Mats Lewan Receives an Electricity Bill for 1MW Test Customer

Mats Lewan is continuing to try and find evidence about the 1MW Plant test, and has turned up some interesting information about an electricity bill for the customer JM Products at the address 7861 NW 4th St, Doral, FL.

Mats update from this post:

April 24, 2016

I have received a copy of an electricity statement, from Florida Power & Light Company, issued on JM Chemical Products Corp., for the period February 2 until March 2, 2015. The total amount of energy consumed is 7,251 kWh. Depending on when the plant was put in operation for the one-year test (assuming at the latest February 16) this indicates an average consumption of about 10 to 20 kWh per hour. The Service Address on the statement is 7861 NW 46th Street, Doral, FL 33166-5470, which is the same as the official address listed for JM Products, and also where photos were taken that according to visitors to the plant looked like the place they visited. The amount charged is $1,266, while the amount for the previous month was $309, which is about a quarter, possibly indicating some early test activity.

This statement proves that electricity corresponding to what the 1MW plant should have consumed at a successful COP of about 50 has been consumed at the address reportedly being where the test was undertaken. It doesn’t prove any production by the customer, nor anything about the amount of energy produced by the MW plant, and consequently nothing about the COP. My source is not Rossi.

So some great sleuthing by Mats Lewan! Hard numbers from independent sources are not easy to come by in this contentious environment. Rossi’s Complaint in his lawsuit against IH et al. states that the test began “on or about February 19 2015,” so only part of this electricity bill would be for while the test was taking place, and we can’t tell from this bill what the average electricity usage was during the period before or after testing.

In this 30 day period, there are 720 hours. If my calculations are correct, if the amount of energy consumed is 7,251 kWh in that period, the amount of power generated during this billing period would be very close to 10 kW on average. Being conservative, let’s assume the test started on February 20th, and that very little energy was used prior to the official start of the test. 12 days (Feb 20-Mar 2) = 288 hours. If we assume 6500 kWh were used during that 12 day period; this would give an average power consumption of 22.57 kW (6500/288) during the testing period. If Andrea Rossi is correct about the average output of the plant during the test being 1MW, then this would give close to the 50+ COP claimed by Rossi in the report; (1000/22.57 = 44.31 COP)

This has been very useful information regarding the energy input side of things (power bills for the entire duration of the test would be better). It would be nice if we could get confirmation of some kind that the output of the plant was 1MW, as Rossi has stated.

  • roseland67

    Think hard about this everyone,
    All it proves is that this meter saw 7251 kWh of energy go thru
    It over X period of time.
    This load, (probably), includes all hvac, office and production equipment.
    We don’t know the amount of energy required/product produced, before and after
    The Ecat was installed

    • Frank Acland

      Mats does say that the previous month’s bill was $309, compared to the Feb 2-Mar2 bill of $1,266, so something changed.

      • Ged

        Which is 17.46 cents per kWh (this of course is not corrected for any taxes and/or service fees, so the real cost of the electricity is likely lower than that), which would have made the last billing period have a consumption of 53.95 kWh at most.

        • roseland67

          Cost, does NOT matter,
          Only kWh/product produced
          Both with and without Ecat

          • Ged

            Pardon me, but cost is absolutely important if we want to compare the power bill before the 1MW test, which was given only in terms of cost, compared with after the start of the test which was both cost and energy used.

          • roseland67

            It is of 0 importance, only consumption and demand, as defined above are inportant.
            See my response above, think it through and you will jnderstNd

          • Ged

            Cost is consumption in the trust sense. The utilities will always get their cut.

          • roseland67

            What if his cost per kWh and kW varies with time of use, night and day, on peak off peak, very common,
            What if these costs vary with amount used, first 1000kwh @ .07$/kWh, first 100 kW at $10.00 m/kW, also, very common.
            What if the other loads in the building, have, IT, office etc were Cycling at different rates during production.
            All of the above, just off he top of my head, would affect cost and the associated electric bill.
            Cost is meaningless, energy and power used ton perform the SAME amount of work is meaningful.
            Like Warthog previously, you are making way to many assumptions to draw any conclusions.

          • Ged

            Uh huh. Quantify those fluctuations and give us an error band and/or confidence intervals around cost per kWh.

            The problem you face is that cost is directly proportional to consumption, no matter how one tries to spin it. Pop open your own electrical bill and do some quantitation instead of speculation–you’ll find your cost per kWh relationship does not vary in a meaningful way between two adjacent months. What minor variances you presume are but the smallest jitter noise in the floor compared to the signal change between Jan-Feb and Feb-March. But please, by all means, if you can prove changes in cost per kWh that can account for the four fold jump in the cost of the bill between those two month periods, I would truly enjoy hearing it.

  • LilyLover

    As most of your know, I trust Dr. Rossi fully. & This is not a blind trust.
    All throughout this short-saga, I’ve first handedly learnt the way apologetics, biases, powerplays, laws, opinion formation process, offence, defence, business, reputation, goodness, quasi-pretentiousness, immorality, truth, science and media work.
    This has been a compressed learning experience answering some of my questions like why people tolerated Galileo’s murder, why people are cowards, why people seek the appeal to authority and why people deliberately confuse morality with immorality or immorality with duty.
    It tells me that the more internet plays a role in opening up the truth, the accelerated the growth of humanity becomes.
    What would have taken a lifetime to realize is taking a few years these days. The age of Aquarius is upon us. Soon, we shall be happier.
    With clutches of dogmatic “science” and pragmatic stupidity weakened with enlightenment, we shall achieve a greater civilization within a few decades.
    As symptomatic as E-Cat’s struggles are, the rate and pace of success are evidently indicative of human progress.
    We all can celebrate that!
    Learning through struggles.
    Teaching through love.

    • Mike Henderson

      What is a miracle?
      Finding schools of fish to catch.
      Turning water into wine.
      Bringing a dead person back to life.
      Healing the sick.
      Feeding the multitudes.
      Communicating with people who are not present.
      Predicting storms.
      Rising up to the heavens.

      Technology and divine acts are indistinguishable.

      And yet technological advancements have dark sides, too. I hope love wins.

    • Richard Hill

      To Lilylover: Galileo was not murdered. He was placed under house arrest.

    • HS61AF91

      my sentiments, exactly!

  • Curbina

    I’m happy that an electric bill surfaced, but I think that’s just one step. I hope the energy user is subpoenaed to testify in the complaint case, or better, gives some report prior to that to Mats Lewan. The bill alone does not tell anything unless we know what the energy was used for. Anyway, my congrats to Mats Lewan for keep digging the facts.

    • SG

      There is no doubt in my mind that the customer, whomever it is, will be subpoenaed in this case, assuming there is no settlement prior to that happening. I’m hoping that there is no settlement. The question of LENR+ is too important to our progeny for this dispute to be resolved without sunlight.

      • Jarea

        And i would not be so happy and trust happily the customer.
        With an energy technology that can cause wars, with the government interested in a peaceful and controlled transition, then the customer and a bill is a small piece that can be shaped and transformed to be part of big bank/oil plans.
        Money and power can transform the true in a lie and the facts in random events.
        We need objective papers, tapes and evidences where many people is implicated. Rossi must keep his cards secret if he want to have an option to win. On the other hand, the secrecy of his test will not help Rossi on this game. If APCO is implicated then they are the master of control.

        • Ian Walker has posed an interesting riddle relating to the ‘big picture’ on an older thread (to which I’ve added a likely solution and some speculation). I don’t know whether he is guessing or actually knows something the rest of us don’t:

          • Jarea

            Interesting, but you did all the interpretation. Ian only said october news…
            Anyway i find your interpretation possible. I was also aware of the connection between Clinton and Rockeffeler. It is supposed that Hillary will push for disclosure of UFOs togethet with Jon Podesta. I find that this will be very difficult to do and if i can dream with disclosure, why not release zero point energy directly instead LENR?

    • Mike Henderson

      What is the baseline power consumption — lights / heat / a/c — for a comparable facility? The typical low temperature in Miami for February is 62-65 degrees F (16.5-18.5 C) and the average high is 78-80 degrees F (25.5-26.5 C).

  • Anon2012_2014

    We don’t know that additional circuits may have supplied the test setup. We have no schematic that has been traced out on the rig. We don’t know how many days it was run, and we don’t know if only a 1 of 4 of the 250 kW units, or 10 10 kW units were activated. We know only that the power company charged this for this single billing period to a customer.

    • Ged

      Two billing periods actually (the month right before was $309), and the power company sees everything so “additional circuits” means nothing in this context, unless they were added after this bill (which is why we need more bills, and the average for the year).

      • Anon2012_2014

        additional circuit is for the rental unit(s) next door. Again, we don’t have a schematic showing which part of the apparatus was run by this metered bill.

  • Snobben

    I think Mats Lewan is doing a great job, but it’s bizarre that it seems up to him to prove Rossis statements to the world. Rossi should be ashame to keep hes great invention a secret, when it’s so important for everyones future…

    • Mike Rion

      Altruism is not pertinent to the subject. It’s about money, power and ego. Any significance to society is incidental to the cause.

      • Snobben

        In sweden we have a saying “He who grasps after much often loses the hole bite” I think that is what’s happening to Dr Rossi, if there are anything to loose at all?

        • psi2u2

          Your analysis has from the start impressed me for it’s ad hoc character. The only key and important question is whether or not Rossi has what he says the ERV says he has. If he does, he is in small danger of the fate you prescribe for him. If not, then he is going to lose big, as will those who have supported him. Speculating that he will lose because of a character flaw in unlikely to yield much insight. As Mike Rion says, proclaiming that Rossi must be evil because he doesn’t open source his findings or “grasps after too much” is just an irrelevancy.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I just hope Mats has found a source who can provide all the power bills for entire test period

    • No I didn’t. Just that bill.

      • Curbina

        Dear Mats, a commenter by name whatchman, who says is from Switzerland, accuses you of making up the bill. I understood that you were given this bill by a person, not Rossi, and I also understand this person wishes to remain anonymous, but could you specify that it was given To you in response To your call for help in order To silence this unfounded accusation?

        • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

          For me, making this wild accusations to Mats is disrespectful.

          Why? Because in the last 3 years i was following his e-catworld page i only saw him being honest and a truth seeker.

          Think yourself how you would feel if these accusations were directed to you instead?

          If you review all his past posts E-Cat related or not, he is the first one to express doubts in technologies or tests. He is just open minded and he doesnt call fraud without proof as some other people does.

          So please, stop writing this kind of messages.

          You say that it was another user but repeating the sentences is just feeding the troll.

          Please try to keep the conversation and criticism in a positive way, not in a destructive one.

          Finally Mats. Thanks for your hard labour all these past years. I never told you this before but i felt like it should be said because the more you seek the truth the more you get critizied.

          Kind regards.

          • psi2u2

            I agree. Attacking Mats in this fashion is either ignorance or skullduggery. He is obviously making a sincere attempt to continue to gather information.

          • Thanks 🙂

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Mats: Did I understand you correctly from the other site that the source requested that you not show an image of the bill? Maybe I am behind the news, but do you now know the source?

        • Yes I know who the source is, and I want to respect his or her request to be protected.

  • Dr. Mike

    Since February 2015 only had 28 days, the Feb. 2nd to March 2nd bill represents only 28 days, and the period Feb.20- March 2 is only 11 days (counting the 20th as the first day and including March 2). The previous month’s bill was probably for 31 days. With these corrected number of days the COP would be slightly lower than calculated. However, the energy use during this time frame includes the start-up of the e-cats. My guess for the start up energy for a 1 MW system would something on the order of 1000-1500kW-hr with a 12-24hr ramp up in power and stabilization at full power for a few hours before beginning a SSM operation. This amount of energy should be subtracted from the total energy use for the month to calculate the running COP of the system. With this correction the running COP of the system would be 50-55. What we really need is the electricity bill for the March 2- April 2 time period!
    From this limited bit of information it seems likely that there will not be much of a question of the measurement of the input power to the plant as the total amount of electricity sold to the entire building can be used as the input to the system. The key factor in calculating the COP of the system is going to be in the details of how the output heat is calculated.

    • Gerard McEk

      I fully agree. The focus will indeed be on the heat production and you see (in Scifferoll) that flow metering and probably also temperature and return/waste water flow measurement will be attacked. So Mats, I hope you can provide also the water statement of JM Chemical products. 🙂

      • Dr. Mike

        I really hope the report does a good job or describing how the heat output was measured, however, the methods used should not be attacked, rather they should be scrutinized to verify they were taken in a manner that produces an accurate measurement of the total heat output. Rossi should have all questions that might be raised on the heat output measurement methodology answered before he gets to court. My guess is that the engineers and scientists following e-catworld could do a fairly good job of reviewing the output heat measurement.
        Also, I hope that the total power going to the system was accurately measured over time (rather than just to the building) so that a meaningful COP can be calculated.

        • Owen Geiger

          I think a separate meter was added for Rossi’s reactor. The rest of the building (office, AC, etc.) are on a separate meter.

      • wpj

        Water would be no good as copious quantities are used in the production of these sponge metals (assuming they were being produced). I assume that all of the waste would have been shipped by tanker back to their main production facility.

        The finished product is also supplied as as 50% weight mixture in water.

      • Apparently the warehouse is now back on the rental market and appears to be a simply a site used for testing rather than any production. The water was probably condensed and recirculated, and if anyone lives near enough to take a look at the building, keep an eye out for vents and flues or newly repaired holes in walls where pipes to external units may have been temporarily installed.

        When the details of the test report emerge in court I suspect that all the usual quibbles about latent heat of evaporation, steam quality, positions of sensors etc. will be deployed by IH.

        • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

          That sounds bad. Rossi told us that the plant was still working so the rental change doesnt look good.
          It could be that the customer moved the reactor to the permanent facilities it has. But it would be much better if the plant was still there because that would be a determining factor for the viability of the E-Cat

          • SG

            I think the plant was purchased and is owned by IH. The customer was paying for the energy.

        • psi2u2

          How do we know the warehouse is back on the rental market?

    • it was the key problem for
      and DGT/Milano

      the input is well controlled, but question is very often the water flow.

      If the production is real, there is no point as the volume of production is a reliable evidence.
      but if JB Chemical is a dummy factory mounted by Rossi, It will be hard to defend.

      anyway all buzz I have from my networkd is :
      – the 1MW gactory works
      – the IP is not sincerely transfered as required by the contract

      the synthesis I have, to be confirmed :
      problem is not the reactor but the inventor.

      No idea if it is sincere or manipulative, correct or erroneous.

      the two position I heards are this one (factory OK, inventor KO), and another is E-cat fully broken (I don’t swallow it, but maybe the inventor is manipulating test to make them unbelievable).

      • Owen Geiger

        I always like your comments except this time I would reword this part:
        “problem is not the reactor but the inventor”.

        Maybe the inventor believes or knows IH is not being honest and so he feels he is not obligated to tell them everything since in his mind the contract is void.

        • Brent Buckner

          Per Section 3.2(b) of the License Agreement, Rossi/LC was to immediately transfer all E-Cat IP to IH upon payment of the $10,000,000. Perhaps IH feels that Rossi/LC did not fulfill that obligation.

          • SG

            My guess is Mr. Rossi did immediately transfer all IP that was available at that time.

          • Brent Buckner

            I’m not even going so far as to make a guess, just outlining one possibility amongst many!

        • the one who trust nobody cannot be trusted.

          my theory, is that “it work”, but that the inventor kept essential IP on his side, typically SSM and E-cat X, while at the same time advertising those improvement, making what he transferred to the investor without any value.
          In business people call that “screwing the investor”.

          In Inventor mind it is “keeping control of my invention”.

          Problem is that if you want to keep all control, you don’t sign a contract that say that you give a license on the technology and it’s improvement (that is the key).

          be careful not to be manipulated by emotional and cliché against investors.

          If you accept the money, you respect the contract.
          if you break the contract, don’t expect the money.
          E-cat X exist because of investor’s money. It least it is fair to give them access to the technology, and this was the contract.

          Just looking at the history of both players gives a credible scenario, where you understand that each side think he is on the good side of morality.

          Anyway maybe I’m wrong, but don’t forget that theory, beside the “conspiracy of evil capitalist” that is so popular.

          We should wait for the trial, and at least the report and the answers of IH to Rossi’s complaint.

          • Dr. Mike

            You might be right that Rossi has withheld some of his IP. The real question is: Has Rossi withheld key parts of his invention from the patent that he received? Rossi could very easily lose his patent rights (if challenged) if it can be proven that he did not fully disclose his invention. (See the recent David French interview discussing patent law.) Also, many people “skilled in the art” have tried to reproduce the Rossi patent without much success. We should see in the IH response to the lawsuit if failure to fully transfer IP is the major reason they have not paid the remaining $89M.

          • SG

            Bear in mind, the replications so far have been primarily dog bone offshoots. I have seen no serious attempts to replicate according to Mr. Rossi’s granted patent.

  • Omega Z

    On Mats Blog-

    Engineer48 asks of ckhawk


    I’m interested to know more about the Dog Bone HotCat reactors that were tested at Lugano.
    1) Were these reactors manufactured by IH as I have read?


    Darden says his group was not involved with the test cited in the report.
    “We built the reactor, but we shipped it over to Switzerland,” he says.

    • Engineer48

      nckhawk didn’t fully answer my initial questions

      I’m interested to know more about the Dog Bone HotCat reactors that were tested at Lugano.

      1) Were these reactors manufactured by IH as I have read?

      2) Did IH test the reactors COP prior to shipping them to the testers?

      3) If they were tested, what was the COP & info on any other tests that were performed prior to shipping?

      4) If they were not tested why would IH ship untested reactors to the testers?

      5) Did any IH people visit the test site or assist in the testing?

      As you seem willing to disclose other information, your comments here would be most helpful.

      Thanks in advance for your reply.”

      So I asked him some more:

      “nckhawk wrote:
      “Regarding Lugano – IH produced the reactors and some fuel that was sent over. Rossi insisted that there be no pre-test on anything. The chain of custody for both items was lost after they were shipped from IH.”

      Thanks for the reply but it only partly answers my questions. Based on your answer as above, here are a few more:

      1) As IH built the Lugano reactor & supplied the fuel, what was the in house COP test result?

      2) Were the IH in house test protocols & methods the same as used at Lugano? If not what was the in house test method for the IH Dog Bone reactors?

      3) Did IH also supply the control electronics used in the Lugano test?

      4) If the in house test results were COP < 1, why would IH ship their Dog Bone reactor to Lugano, knowing it would fail?

      5) Please confirm no IH people visited Lugano nor were involved in the trial?

      6) What happened to the Lugano reactors & the fuel sent over & ash at the end of the test?

      Thanks for your answers."

      • Andreas Moraitis

        If IH built the Lugano reactor, it should have been easy for them to evaluate at least the thermometric method. It would be important to know if they did that, and if so, what the outcome was.

        • Engineer48

          As an engineer & product developer I know how products are developed & along with them the in house test protocols.

          The IH Dog Bone reactor did not just appear from thin air. IH engaged in focused R&D to achieve that product. They have test protocols & test results.

          It seem incredible for IH to claim that product never achieved a COP > 1 yet they shipped it to Lugano knowing the test would fail, that is if we accept their “no substantiate” claim.

          Also I find it very difficult to accept nckhawk saying he doesn’t know where the ash is. That ash is worth more than the test data.

          • IH did not say COP was bad.
            he said “WE could not substantiate the CLAIMS”.

            vague, but compatible with
            – rossi make it work very well (it seems)
            – not us, despite efforts (we are sure)

            -> we feel screwed
            -> we don’t pay

          • SG

            Yes, but, by stating that “Rossi insisted that there be no pre-test on anything,” he is insinuating that IH did not pre-test the dog bone prior to shipping to Lugano. This seems highly implausible. Of course, this could be more double-speak: “Rossi insisted that there be no pre-test (even though we did pre-test but don’t want to acknowledge that right now on public blogs).”

          • well said. I am very much appreciating your posts and I hope you can comment more in the future despite possibly having an NDA preventing you from going into much detail.

            somebody correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the results of the Lugano test used in an IH patent? So for them to build a reactor and the fuel and then use the test results to support their patent without having ever seen excess heat at their own facility is really hard to believe.

          • Bob

            Please note one very big issue with the “IH built the reactor” conversation.
            The Lugano test team explicitly stated that Rossi loaded and unloaded the reactor. Please see the posts and report on this. They were not allowed to handle the fuel. So IH did not ship a loaded reactor.
            IH may have built the tube, wound the wire, connected the terminals, painted the paint, but this does not mean they mixed or could manufacture the FUEL.. this is a significant difference.
            Fabio (sp?) himself posted that Rossi would let NO ONE handle the fuel and this was as late as last fall.
            As with almost everything in this saga, we have no real facts or data, but just speculation and often vague “Rossi” says… yet so many posts staements as hard facts on this site.
            The real fact is, we do not have any….

          • Argon

            I have one problem here. I can’t remember exact words, but when in the beginning of their co-op Rossi transferred the IP to IH, he described how even top of person of partner (Darden?) made fuel following his recepeipe and assembled reactor. And it worked! Rossi was seemingly happy to report that in JONP (since I think he got 10.5m$ after successfull knowledge transfer).
            So how IH can nowdays pretend so glueless of everything, ‘we didn’t test reactor’, ‘we didn’t know how to make it work’ and never got extra heat.
            Long time to just play along.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            It has been said that they did not test the Lugano reactor before it was shipped. Maybe they have tested similar models, but that does not mean that they used the same method. If you do not apply optical thermometry you will not ask for the emissivity of the reactor surface. But exactly that would have been the most important thing after all the criticism in the Lugano report had become public.

          • Warthog

            The initial write-up from the Lugano results specifically said that the initial reported optical thermometric results were preliminary and based on literature values for the emissivity of the substrate. It also said that A SAMPLE OF THE SUBSTRATE was being taken to MEASURE THE EMISSIVITY of the specific material used in the reactor. Why this has never been done and reported I simply don’t understand. Why no work on “the” key datum that will remove all ambiguity from the test?

      • Omega Z

        Three reactors were sent previously unused. IH has claimed use of the same reactors in house.

        “3?” There is the occasional exploding reactor at initial startup of the R&D reactors and also the possibility of runaway melt downs.

        At this point, you can’t win an argument with the skeps. Two separate reactors run side by side brings questions of something being different about the reactors or power supply etc.

        So, only 1 reactor was used 1st for the dummy run, then fuel added for the actual test all with the power supply, wire hookups and instruments supplied by the Lugano test team.

        Rossi brought/supplied the fuel. A pre-run sample was taken for ash comparison plus radioactivity check and the rest was placed in the reactor.

        When the test was concluded, The Lugano team obtained a sample of the ash 1/10th of the charge I believe, and the rest was returned to Rossi along with the reactors and brought back to the U.S..

        The ash retained by the Lugano team was analyzed by (3) different institutions and that analysis was included with the test report. The skeps made a feeble attempt to dispute the power input. Then the fact that Rossi was present at the start and end of the test implying manipulation of the “1 gram” of fuel.

        Any known additive of a non nuclear nature wouldn’t account for the output and should one manipulate the isotopic composition, As someone pointed out, wouldn’t you do so in a manner that seemed plausible. Ultimately, they couldn’t put the ash in Rossi’s hands beyond his presence.

        The skeps then went for the black-body emissivity of the alumina data. There is no consensus other then output was less then claimed. Skeps see COP=1 and non skeps see COP>1 but less then in the report.
        It’s proposed that heat alone with the right fuel mix gives excess heat. Rossi claims this is the beginning, but to get serious results requires a stimulation to increase and maintain higher levels of excess heat.(High COP Numbers)

        That said, The Lugano test was run in continuous heat mode only. The (SSM) Self Sustain Mode requires an on/off process control by computer and some type of RF/EM fields. Thus even in SSM, there are low levels of power consumed. This (SSM) was NOT utilized in the Lugano test therefore high COP was not expected.

  • Curbina

    Mats Lewan was given the bill by someone, if you care to read and understand what you are reading.

  • Curbina

    I Just read a new update from Mats that states the bill received had a hand written comment that said “1Mw/h COP 24” so the plant was not working full time yet in that month. Nevertheless this is an important clue.

  • Hi Watchman. I obtained the image of the bill from a person who had the opportunity to take the photo. This person had no intention to publish the image, but sent it to me when I asked for it, and also asked me not to publish the photo. I respect such requests from sources. Please calm down.

    • Fastbuck

      Mats, if you can see the account number on the photo of the electric bill, it may be possible to call the electric company and ask what the monthly budget would be for that address.

      I own apartments and I am often asked by potential tenants what the average utility bills are. If I call the utility and provide the account number and address, they will provide me with a monthly budget based on the prior 12 months of usage.

      My apartments are residential and i don’t know if commercial/industrial accounts are eligible for monthly budget payments, but it might be worth a call to the utility.

    • psi2u2

      Thank you, Mats, for keeping us updated on the evidence, however inconclusive it may seem or be. It is interesting how agitated the Rossi bashers have become.

    • Sandy

      Mats, does the electric bill show the name of the company that provided the electricity?

      “Florida Power & Light Company is the third-largest electric utility in the United States, serving more than 4.8 million customer accounts across nearly half of the state of Florida.”

      “A leading Florida employer with approximately 8,800 employees, FPL is a subsidiary of Juno Beach, Fla.-based NextEra Energy, Inc. (NYSE:NEE)”.

      Using the FPL “Small Business Tool”. View the Quick Start Tutorial for instructions and videos on how to access and use main features for business, advertising and demographic analysis and competitive intelligence.

    • e-dog

      Totally off track… but does involve clean green energy, saving the world, big money names, off grid systems and nuclear stuff.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Mats site, An Impossible Invention, is becoming a nightmare of posting wrong information and then others commenting like it is fact. I am afraid Mat is learning what Frank on this site determined long ago, there are some paid propagandists out there that try to drown out all other comments simply by the number and length of their comments.

      • It is a mess, but Mats is extracting the relevant information and adding this to his ‘updates’. He may need to moderate a bit more heavily though to remove the more repetitive and content-free troll comments, and he certainly needs to bar ‘maryyugo’ completely as Hody is just working his way through his standard repertoire of insults and disinformation.

      • Anon2012_2014

        These sites (open comment blogs) are all like this. The reader has to take what he or her reads with a grain of salt, i.e. use your mind to discount what you read as to having information value or just fan boy/girl support for one cause or the other. It helps to have an open mind.

        What we can do as a community is cover the trial motions and other public information and maybe get some local volunteers to show up in Miami district court to report on the proceedings. Groklaw did the same for the SCO-IBM-Novell case (in Salt Lake City district court) and it was very useful.

      • Bernie, you’re right.

        I’m trying to limit the flow of useless comments and spin now, asking only for new information.

        I am also aiming at letting readers judge for themselves, making it clear that I don’t want lengthy discussions with arguments that have already been exposed many times before.

        Comments that go beyond these recommendations might be cancelled.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Mats, Good moves, and thank you for your efforts, finding the true facts behind recent developments.

    • Slad

      Modern cameras can add hidden data to photographs… GPS coordinates, etc.

      It might be worth running the photo through “EXIF reader” software

      • Thanks Slad. In this case it’s not needed. I know how, when and by whom the photo was taken.

        • Stephen Taylor

          Hi Mats,

          I backed up a few weeks in disqus to “lower the profile” of this message. First, and most importantly, thank you for covering this amazing story! Your video of the 1MW test in Bologna was a highlight for me. I am pretty sure Barack Obama was in Bologna that evening as well as Hillary Clinton. Hmmmmm…..unfortunately now it is not so good.

          For five going on six years now we wait for some good evidence that Doctor Rossi can do what he can say. At the early days I correspond via leonardo1996 and work to find turbines to help him “close the loop”. He is most gracious and I care about him now, as then.

          You know and I know that proof is easy unless deception is preferred. My heart is heavy now with the lost hope of this chapter.

          Maybe I will see you in Miami in the unlikely event of a trial. Hurricane season is from June to November. Mostly it is nothing to worry about but do rent a car in case you need to get out quickly. I live in central Florida. You are welcome here anytime.

          Best wishes to you and I hope Dr. Rossi is in better health than the photo in your recent post seems to indicate.

          Stephen Taylor

  • Zephir

    In this way or another, such an information is completely unreliable, legal the less.

    Even if it would, I don’t understand, what such an info could be good for.

    • psi2u2

      “I don’t understand, what such an info could be good for.”

      Then you don’t understand the problem.

      • Zephir

        Try to enlighten me, after then…

        • psi2u2

          If the electric bill is accurate, it gives a maximum electrical input to the system, which is one of the two primary data points needed to evaluate the COP. This shouldn’t be that difficult to understand.

          In other words, you would be correct not to accept the figure without further, more formal confirmation, but you would not be right, imho, to claim that the new data is irrelevant.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          The power bill shows the consumption of electricity at the given site where the ecat was producing power (we assume this – not known for sure).

          The amount of power consumed that would produce 1 million watts of power based on this power bill = a COP of 44. Since the ERV claimed a COP of 50, then such a power bill supports the ERV results and is VERY CLOSE to a power bill based on claims of the ecat having a COP of 50.

          So it not a slam dunk, but a power bill from the location of where the ecat was supposed running, and one that at least “matches” what kind of COP is required to produce 1 million watts of power SUPPORTS Ross’s and the ERV claim of a COP of 50.

          It is supporting evidence.
          Lets take the reverse:
          I mean, if the power bill showed 1 million watts of consuming on a daily basis,
          then such a power bill would 100% support IH claims that the ecat does not
          produce power, right? In other words, the power bill AT LEAST does not contradict the ERV claims of COP of 50.
          So does this power bill “fit” within the claims of Rossi/ERV/Ecat, or does the power bill help IH’s case that the ecat does not work?

          Clearly the power bill supports Rossi and not IH.

          This power bill “alone” proves little, but overall it at least HELPS or collaborates Rossi and ERV claims.
          Perhaps a better way is to say this power bill at the very least does not contradict the ERV’s claim of a COP of 50.

          So this bill does not verify the ecat performance. And this power bill is still speculative. (it alone does not prove much since we know nothing about this industrial process occurring).

          However, as such the power bill does not contradict the ecat performance claims and in fact outright supports the ecat claim of performance. If we find out down the road that this power bill is legit, and it was from the customer site, and the customer verify that the used this energy, then in a instant this little bit of evidence becomes rather valuable and important collaborating evidence.

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Zephir

            Thank you for your reply, but I still don’t understand the logic of that bill, the logic of the claim “Clearly the power bill supports Rossi and not IH” the less.

            OK, some company testing E-Cat showed 1 million watts of consuming on a daily basis – but what does it prove? Such a consumption could be completely unrelated to E-Cat.

    • Michael W Wolf

      I was just answering a question.

    • Jarea

      With your logic, then the Panama papers, the wikileaks and all the leaks to reporters are non valid. We must discard them because they have been leaked.
      The problem is not on where the information come from but to identify and parse the data so that the facts showed in the documents can be demonstrated. For example, in the bill could appear names, addresses, dates and those can be independently tested to be coherent with the rest of the information.

  • Engineer48

    The IH developed & manufactured HotCat Dog Bone reactor was shipped by IH to a test team located in Lugano Switzerland. This was not a public commercial undertaking.

  • LION

    It is official–

  • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

    as he didnt put an space between — and http: it gets it wrong.

    • psi2u2


  • wpj

    It was available for a short time on Mats’ site but was taken down.

    • psi2u2

      Right, and no one has said that it proves a COP, only that it is consistent with Rossi’s claims of a high COP.

  • Ged

    That is a silly statement. Miami doesn’t have a winter (and both bills are from winter time anyways), and no one’s power bill goes from 300 to 1200 (4 times higher!) without a fundamental change to what is being done at such a location. There is plenty of information for anyone with a brain and common knowledge.

    • roseland67

      Sure it does, kWh and kW goes up and down drastically every day.
      That’s why it is metered.
      What is needed is how much production was run without the Ecat and how energy and power were used for this production, and
      How much production was run with the Ecat and how much energy and power were used.
      Production must be on a separate meter, NOT assuming a % of the main
      It’s simple really, I do this everyday for a giant global energy company.
      Without the above data, you, like warthog, are simply making assumptions to fit your argument.

      • Ged

        Err. You do know the customer set up the plant to produce whatever (if anything) only with the 1 MW reactor? There is no production without it.

        Yes, we need to know production to get COP, no one is saying otherwise. But your questions about before and after for energy use are already answered in the total energy bills (month before E-cat, month during E-cat; there you go). That is the most conservative view, yes, but also leaves no wiggle room for silliness. You are making false dichotomies for no purpose.

        • roseland67

          No, I don’t know that, everyone here assumes that, but no one knows that.

          • Ged

            Your reply makes no sense. Or perhaps, you are just uninformed?

    • roseland67

      See above, not silly

  • AdrianAshfield

    Another variant is that Rossi developed the Quark X after the original IP transfer, with his own money. If Rossi thought, by that time, that IH were not playing fair, he would not give them the IP for that later development/invention.

    • Brent Buckner

      I think that’s covered by AlainCo’s scenario. Per Section 13.4 of the License Agreement IH would have rights respective of “After Acquired/Developed Assets”. IH may have felt that Rossi was not being timely in transferring such IP.

      • US_Citizen71

        Only once it became an actual improvement that would be true, Rossi even stated that IH would be getting access to the IP. While it remains an experiment there is no need for transfer under the contract It appears that IH blew it by not paying.

        • Brent Buckner

          I see nothing in the License Agreement that specifies “actual improvement”. Section 13.4 appears to me to be quite broad; we’ll see what IH claims and how the court rules.

    • US_Citizen71

      That is my guess as well. It seemed publicly that all was well between IH and Rossi until he announced the E-Cat X/Quark X, even NCHawk seemed to support Rossi. I think the entire blowup is over the IP for the Quark X.

      • SG

        I agree this is probably where things went south. What is perplexing to me, however, is how IH has taken the somewhat extreme position that they could never substantiate anything at any time. And they have doubled down with statements from Mr. Weaver and leaks to Jed and others. Yet, they admit that they built the Lugano dog bone, filed patent applications based on the technology, persuaded other companies to invest millions–but never substantiated anything ever? It seems irreconcilable.

        • Mats002

          Company goal is to substansiate money – IH is probably correct that they could not and cannot with current situation.

        • psi2u2

          I don’t think they said this. They said they were “unable to substantiate,” but what it was they couldn’t substantiate is unclear and could mean many things. Since then leaked reports claim that the I MW plant performed at around cop 1, but this does not mean they were unable to substantiate other aspects of Rossi’s claims or technology.

          • SG

            It is the “all without success” language, which is very strong language, and a hard position to take, and which seems curious. Nevertheless, your point is well taken–what remains unsubstantiated is up in the air.

      • This fits with the Weaver records. He said something happened 4 months ago (now 5) that turned everything around. Among them ECatX, but also Brillouin on Capital Hill and Bill Gates talking about 10-15year … Maybe Apco.Gov got involved and Oil went down from $57 to $29, etc.

        I wrote about it:

        • Mats002

          Hi Siffer 😉 – what about Piantelli patent success? Rossi/IH disputed but lost as I understand. Is that also in correlation to when things went ‘south’? Many things added up the wrong way?

          • wpj

            The Piantelli patent does not cover LAH as the hydrogen source. Worst case senario is that the Rossi patent becomes a subset and may have to pay a fee (generally 5%) to Piantelli.

          • Omega Z

            You can’t patent lithium, nickel or any of these elements.

            What you can patent is devices and specific processes.
            And the average royalty is about 2%. 5% would be on the high side.

          • enantiomer2000

            And the farce continues…

          • US_Citizen71

            Yep all the APCO people like yourself continue to show up.

          • Engineer48

            Mats has electricity supply bills for JM Chemical Products Inc, at 7861 46th street Doral and a Google Street view shows a JM logo on the front door.

            Additionally as an engineer I can say there is no way IH would have installed a dual 1MW ECat reactor at that address and not involved the customer’s engineers in doing the interfacing of 1MW of steam to their production requirements and in running trials before going live.

            Any statement from IH or IH people that they had no knowledge of what the customer was doing with the 1MW of stream as just beyond belief. OK many here are not engineers or have experience with such installation and commissioning processes but to those who are, the IH statements can not be correct as the engineering involved in the installation and commissioning just doesn’t work that way.

            PLUS the Customer paid IH $1,000 per week for the 1MW of heat.

          • Zack Iszard

            Agreed, interfacing any mechanized system to 1000 kW of continuous steam flow would be quite an involved process. Of course, the details here would be contingent on the purchase agreement that JM made with IH for the 1 MW container.

            No phone answers is not surprising. If JM is aware of the internet, they are likely trying to keep their feet out of the fire. Caller ID has been around for decades!

            What does JM produce and who buys it?

          • I believe E-CatX and Brillouin actions are more important to. I believe that LENR reached a wider political audience in oct/nov than before. A controlled and managed roll out is prefered by Washington (ie. GS JPM etc). Rossi does not exactly fit into this scenario. So they started to flush him, but he probably saw it coming

          • Gerald

            Indeed this fits a scenario what is happening worldwide right now. The internet made it possible for us to follow it if you are open for it. 15 years ago they had probably cut the tree (Rossi), now they hide him and plant a lot of trees around him (distracting information). Let see how it all plays out, very interesting to follow no matter what the outcome will be. Lets hope all humanity will benifit and we all get along a little bit better.

          • US_Citizen71

            Hopefully they do not do as good a job as Britney Spears did hiding her Paparazzi up-skirt shots with her hair cutting crazy act or Frank’s blog will completely disappear in search results. PR on the web can make anything effectively disappear if you can get enough content created.

          • Gerald

            In the case of Britney, if you are open for it you can follow are probably not the best choice of words. 😉

            But you are right, PR can make the web misty. I wonder how younger people digest it. Myself i’m in the forties now and I love to google but I question everything I read.

            In the case of Rossi(or someone else) and Lenr I think he probably has something, just because the moves the big companies made and Lenr just makes sense. Metals only forced in stars just doesn’t make sense to me, not where we find them.

            I still remember the 1989 news, I was very happy and thinking this is good for everyone. i was young and didn’t know what kept the world turning. Now i know its mostly money and a sure outcome. I think its not bad, the only thing I don’t like is that science is to commercial. There should not be borders in thinking of scientists. In general that’s the problem with Lenr, old people do the job (gradeful for it) but it should be the youngsters kicking in.

          • US_Citizen71

            The Britney thing use to be cited in seminars on hiding bad reviews etc. for websites. I have no idea if it is true that the whole hair cutting craziness was an act but regardless within 24 hours all you could find on any search about her for 30-40 pages deep on search result pages concerned her freakout. The internet can be manipulated but it takes tons of content. I hope that those growing up today understand how malleable the information they see on the web really is.

          • psi2u2

            I think the main point of the survey is to determine whether opinions have been changed on Rossi as a result of the lawsuit. So far it looks like most Rossi “believers” who have taken the survey still believe in him despite the lawsuit. Maybe Patrick can clarify this. He was not trying to establish whether the e-cat works or some such nonsense — which, as you say, would be ridiculous — but to measure the “before” and “after” lawsuit attitudes of e-cat world readers.

          • Omega Z

            Just a thought—

            All is well. THEN, E-cat Quark.

            Previously, All things E-cat require power players and turbine generators. Yes, some may go off grid if willing to except the higher cost, But most would opt for cheap localized grid power and the convience. N-R-G concerns still exist.

            E-cat Quark. Direct power without large turbine generators. Should they obtain reliabilty as in install and forget, Most of society could go off grid. Big Energy is mostly extinct.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Yea, but Rossi will have to prove a breach of contract in court, for him told hold back the IP. I think it is more of a technicality Rossi is using. IP? this Quark X of mine is still in R&D. Hehe, so technically, Rossi isn’t breaching.

    • clovis ray

      or he with to apply for a patent for his ecatxq and found there was one already,on fill with his name on it, how would you think he would feel about that. NO, I/H is out, game over for them, they can pis_ on the fire and call the dogs,

  • Argon

    Would you be satisfied on wording ” electric bill is at least not proving Rossi’s claims to be wrong”.

    • psi2u2

      It is consistent with his claims, and therefore counts as “evidence,” but it is certainly not proof. It would be wise to observe the difference here.

  • Frank Acland

    Mats added this comment about the bill that he received:

    “Added (April 25): There was a handwritten note on the bill saying: ‘~1MWh/day, COP 24’.
    This could mean that the 28 day statement referred to a situation where electricity was consumed only for about seven days of effective operation in that period.”

    • Nigel Appleton

      I should have thought it meant “we’re consuming 1 MWh per day, and producing a constant 1MW output ,(i.e. the design output of 24 MWh per day), therefore the COP is 24”

  • Rossi Fan

    Should have looked at the March 2014 bill to compare. It is available on this website:

    Wow 0 kwh consumed! They must have been on to cold fusion much earlier than we thought.

    • Curbina

      Can you point out where the Energy consumption is listed there? I just see informationabout Howard Johnson there.

      • Rossi Fan

        It’s right there. The March 2014 bill. Psyche!

        The point is It’s a fly by night startup that did not exist in March 2014, ergo 0kwh energy usage.

        • Ged

          The building would still have had energy usage.

          • Rossi Fan

            Again not the point. I have followed this forum for years. Not so much to see if cold fusion exists, but to solve a riddle. If it is a fraud, how will Rossi exit? If he settles with IH in exchange for permanent NDA what will happen with the company with the large energy bill? Thank you for solving the riddle. It will fold just as fast as it was created. The sole purpose of the company most probably was to test the e-cat.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Ok you solved it. so leave and solve other frauds. You have no business here anymore, right? I mean why would you come back if you already solved it?

          • Rossi Fan

            Why would you come back if you already solved it?

            Elementary my dear Watson. If it is a big scam then it should all be over soon. Without Rossi there really is no field of LENR. I can go back to reading greentechmedia and not feel guilty.

          • Engineer48

            Maybe research using the proper name?

          • Rossi Fan

            This document is from 2001. LENR as we know it was not even around at that time.

          • US_Citizen71

            No the document is in compliance with an executive order dated September 23rd 2001. Read instead of just scanning it.

          • Engineer48

            So you didn’t really read the document? 2001 is the date of Executive Order 13224. I published the document to show the correct name for the IH customer of the 1MW plant test as referred to in the rest of the complaint document.

          • psi2u2

            “Without Rossi there really is no field of LENR.”

            Wow, you have really not been paying attention in class.

          • bachcole


            To be a Shakespearean scholar is to be, ipso facto, a Shakespearean professor, isn’t it? (:->)

          • psi2u2

            In this I guess so. 😉

          • Rossi Fan

            I have a better idea. Why don’t you ask Rossi to ask JM to do a public demo for E-Cat VIPs (Frank’s pick) at JM (fill in the blanks) Corporation? It is not like the device is a big secret anymore.

          • Engineer48

            As far as I know, the plant was manufactured and installed at the customer’s site by IH, who I would suggest also own the plant. Rossi has stated Leonardo supplied nothing but advise. So IH apparently loaded their reactors with their formulated fuel.

            If you would like to see another test run, I suggest you get in contact with the plant’s owner IH, who I suggest are more than competent to do such a retest.

          • Ged

            I think you miss the point, and the point of this entire thread. The building will have a baseline energy use. With the 1 MW E-cat plant it’ll have a new energy use. The question is, how much is that new energy use ($1266 worth) compared to baseline ($309 worth), and then how does that compare to the amount of energy released from the 1 MW plant (is it equal, more, less than the energy use increase of the building?). There is no riddle, no mystery, this is simple math. I don’t know why you and some other commentators are having so much trouble with this.

          • psi2u2

            I think you are asking the wrong question. The real question is the reality of the parent company that spun off the Company to engage in the test, and what that entity is willing to say (and when) about the results of the test and whether it is true, as Rossi claims, that they are purchasing three more plants, to be installed in the next 180 working days. If these things are true, then the disposition of what was clearly a company set up for the purposes of limiting liability for the test and maintaining a legal wall is not relevant.

        • Michael W Wolf

          Well isn’t that what Cherokee did when that set up IH as a shell company? If that is your standard IH is fly by night IP thieves. Right?

    • Engineer48

      The electrical energy account was issued to:
      “JM Chemical Products Corp.” & not the entity you made reference.

  • LION

    try this.——

  • Alex Fenrick

    Clovis if he wishes to use anything in the Piantelli patent in the related countries he sure does. Did you miss all the news about this patent situation?!?!

    • wpj

      It depends if Rossi can show a substantial improvement, in which case he would be a free agent. A 1MW plant against a 100w test bed might be sufficient.

    • clovis ray

      where did you get that he is using anything of Piantilli’s

      • Alex Fenrick

        Clovis…please do some research on the situation with the Piantilli patent and Rossi. I don’t want to rehash it all as it was already discussed in numerous places with little or no conjecture on that specific topic.

  • NT

    I also responded to his earlier statement with, as yet, no reply…

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Maryyugo who I think is a paid propagandist said IH is going to settle suit.

    • Ged

      That would mean IH can’t win.

      • Engineer48

        Someone living in Miami or nearby needs to visit the building and check it out.

    • Curbina

      You have To take in account that Mary Yugo is against LENR in general and has always stated that IH were fools for dealing with Rossi, so he is talking about what she hopes.

      • If MY says IH will settle, the opposite is almost certainly the case. Perhaps Hody is attempting to lure AR into a false sense of security.

    • Roland

      I’m still fascinated by the psychology of an elderly man named George Hody choosing to combine the name of the most famous biblical woman in the new testament and a failed Soviet automotive company that built horrible cars in his ‘nom de guerre’.

      Perhaps the immediate revulsion the name generates in me is intended to be emotionally transferred on to whomever he’s attacking today…

      So, is George’s internet name the result exhaustive profiling for emotional resonances by expert propagandists or merely a symptom of an underlying mental disorder?

      • Omega Z

        By Consensus,
        Both the Former and the Later. 🙂

      • Bernie Koppenhofer


  • At the delicate stage of the game maybe Rossi prefers that his clients sign an NDA before he releases details about what he can offer and when. And maybe Engineer48 complied as he’s serious about placing this order.

  • Engineer48

    I sent a private email to Andrea Rossi and asked him if it was true the warehouse unit occupied by his 1MW customer JM Chemical Products Inc was available for lease as the internet seems to indicate. His reply was very clear:


    Thank you Andrea Rossi for your very clear reply.

    • psi2u2

      This is easily confirmed or contradicted I would think through a local real estate agent.

  • Engineer48

    My clients need 600C steam, to drive 750MWe of subcritical steam turbines, which is not yet available.

    They are very experienced in dealing with high temp and high pressure steam and to them building a trial 10MWt system is not a biggie.

    As an interim, they are investigating ways they can use 10MWt of 105C steam as a learning pathway to fully understand the dynamics of the ECat black box as to how to control the reactors when dynamically changing loads are placed on them.

  • Engineer48

    Front door at 7861 46th Street Doral Florida.

    Just a few locks on that front door plus all the windows are blacked out. Some sort of logo on the front door.

  • Engineer48

    Got it.
    JM logo is clearly seen on the door.

  • Engineer48
  • SG

    I really hope this case does not settle any time soon. That would be a near tragedy. Okay, maybe not a tragedy, but it would be bad for the LENR+ community in my opinion.

    • We’re not doing too well on optimum outcomes just now.

  • Engineer48

    One point to consider with the 1MWt ECat plant is the primary coolant flowing through the reactors is probably not water / steam. More than likely it is a heat exchanger fluid that stays liquid over the operational range and warms the primary circuit of a heat exchanger designed to generate steam in the secondary circuit at the temp and pressure required by the customer.

    If a non boiling primary circuit fluid is used, then doing the flow measurements and coolant temp rise from input to ECat to input to heat exchanger should be fairly simple as the issue of dry versus wet stream does not factor into the thermal gain versus electrical input to the ECat measurements.

    Of course the ERV could also monitor the thermal content in the steam, giving him 4 data streams. MWe input to the reactor, MWt out from ECat (input into heat exchanger) – MWt into ECat from returned coolant from the heat exchanger & MWt steam output from the heat exchanger’s secondary circuit.

    There are much better fluids than water to act as coolant and drive a heat exchanger. As example cars gave away water as their coolant a long time ago.

  • wpj

    See update #40

    Rossi speak says the unit is being recharged and Frank speculated that “production” would continue. Seems a bit stupid to continue with it if it is a scam.

    Maybe the “client”, if they are purchasing more units, wants information with the correct charge (update #41) and with their own people operating it rather than it being baby sat by the inventor.

  • I’m in the UK – it would seem a bit odd if I enquired I think. The time difference might also be inconvenient, depending on Wright’s office hours.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Very interesting discussion on LENR Forum, go to the subject “Lugano performance recalculated – the baseline for replications”. They are questioning Thomas Clarke’s calculations regarding Lugano report.

    • SG

      And quite telling that Mr. Ekstrom’s sole hypothesis for the Li isotopic shifts is “planting.” In other words, slight of hand.

  • rd
  • wpj

    Rossi says it isn’t and is still in use by the client. See “Enginer 48″‘s posts as he is in direct contact with Rossi.

    • MisterMittens

      I guess I don’t understand, If Rossi say the location is still in use by his client, than why is showing up as available for rent:

      Did I get the address wrong? Is the web listing wrong? Or is Rossi wrong?

      Does anyone here live within driving range, if so they could visit the location and that would end much of the speculation.

      • Engineer48

        You really believe what you read from the net?

        Some sites are generated by bots that search for rentals to drag you in and get you to contact the agent so he can “talk” to you.

  • Patrick Ellul

    New 10 second survey. Anonymous but requires you to log in to block spammers from multiple responses:

    • Patrick Ellul
      • Timar

        I think there should be a middle-ground between “a good chance” and “very little chance”. Such as “a moderate chance”. For those people like me who like sitting on a fence 😉

        • psi2u2

          Agreed. I find myself in this position also. Since the IH partnership was for me a major factor in Rossi’s continued credibility, I have gone from “a good chance” to “a moderate chance.”

  • Frank Acland

    Please post those questions on the JONP here:

  • builditnow

    Interesting address:
    Google has the same address with 2 different zip codes
    7861 NW 46th St, Doral, Florida 33166 . A business / light industrial building divided about 4 businesses in early 2014 according to google street view (some question as to the accuracy of the date of google photo.)
    7861 NW 46th St, Doral, Florida 33178 A condo in “Valencia Condominiums”

    An ideal address to create confusion so we don’t find the real location?

  • radius11

    Took the pictures on April 28th, 2016. The time was around 4:40PM. I was in the neighborhood. 🙂
    I wonder if this will be the new Kittyhawk. Enjoy 🙂

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks very much Raidius — I’ve started a new thread with these photos on it, I would think probably there will be some questions for you there.

  • Zack Iszard

    This facility is a small commercial/industrial spot. I work in a similar space with 16-foot ceilings, multiple offices, and 9000 sq feet. We could easily fit two shipping containers within the facility, and our garage dock would fit them too.

    As far as the energetics go, 1,000 kW is an aweful lot of power. I’m too lazy to math how much that would heat the interior of this facility that JM appears to occupy.

  • Engineer48

    Rossi told me the 1MW customer was still at 7861 46th Doral and the warehouse unit was not for rent.

  • Ged

    The reactor runs 24/7, so the split between night and day is meaningless. You also fail in that night and day cost differences won’t change -per month-. Cost is how much energy was truly used, and we have a before and after. You are simply digging yourself deeper here.

    What we don’t have and still need is the production–then we can finally compare production output with consumption for a COP.

  • Ged

    No, we are not guessing. This information comes from the legal documents submitted by Rossi and contract with IH, and from Rossi himself. If this information is false, then Rossi has committed perjury among other things; so for the purposes of the discussion it is vital to assume the legal details are accurate–as a benchmark to evaluate against.