Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
Posts: 998
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:22 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#176

Post by Dr. Caligari » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:29 pm

The money quote from Marbury (and it is on p. 177) is:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Mike, sorry if I gave your surprise away too soon.


J.D., Miskatonic University School of Law

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 4990
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#177

Post by Sam the Centipede » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:41 pm

tek wrote:

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

Just sayin :think:
As the picture was posted in a reply to Suranis, I first assumed that it was going to be a working prototype of the cat-toast free energy device.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41204
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#178

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:14 am

Dr. Caligari wrote:The money quote from Marbury (and it is on p. 177) is:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Mike, sorry if I gave your surprise away too soon.
And it was first written on a napkin at Ye Olde Barre & Grille in Alexandria while Chief Justice Marshall was having a warm beer and discussing cold fusion with Benj. Franklin.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8724
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#179

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:58 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Dr. Caligari wrote:The money quote from Marbury (and it is on p. 177) is:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Mike, sorry if I gave your surprise away too soon.
And it was first written on a napkin at Ye Olde Barre & Grille in Alexandria while Chief Justice Marshall was having a warm beer and discussing cold fusion with Benj. Franklin.
And what were you having?


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
Techno Luddite
Posts: 2522
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#180

Post by Techno Luddite » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:33 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Dr. Caligari wrote:The money quote from Marbury (and it is on p. 177) is:



Mike, sorry if I gave your surprise away too soon.
And it was first written on a napkin at Ye Olde Barre & Grille in Alexandria while Chief Justice Marshall was having a warm beer and discussing cold fusion with Benj. Franklin.
And what were you having?
metamucil, on the rocks!



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8111
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#181

Post by Mikedunford » Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:56 am

Dr. Caligari wrote:The money quote from Marbury (and it is on p. 177) is:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Mike, sorry if I gave your surprise away too soon.
No worries.

That sentence was a rare source of hope for me earlier this year, but it seemed a bit over-the-top as a sig. Using the citation was a compromise (with myself).


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

--Clarence Earl Gideon

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

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#182

Post by tjh » Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:55 am

Sam the Centipede wrote:
tek wrote:

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

Just sayin :think:
As the picture was posted in a reply to Suranis, I first assumed that it was going to be a working prototype of the cat-toast free energy device.
Actually that picture is very informative. This model ecat was definitely used as the "back-up" reactors in the 1MW, and the 4 "Big Frankies or Tigers" probably use the same technology.

Among other glaring possible errors (like mis-reading Penon's schematic) IH/JD's expert Smith spends a lot of space in his report proving there isn't a super-heater in the 1MW. But this particular model probably has fins above (visible) and below (not visible) the flat reactor element. If 2/3 filled with water the bottom fins could boil the water and the upper fins could superheat the steam.



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

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#183

Post by tjh » Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:01 am

Legal tactic question.

Suppose you think you've found an error in an expert's report. You then take his deposition.

Do you call him out on his error ... giving him a chance to correct it, or do you wait until trial and spring it on him? (*) Or use it to try and get his testimony excluded.

(*) Is the advice still good, that a lawyer should never ask a question unless he knows the answer.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41204
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#184

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:43 pm

tjh wrote:Legal tactic question.

Suppose you think you've found an error in an expert's report. You then take his deposition.

Do you call him out on his error ... giving him a chance to correct it, or do you wait until trial and spring it on him? (*) Or use it to try and get his testimony excluded.

(*) Is the advice still good, that a lawyer should never ask a question unless he knows the answer.
Excellent question. I usually wait. If the expert is honest he or she will admit the mistake. If not honest, he or she will compound the false testimony. Of course, you need your own witness available to demonstrate the error in that case unless it's glaring or you can show the error from the expert's work or relived upon authorities. And sometimes in a "battle of the experts" the jury doesn't pick the right one.
Edit: I can recall two cases I've had over the last two decades where I had experts who had made mistakes or had fatal flaws I didn't know about until it was too late: I had designated them and defense counsel didn't ask them questions about the errors or fatal flaws at their depositions. And they were about to testify at trial.

In the first, 18 years ago, the expert had made miscalculations relating to amortization schedules in a case where the other side, a financial institution, had done the same. (Pre internet days when no one had access to schedules and apps at their fingertips.) I had another expert, an esteemed chaired professor of real estate finance from a local law school, so I got the correct testimony out of him when defense counsel opened the door slightly during cross.

In the other case, two years ago, involving the valuation of real property, my expert had recently been disciplined by the state real estate commission for being involved in some really odoriferous conduct involving plagiarism and favoritism to one side -- and possibly fraud -- where he served as a real estate arbitrator/appraiser involving the valuation of property. Opposing defense tipped me off during his voir dire and opening argument, when he started to mention it and then build a case that plaintiff was using a liar to testify as to value. And then his expert had to testify out-of-order in the late afternoon because defense counsel said he was leaving the country the next morning. So he put him on and the defense expert also talked about how terrible it was when an appraiser got disciplined, on and on, without mentioning the name of my expert. First, I kept the expert on the stand and it turned out he wasn't leaving the next morning, so we held him over. The judge was pissed off. Second, his testimony was so bad that we decided not to call our expert at all. The owner of the property is allowed to give an opinion as to value. Defense counsel was flabbergasted and wanted to call our expert himself, but the judge said he couldn't and the judge was right. The statute only allows the other side to call a designated but uncalled expert to impeach testimony, not to be impeached.

Two lucky escapes.



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6939
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#185

Post by Slartibartfast » Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:36 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Two lucky escapes.
Luck favors the prepared.


"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: 41204
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#186

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:07 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:Two lucky escapes.
Luck favors the prepared.
Sometimes luck favors the lucky.



User avatar
Techno Luddite
Posts: 2522
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#187

Post by Techno Luddite » Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:27 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:Two lucky escapes.
Luck favors the prepared.
Sometimes luck favors the lucky.
Sometimes litigation favors those who can afford it. edit: Stern's clients could afford a good lawyer and at least a couple of experts Civil justice requires a wallet.



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

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#188

Post by woodworker » Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:33 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Dr. Caligari wrote:The money quote from Marbury (and it is on p. 177) is:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Mike, sorry if I gave your surprise away too soon.
And it was first written on a napkin at Ye Olde Barre & Grille in Alexandria while Chief Justice Marshall was having a warm beer and discussing cold fusion with Benj. Franklin.
What?? I thought it was first written while you were supervising the engraving of the Code of Hammurabi!

PS: Long time no see, may be in LA in a few weeks, Stern. Jerry's?


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

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41204
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#189

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:02 pm

Jerry's Famous Deli would be good. But it closed last October! :crying:

Maybe Langers.



User avatar
vic
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#190

Post by vic » Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:09 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Jerry's Famous Deli would be good. But it closed last October! :crying:

Maybe Langers.
Off Topic
Aren't the ones in Encino and Studio City still open? I've never been to the Encino one, but did go to the Studio City one decades ago.
Edit: And don't forget Brents! You don't even have to trudge all the way to Chatsworth (which is walking distance for me), now that they opened one almost in your neighborhood in Westlake Village.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41204
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#191

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:04 pm

Off Topic
Anything east of Coldwater Canyon doesn't exist. :sniff: Brent's ain't great but we could lower ourselves I suppose.



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

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#192

Post by woodworker » Sun Jun 25, 2017 1:29 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Jerry's Famous Deli would be good. But it closed last October! :crying:

Maybe Langers.
Brent's, Chatsworth. Geritol will join us. And I like Brent's. So there! Besides, Langer's will be full of summer associates.


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

User avatar
vic
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#193

Post by vic » Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:11 am

woodworker wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:Jerry's Famous Deli would be good. But it closed last October! :crying:

Maybe Langers.
Brent's, Chatsworth. Geritol will join us. And I like Brent's. So there! Besides, Langer's will be full of summer associates.
:like: Although I did like that Jerry's would serve capers with the lox plate. Got addicted to capers with (Scotch) smoked salmon when I worked in London.



User avatar
rpenner
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Silicon Valley, California
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#194

Post by rpenner » Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:48 am

vic wrote:
woodworker wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:Jerry's Famous Deli would be good. But it closed last October! :crying:

Maybe Langers.
Brent's, Chatsworth. Geritol will join us. And I like Brent's. So there! Besides, Langer's will be full of summer associates.
:like: Although I did like that Jerry's would serve capers with the lox plate. Got addicted to capers with (Scotch) smoked salmon when I worked in London.
Normally one has to venture into Hollywood to get a caper fix, but the nicer hotels have people who can hook you up without the need to find a dealer on your own. (scratching at arm)



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14125
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#195

Post by Reality Check » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:36 pm

Mikedunford wrote:Looks like I crossed replies with Tek - thanks.

For those who might be curious, here's the relevant provision from the license:
The cost to produce the Plant that will be delivered to the company pursuant to this Agreement, assuming high scale production volumes, will not exceed $ 100/kW and the maximum cost to fuel the Plant on the date hereof is $10 per 10 kW of output.
I've been mostly off line a couple of days so I will comment. Thanks for posting the actual contract language. The first clause makes sense. The capital cost of a power plant would be in $/kW or $/mW. $100/mW or $100,000 per mW sounds reasonable to low. The capital cost of power plants is based on output power.

The fuel cost doesn't make technical sense. It should have a time component. $10/kWh would be outrageously high. $10/kWday would make more sense. I think the electricity supply folks generally price in megawatt hours so $10/mWh for fuel would make the most sense. It might just be a typo that got through. Electricity is traded on some of the commodity markets and is always priced in $/megawatt hour (mWh). It was running in the $40/Megawatt range last time I looked but the market is volatile and rising lately as hot spells in the summer cause air conditioning loads and demand for electricity to go up together. Markets are also very regional.

In addition to fuel cost producers have to recover capital, operating and transmission costs so a $10/mWh fuel component in a $30/mWh price kind of makes sense when the contract was written.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41204
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#196

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:40 pm

Reality Check thanks for your post but what does it have to do with West Valley delicatessens? :confused:



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14125
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#197

Post by Reality Check » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:58 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Reality Check thanks for your post but what does it have to do with West Valley delicatessens? :confused:
Nothing other than they probably use electricity to produce delicious sandwiches and capers with smoked salmon. I like mine with chopped finely hard boiled egg and red onions. :-D


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

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

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#198

Post by tjh » Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:00 pm

Reality Check wrote: The fuel cost doesn't make technical sense. It should have a time component. $10/kWh would be outrageously high. $10/kWday would make more sense. I think the electricity supply folks generally price in megawatt hours so $10/mWh for fuel would make the most sense. It might just be a typo that got through. Electricity is traded on some of the commodity markets and is always priced in $/megawatt hour (mWh). It was running in the $40/Megawatt range last time I looked but the market is volatile and rising lately as hot spells in the summer cause air conditioning loads and demand for electricity to go up together. Markets are also very regional.

In addition to fuel cost producers have to recover capital, operating and transmission costs so a $10/mWh fuel component in a $30/mWh price kind of makes sense when the contract was written.
The [sloppy] contract was written on the basis of the "original" 1MW, with 102 "fatcat" reactors.

The specification for the "new" 1MW, more or less as delivered to Doral, but with just 4 "Big Frankie" aka "Tiger" modules, each containing 16 reactors: http://ecat.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw ... nical-data

Recharge Frequency 2/year -- so for 1MW the recharge cost per year would be 2 (per year) * $10 (/kw) * 1000 (kW per MW) = $20,000
Allowing for some down-time, 360*24 = 8640 hrs/year. Hourly recharge cost = $20,000/8,640 = $2.31/hour

1MW output at COP=6 needs 166 Watts input .... 166kWh for an hour
Average US industrial electric cost is 6.75c/kWh = $1125 per hour
Electric cost + recharge cost = $1127 per hour



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14125
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#199

Post by Reality Check » Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:09 pm

Thanks tjh. It makes sense if the recharge frequency is assumed. I know nuclear plants are different animals since they are batch fueled vs. other continuously fired steam plants be them coal, oil or natural gas.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14050
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#200

Post by Suranis » Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:24 pm

I've been reading slowly the 200 page thread woodworker posted above. I'm only 20 pages in and this thing is bizzare.

Firstly the original contract was for a year long test of the equipment. I cant understand why they agreed to this. It would make sense to test a small working model for a week, then pay the guy his 100 million and then go large scale with your own people.

If Rossi was a con man it would make sense for him to bolt with the original 11 mill they paid him to RIo. But he sat there building this thing, and chased reps of the company out, despite the fact that the company owned the shipping container he was working in and the equipment he was using.

Rossi's claim is that they did not give him time to finish. Rossi has never finished a thing in his 40 year career of making reactors and wild claims. He said the same when he ran from Italy after failing to create a reactor based on burning waste.

And in any case a year was the agreed time, and he filed suit before the year was up, when the Company was pointing out that they were not seeing any results except in Rossis own measurements, and that they had built their own reactor on his designs and had seen essentially very little heat generation. (Not nothing, but most of the reactors were nothing and the ones that weren't only had a 1.3 COF rather than the 6 Rossi was claiming)

Rossi waited till the very last day before filing his discovery claims... despite the fact it was his own lawsuit.

So, essentially Rossi seems like he is arrogant and crazy rather than a con man, and the company sounds like it is stupid. Either way this case sounds like a complete mess. That's it for January...


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

Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”