pm

Those pictures are definitely evidence that there's something funky going on with his work.

If it was real science, there should be lots of duck tape and a-b foam holding things together. I can't see any.


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8720
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#164

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:42 pm

He's magicing up a Ni isotope with nm sized nickel particles through some magic process, heating the result with hydrogen gas and using a mystery catalyst to do all this. Lotsa don't add up.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5098
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#165

Post by listeme » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:42 pm

Mikedunford wrote:Those pictures are definitely evidence that there's something funky going on with his work.

If it was real science, there should be lots of duck tape and a-b foam holding things together. I can't see any.
Plus baling twine, if he's doing science on the farm.


We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
tek
Posts: 1795
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#166

Post by tek » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:49 pm

Image

This looks exactly like the air filter element on my Grand Cherokee.

Just sayin :think:


Fast talkin' guys with strange red eyes
Have put things in your head
And started your mind to wonderin'

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8720
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#167

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:51 pm

Only a lot cleaner than I've ever seen one. Filter I mean.

Got to be some chewing gum somewheres as well, gotsta have lots and lots of chewing gum and duct tape or it just isn't scientific..


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 483
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#168

Post by neeneko » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Slartibartfast wrote: Yeah, there's a lot of technology and engineering that you have to do before you get to that part. If it were easy to commercialize scientific innovation, every professor with a good idea would have a successful company.
Normally I would agree, but that isn't was Rossi is selling. He is claiming to have existing devices ready to scale up and manufacture, with mostly conventional engineering and manufacturing issues left so solve. In other words he claims to have done all the earlier stage work and is trying to find a partner/investor to do the later.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8720
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#169

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:06 pm

And yet, it doesn't really seem to do anything but allegedly soak up large chunks of money. Beginning to sound like a gov't weapons project to me.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8109
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#170

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:16 pm

neeneko wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote: Yeah, there's a lot of technology and engineering that you have to do before you get to that part. If it were easy to commercialize scientific innovation, every professor with a good idea would have a successful company.
Normally I would agree, but that isn't was Rossi is selling. He is claiming to have existing devices ready to scale up and manufacture, with mostly conventional engineering and manufacturing issues left so solve. In other words he claims to have done all the earlier stage work and is trying to find a partner/investor to do the later.
Abd's theory, which I'm still not totally sure I'm tracking, seems to be that IH's willingness to sign an atrocious contract was actually a brilliant strategy because #reasons. As far as I can tell, some of the reasons have to do with wanting to know if his stuff worked because they were highly suspicious, or something to that effect, so they just signed whatever he wanted in order to learn what he had.

My thinking - which I will admit may be marred by a lack of time spent soaking in the intricacies of LENR1 - is that strategies like the one abd thinks IH had are best served by the maximum access to the theory. And they're least served by entering a deal that basically provides that you get access to the theory - maybe - if you contract with Rossi for a fee to be named later so that he can become your "chief scientist," without promising to provide more IP than the "cut on the dotted lines" assembly instructions. And this is particularly true when the contract has a clause that basically pushes you out of the LENR field for a couple of years if you breach the contract, and is written as a take it or leave it proposition.

1: I like trains, and I've been living in England for 2 years. I keep reading that as LNER.


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41191
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#171

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:32 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:And yet, it doesn't really seem to do anything but allegedly soak up large chunks of money. Beginning to sound like a gov't weapons project to me.
Or any automobile-related company founded by Henrik Fisker.

Let's see what happens to my prediction of a non suit after opening statements. I'll extend it now to the close of plaintiff's "case." In a Miami court.



tjh
Posts: 2879
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#172

Post by tjh » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:47 pm

Mikedunford wrote:Those pictures are definitely evidence that there's something funky going on with his work.

If it was real science, there should be lots of duck tape and a-b foam holding things together. I can't see any.
Steve Krivit (who got in a feud with Rossi and Levi) made mock of Rossi's plumber's toolbag : Image ...



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6933
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#173

Post by Slartibartfast » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:41 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:Mike,

I concur with tek and RC regarding kilowatts vs. kilowatt hours. It's the kind of mistake that raises red flags (or at least yellow) regarding competence. And I'm highly amused. Possibly even entertained. It was the most triumphant example of "Duty Calls" that I've seen in quite a while.
Have you figured out what exact quote my sig is referring to? He seems to be slightly frustrated over my strutting (and there's totally some strutting going on), but I don't want to spill the beans if you're still guessing.

(I actually used the cite instead of the quote when I changed the sig because (a) the quote is very important at times like this; (b) easily as pompous-sounding as just using the cite; and (c) I felt like it.)
Work, work work...

I'm not sure exactly how you would trim the quote, but something like:
1 Cranch 137, 177 wrote:It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
But that's too (not also) long for a sig.

Anyway, I went long in popcorn futures on this thread a few days back and now I am reaping an amazing ROI. I'm going to go take a look at Abd's "duty calls" exegesis now...
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41191
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#174

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:45 pm

Nope the meat of the quote and the most famous constitutional holding is near the end of page 177.

Try again.



User avatar
Techno Luddite
Posts: 2519
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#175

Post by Techno Luddite » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:51 pm

I think there is another phrase at that page-cite to Marbury which more succinctly sums up the concept, and I imagine that is the one which Mike was aiming for. It's a rather famous phrase. (And not one highly regarded by a certain Floridian Bundyite female lawyer, apparently!). I get the idea that Mr. Dunford is trying to obscure the actual phrase by using the citation and forcing the reader to do the legwork, so I'll not spoil the joke.

And on the other hand, I could be wrong. Naah. :notlistening:



Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”