Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6982
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#126

Post by Slartibartfast » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:49 pm

Yes, we are eager to hear your description of the trial. Please stop by to post links or cut and paste from your blog at least! As I said, I think you will find the Fogbow lawyers insightful. Have a great trip!


"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
Mikedunford
Posts: 8908
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#127

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:51 am

I am mildly amused.


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
Mikedunford
Posts: 8908
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#128

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:43 am

Slartibartfast wrote:And I assume that's a reference to just page 177, not to the first 41 pages of Marbury v. Madison?
Correct.
Edit: ETA: And having now read his very lengthy rebuttal to all things Fogbow1 that aren't Slarti,2 I see that abd devoted several paragraphs to this very question - without finding the answer, or even clearly determining whether the second set of numbers refer to page numbers.3


1: and totally brilliant /386/ demonstration
2: where's the tongue-in-cheek smiley when you need it?
3: but he did learn that the book isn't on google books :brickwallsmall:


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
Reality Check
Posts: 14567
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#129

Post by Reality Check » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:18 am

I read the first few posts in this thread. I don't have time to read the rest. My initial reaction is that Rossi is a con man, Industrial Heat got duped, and there is a messy court battle going on in which all parties will probably lose in the end. Is there anything else to this?

I was shocked when it read a few articles and figured out that it has been almost 28 years since the Pons and Fleischmann cold fusion fiasco.


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15107
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#130

Post by Suranis » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:21 am

Yeah. I was in Secondary school (high School) at the time.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14567
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#131

Post by Reality Check » Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:31 am

Suranis wrote:Yeah. I was in Secondary school (high School) at the time.
Young whippersnapper :fingerwag:


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14567
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#132

Post by Reality Check » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:18 am

I appreciate abd taking the time to write about his experience with the Fogbow. It is worth a read. If the Fogbow can't take a little criticism now and then the fault is on us and not others.


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#133

Post by neeneko » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:33 am

Reality Check wrote:I read the first few posts in this thread. I don't have time to read the rest. My initial reaction is that Rossi is a con man, Industrial Heat got duped, and there is a messy court battle going on in which all parties will probably lose in the end. Is there anything else to this?
It is possible that IH are another set of conmen, using Rossi's portfolio to con other investors, then refusing to share the proceeds.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8908
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#134

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:37 am

Reality Check wrote:I read the first few posts in this thread. I don't have time to read the rest. My initial reaction is that Rossi is a con man, Industrial Heat got duped, and there is a messy court battle going on in which all parties will probably lose in the end. Is there anything else to this?
The messy court battle is absolutely right.

As to the con man/duped thing -

I read the license agreement at the center of the dispute on the way home today. Then, because I couldn't quite believe what I'd read, I read it again. It's - to put it mildly - not a well-crafted agreement.1 Most notably, I can find nothing in this $100 million agreement that would have required Rossi to explain the theory behind the invention to International Heat. It commits him to explain how to make the device and how to operate the device, but there's no explicit commitment I can find that would clearly require Rossi to explain how or why the device works. (This, of course, assumes that it works at all.)

If International Heat signed that agreement, they've earned the attorneys fees they're paying to litigate it.

1: Side Question - The contract says that the fuel cost does not exceed "$10 per 10 kW." Is that a measurement that makes sense? I definitely don't understand electricity, but I know I've always been billed on the basis of kWh. And I'd think that time units would make a difference for fuel consumption calculations. But like I said, I'm thoroughly ignorant on the engineering/physics side of things.


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
Reality Check
Posts: 14567
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#135

Post by Reality Check » Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:10 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
1: Side Question - The contract says that the fuel cost does not exceed "$10 per 10 kW." Is that a measurement that makes sense? I definitely don't understand electricity, but I know I've always been billed on the basis of kWh. And I'd think that time units would make a difference for fuel consumption calculations. But like I said, I'm thoroughly ignorant on the engineering/physics side of things.
Kilowatt is a unit of power. Kilowatt hour is a unit of energy. Electricity is usually priced in $/kWh. The typical cost is somewhere around $0.05 to $0.20 per kWh dependending on many factors including size of service, delivery voltage and region. Fuel quantity would relate to kilowatt hours.


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
tek
Posts: 2096
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#136

Post by tek » Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:27 pm

Mikedunford wrote: 1: Side Question - The contract says that the fuel cost does not exceed "$10 per 10 kW." Is that a measurement that makes sense? I definitely don't understand electricity, but I know I've always been billed on the basis of kWh. And I'd think that time units would make a difference for fuel consumption calculations. But like I said, I'm thoroughly ignorant on the engineering/physics side of things.
Your spidey-sense is correct.

"$10 per 10kW" might be reasonable for the cost to build a plant ("it costs this much to build so much capacity")

But fuel provides energy, which would be kWh (unless you are building a power plant out of your fuel)


That right-wing hooey sure stunk up the joint

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8908
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#137

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:27 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Mikedunford wrote:
1: Side Question - The contract says that the fuel cost does not exceed "$10 per 10 kW." Is that a measurement that makes sense? I definitely don't understand electricity, but I know I've always been billed on the basis of kWh. And I'd think that time units would make a difference for fuel consumption calculations. But like I said, I'm thoroughly ignorant on the engineering/physics side of things.
Kilowatt is a unit of power. Kilowatt hour is a unit of energy. Electricity is usually priced in $/kWh. The typical cost is somewhere around $0.05 to $0.20 per kWh dependending on many factors including size of service, delivery voltage and region. Fuel quantity would relate to kilowatt hours.
So that's basically a no, the cost figure does not make sense without hours? Sorry, I know it's a stupid question, but I really need the kindergarten-level - I struggled with physics and math when I was a zoo major, and most of what little knowledge I had ran away zears back.

And if the figure is presumed to be in kWh rather than just kW, the fuel cost is well above current fuels, suggesting a lot more work would be needed for economic viability?

It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, I guess. I'm just mildly curious as to how many different ways the contract is nutz.


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
neeneko
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#138

Post by neeneko » Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:32 pm

Mikedunford wrote: Most notably, I can find nothing in this $100 million agreement that would have required Rossi to explain the theory behind the invention to International Heat. It commits him to explain how to make the device and how to operate the device, but there's no explicit commitment I can find that would clearly require Rossi to explain how or why the device works. (This, of course, assumes that it works at all.)
Would one expect to find such a thing?

If one is going to be manufacturing a thing, the theory and why are not as important as having the necessary specs for building the device. Then again, why something works or the theory behind it are generally not mysteries so how to build them is all that usually matters.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8908
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#139

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:32 pm

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

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
tek
Posts: 2096
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#140

Post by tek » Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:05 pm

So they got the units correct for the cost of the plant ($/kW).

If they really meant fuel cost of $10 per 10kWh, that is lousy.. my portable generator can beat that easily, even with gasoline at $4/gal.

I suppose, given how sloppy the whole thing is, they might have meant $10/100kWh..

Overall, not a document I'd want to be basing a $100M claim on...


That right-wing hooey sure stunk up the joint

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43178
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#141

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:24 pm

When you're involved in a $100 million contract be sure not to hire lawyers to help you with it. Also be sure not to hire anyone who knows anything about energy costs.

Occam's razor, at work once again, tells me this is a scam. The lawsuit may even be (or have been) collusive. At this point it's all angels dancing on the head of a pin. I doubt the trial will get through the opening arguments.



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6982
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#142

Post by Slartibartfast » Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:39 pm

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.

neeneko,

I don't believe that you can commercialize scientific innovation without understanding it. I say that as someone who has spent the last 7 years learning how to commercialize my postdoctoral research, so that's just my opinion, but it is an educated one.

Stern,

If I was going to put money on this, I'd follow your hunch. There is most definitely an odor emanating from this case.


"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
neeneko
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#143

Post by neeneko » Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:58 pm

Slartibartfast wrote: I don't believe that you can commercialize scientific innovation without understanding it. I say that as someone who has spent the last 7 years learning how to commercialize my postdoctoral research, so that's just my opinion, but it is an educated one.
I might be thinking too close to the manufacturing end where understanding tends to be focused on the mechanical implementation.



tjh
Posts: 2922
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#144

Post by tjh » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:10 pm

tek wrote:So they got the units correct for the cost of the plant ($/kW).
You are correct : that is the right way for the cost of building the plant (one-time) and refuelling it (maybe annually).

If you dig into the reports you'll see energy is sometimes reported as kWh/h

What? The "h/h" cancels out so you are left with kW ! Which is power, not energy.

That's a europeanism (Rossi being Italian), where the second "/h" means kWh averaged over an hour.
tek wrote:Overall, not a document I'd want to be basing a $100M claim on...
I've always said I wouldn't have signed it for either party.



User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:56 am
Location: The Left Coast

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#145

Post by much ado » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:14 pm

tjh wrote:I've always said I wouldn't have signed it for either party.
I thought there was a saying along the lines of "A contract is no better than the intentions of the participants." I'm sure that is not right. Does anyone know the actual quote?


A man needs a reason to go shopping; a woman just needs a place. - much ado
(prompted by daughter ado's enthusiasm to visit a mall with no specific goal)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6982
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#146

Post by Slartibartfast » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:17 pm

neeneko wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote: I don't believe that you can commercialize scientific innovation without understanding it. I say that as someone who has spent the last 7 years learning how to commercialize my postdoctoral research, so that's just my opinion, but it is an educated one.
I might be thinking too close to the manufacturing end where understanding tends to be focused on the mechanical implementation.
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.


"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)

tjh
Posts: 2922
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#147

Post by tjh » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:22 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:I don't believe that you can commercialize scientific innovation without understanding it.
Strictly speaking, there isn't ONE agreed theory for high temperature superconductors (high being relative, like the cold in cold fusion). They've been commercialized. (And incidentally, one of the primary inventors of high temperature superconductors believes/ed the two are related. Filed a cold fusion patent to that effect.)

I think Rossi was right on that one (supposing it works) ... can't brew a cup'o'tea? Here's a megawatt for you. He got the ecats kinda safety certified, but domestic certification will/would be much more difficult. He initially assumed you could just build-em and ship-em. (My name's on the waiting list if he ever does!)

And when/if the world notices then the regulatory bodies will jump in on the act.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8908
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#148

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:39 pm

Slartibartfast wrote: Stern,

If I was going to put money on this, I'd follow your hunch. There is most definitely an odor emanating from this case.
I have a hard time seeing who benefits from a collusive case. And I'm not sure why someone would be paying Jones Day rates for such a case. That said, there is some seriously weird shit going on with this thing, and I'm not talking about the science.

To be clear:
The entirety of my IP contract drafting experience is limited to one class. I worked damned hard and did damned well in that class, but I also know damned well that I'm a hell of a long way from being an expert.

And this contract, for a $100 million dollar deal, has incredibly obvious mistakes. And some of those mistakes are the kind of thing that I have an extremely difficult time believing would have resulted in Rossi running away from the deal if they were fixed.

For example:
1: Numbering. There's kinda an issue around Section 14 (Indemnification). The first paragraph of Section 14 is numbered 15.1, and the following section is Section 16.1 That couldn't get fixed?

2: The choice of court clause. The last sentence of the choice of court clause reads:
"Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, shall be settled exclusively by the Court of Miami, Florida, USA."

This is literally the classic example of a pathological choice of court clause. It grants exclusive jurisdiction to a court that (technically) doesn't exist - there are state courts, and there are federal courts, and neither is "the Court of Miami." And this might seem like a minor nit to pick, but there are good international commercial litigators out there who could (and have) used slip-ups like that to tie a case up in procedural knots that can take months to years to unravel. It could also lead to a counterclaim for breach of contract for bringing the case in federal court instead of state court. (And maybe it has - I haven't looked at the counterclaims.) Again, this is something that Rossi would object to changing? That seems strange.

And that's before you get to the big shit. And there's lots of big shit wrong with this contract.

Edit: ETA
1: And Section 15.2 reads, in full: "[Intentionally omitted]" - WTF?


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
much ado
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:56 am
Location: The Left Coast

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#149

Post by much ado » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:41 pm

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.


A man needs a reason to go shopping; a woman just needs a place. - much ado
(prompted by daughter ado's enthusiasm to visit a mall with no specific goal)

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8908
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

#150

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

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.


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

--Clarence Earl Gideon

Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”