Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

The following post has been submitted by Josh G

With all confusion and back-and-forth over the Rossi-Industrial Heat imbroglio, it’s hard to cut through the thick layer of fog. I’m going to try to do it by zeroing in on some key questions regarding IH’s behavior:

A poster on Mats Lewan’s An Impossible Invention site known as nckhawk (though to be a Tom Darden business associate and IH investor named Dewey Weaver) has stated that when IH says they have “worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success,” it means they have never, not even once, been able to get the E-Cat to produce excess heat.

Here is an excerpt from a nckhawk post on Mats Lewans’ blog: “It was only after replications attempts failed to produce ANY results that the doubts began to creep in. IH didn’t want a 1MW reactor but Rossi insisted. IH offered substantial sums of money for Rossi to produce 10 watts and/or 100 watts of excess power from a single characterized and verified reactor as an alternative to the insanity of the 1MW test.”

(see: https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/20/lets-join-forces-to-bring-out-the-truth-on-rossi-ih-affair/#comment-5016)

In another comment on the same thread, Jed Rothwell writes: “The word “substantiate” is a little unclear, but they told me it means the thing did not work. There was no significant excess heat.” But since they were talking about 3 years of efforts, this implies that they were never able to observe significant excess heat from any version of the e-cat, not just the 1MW plant.

In that case, the following questions demand an answer:

1. They spent a good deal of manpower and money on R&D to develop and produce a new iteration of the e-cat, which they sent to Lugano for testing. If they had never gotten Rossi’s older version of e-cat to work, why invest a dime in R&D and manufacturing a new version?

2. If they never got an e-cat to work, why on Earth would they agree to give Rossi the go-ahead on the 1MW test? Apparently he insisted, so maybe they couldn’t stop him. But why would they willingly spend a dime of their own money to pay for (at least) 2 technicians, as well as 1/2 the costs of the ERV plus who knows what other expenses? If Darden thought the e-cat didn’t work, his willingness to go along with the test AND fork over money for it shows very poor business acumen and a shocking carelessness with his investors’ money.

3. If they caught Penon and Rossi early on trying to engage in fraud by switching flowmeters (as Weaver has alleged in the same thread on Mats’ blog), then why on Earth would IH continue a test (which they were paying for half of + personnel + who knows what else) when they had just caught Rossi and Penon red-handed trying to commit fraud?!? That doesn’t sound like due diligence to me! It makes Darden look like an easy mark. As George Bush the Younger once said, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice … you can’t get fooled again!”

4. If they never got the e-cat to work, then they also had no reason to believe the 1MW plant worked or that the test would be successful. But according to Rossi (and apparently he can document this for the court), IH had Woodford and the Chinese and who knows who else visit the 1MW plant as part of their effort to raise investment capital. We don’t know at this point if the reason they invested in IH is because of the e-cat (though Woodford capital says they spent 2 1/2 years on due diligence, so we assume that was the primary reason they were investing, since that was IH’s first investment). If true, this means that although Darden had no reason to think the e-cat worked, he went about raising money for it anyway on the pretense that it did work. That sounds borderline fraudulent to me.

5. If they have no reason to think the e-cat works, then why file a patent on the e-cat claiming to get a COP of 11? Did they just make that number up? Pull it out of a hat? Lawyers are expensive and filing patents costs a lot of money. Why would they pay all that money to file several patents if the technology is bunk?

I just don’t see any logical explanation for any of IH’s actions, other than that they do think the technology works. They might not be able to get it to work as well as they want it to, or as well as Rossi can, and so they may have withheld the final payment until Rossi gives away all his secrets. (Hermano Tobia has some interesting things to say in this regard in that same thread on Mats’ blog). But for IH to say it never worked is simply illogical and absurd, unless we are to believe that they are incompetent businessmen who have tried to defraud their investors and flush their money down the drain. I simply don’t see how they can have it both ways.

Josh G

  • Ged

    I certainly agree with you.

    Woodford could bring IH to court for criminal fraud if IH tries to stick to this story that it “never worked”. Similarly, if IH found Rossi and Penon committing fraud yet didn’t stop it or report it, they are accomplices and criminally liable too (since they took investor money).

    It is also irrational to claim Rossi filed suit to delay, as it only exposes him to criminal prosecution if he was committing fraud and IH can show it (though, again, IH is in deep trouble if that is the case and they never reported it).

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Woodford did due dalliance, and IH will state the same. It is only later on they will testify that doubts about the tests and information they had occurred. This also would explain them hedging their bets on Brillion.

      • Ged

        That doesn’t fly if they stick with the “it never worked” excuse. They can only claim that for the first round of initial funding to find out if it worked or not originally (Cherokee’s money used to create IH for this purpose), but not for subsequent rounds of investor funds predicated on that it did work (Woodford, China, etc).

        They did due dilligence? They made their own reactors and know the results over the span of 3 years. They would known the answer to if it worked or not long before now (particularly early with the 1 year test!), doubts would have been within months, and they would have known it didn’t work before they ever got more funding. It is their job to know if it did or not before getting more rounds of outside funding of tens of millions. Worst, they had milestones with payouts that were passed, and millions of dollars of investor money dispersed based on that.

        So if it never worked, IH committed criminal fraud. Even more so if one takes NCkhawk’s schizophrenic comments as truth about IH catching Rossi and Penon in the act of fraud in the 1 year test. Plenty of time to have stopped the test, reported Rossi, and protected investor money as is legally required of them. And they didn’t.

        So it seems either IH are accomplices to criminal fraud, or they are lying about the e-cat “never have worked.”

        • Axil Axil

          What is the definition of “never worked”

          COP > 3 ? or COP < 1?

          • Ged

            Good question! If we base it on their contract with Rossi, to avoid payout to Rossi as per the contract, the COP would have to be less than 2.6, I believe it is.

            So that would have to be their claim’s threshold.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          I was only making the claim that they did have tests and results that they believed at the start. And later on they doubted those test results. This would explain much of IH’s action.

          However, the “sticking” point you note about IH having the information to build and test reactors is a MOST fair point. This fact leaves MUCH less wiggle room for IH to simply state they went along based on Rossi’s claims. This would be difficult to “sell” to the public given they had such information all along which would allow them to prove (or dis-prove) the ecat.

          Its possible IH did not build additional test devices because they had monthly ERV reports stating of fantastic performance, and thus why bother to build additional devices? I mean ONE MONTH after running the 1MW plant, IH would be well aware of the high COP and would be dancing a happy tune of what they purchased.

          Regardless, IH had the IP required to build and test devices all along, it just not known if they acted or did much with the information until such time they became suspicious.

          Darden did speak at the cold fusion conference in April 2015. Is this BEFORE or AFTER he would have seen the first ERV report (they had monthly updates?)

          Well, if Darden spoke after receiving 1 ERV report, then he should have been ecstatic, and would not simply stated LENR shows promise at ICCF19. This would suggest Darden “believed” the reactor was a super winner – but his action thus where clearly to slow down or thwart LENR???

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Ged

            There are many shades of gray between a “perfectly working COP of 50 ready to mass produce reactor” and the suicidal-to-IH “never worked” extremes, so many more scenarios pop out, exactly as you point to.

            There is so much weirdness going on, we’ll have to see what IH’s actual published defense turns out to be (unless they have none, and settle out of court). You are a very astute commentator and have great ideas, and I look forward to seeing how your analysis evolves as we get more information.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            I will say we need more information. I also think we “may” be miss-interpreting IH’s position in that they flat out don’t believe the ecat works. I think it more “grey”, and it certainly possible that IH can’t produce the high COP results, and thus they can’t substance the ERV report because they never seen a COP of 50. So someone stating that IH thinks the ERV report is wrong, or they can’t substance the ERV report is NOT necessary IH saying they never re-produced LENR.
            I suspect (and hope) IH’s position will turn out to be exactly this.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Anon2012_2014

    “I just don’t see any logical explanation for any of IH’s actions, other than that they do think the technology works.”

    How about IH thought (past tense) it worked in 2012-2014, but upon further analysis, perhaps by additional experts, decided it did not actually work.

    Rossi I believe still thinks it works. So we have a difference on one fact (unit performs at COP>3 or not). This is sufficient for a trial of fact. If we are lucky we will see played out publicly before a court appointed third party expert and then ruled upon by the Court (either by judge or jury).

    If the Court finds that it works, then it works legally. Then, LENR is a legal fact. If the Court finds it works, no one can say legally it does not work. How good would that be for LENR?

    So for this trial — Bring it on!

    • Ged

      Here here! No settlements for us, please.

  • timycelyn

    I find these arguments convincing. Taken with some of the other IH pronouncements, they really do not paint a picture of smooth PR spin, as might be expected to be the hallmark of APCO who are assumed to be involved and handling this issue.

    Instead, they seem amateur and cack-handed. Contradicting themselves, almost falling over their own feet.

    I have no explanation for this, but am puzzled by the contradiction. I suppose it poses the question “How sure are we that APCO is on the case?”

    Tim

    • SG

      IH’s positions do seem curiously disjointed and contradictory. Then again, it is pretty tough to marshal the facts in the complicated area of LENR. Perhaps LENR is out of APCO’s league? And then you have to try and keep the talking points consistent across the various leaks, IH investors, and the like. Maybe they are trying their best, but just coming across to the LENR community as shifty? They make Mr. Rossi seem like a saint (which of course, he isn’t).

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Everything is pointing to negotiated settlement to Rossi’s lawsuit: Probably a settlement that is not made public.

    • Ged

      Good news for Rossi, and would support his case.

    • Buck

      The question of the hour: does Rossi want the $89M or does he want to cut IH out of the business, voiding the license?

      Personally, I hold the position that IH is no longer a good partner. Therefore, void the license.

  • Jerry Soloman

    Dewey Weaver is a loose canon and has openly demonstrated the extent that the Industrial Heat organization will go to control the Rossi Effect.

  • Bob

    Did you read Marianne Macy’s article, giving her personal, real life and LONG term experience with Rossi and with Darden? Have you done ANY research on Darden or Cherokee? If not you should.
    .
    You should put more weight to historical factors and known events than assumptions from one source and unconfirmed blog posts! I can write a post that mirrors yours but puts Rossi in the same situation!.
    .
    Why did not Rossi sue back in 2014 when the patents were filed? Was he just milking the cow for all they were worth?
    Why did not Rossi stop the 1 MW test as soon as he expected such evil workings. IH were paying for the tests. Was Rossi just stealing their RD funds?
    Why did not Rossi use a firm like SRI to be the ERV? (See the Macy article when a support willing to put up 15 million wanted to use Ed Storm to do the testing, what happened?) It would have removed ANY doubt, but he always requires individuals with past association. No, he was not going to use ANY reputable firm for sure!
    Why has Rossi not been able to provide ONE test that proves ANY excess heat? (Lugano? Hardly. Which test?)
    … I could go on as well.
    .
    The truth is we do not know any of the “facts” you list above are facts! The Macy article states Darden used ONLY his personal funds, not Woodford nor anyone else’s. How do you put that into the evil scheme? His history and current work with other respected scientists is above reproach. Yet a post of “Rossi says” is enough to judge and convict him immediately.?!.
    .
    Below “Vos” states that Rossi has good reason to call them snakes! It is ludicrous to make judgment based upon “Rossi says”!. I have been hearing for 5 years of robots and factories, of certifications, warm cats, hot cats, light poles, 1mw plants, secret customers, xCats, QuarkX and now direct electrical production, direct thrust, direct light production….. A lot of talk but no evidence!
    .
    How can some here swallow direct electrical production without even a raised eyebrow and without question and yet accuse Darden of being a greedy, criminal snake! How can they ignore the facts of Darden’s past and be blind to the continual actions of Rossi? What do people base this thought process on?
    .
    I for one hold Darden innocent until proven guilty. There is much evidence from MANY sources that indicate he is not a “greedy criminal”. I will hold Rossi innocent until proven guilty in spite of his checkered past, his inability to have worked with any respected company long term, his PROVEN record of making BIG TALK but never PRODUCING anything!. Nothing! Name me one thing that can be absolutely substantiated!
    .
    Yes, I recognize my tone is quite irritated! NO I am not a paid IH supported, that theory is plain stupid. It just irks me that some here are so fast to crucify one person while worshipping the ground that another walks on! This has become a religion! 🙁

    • SG

      You speak with more religious fervor than any I have seen post on ECW. But, listen, you bring up some good points, and I think that most are trying in good faith to get to the bottom of this. The stakes are high. And for this reason, the spin is prevalent. When I take an honest look at the circumstances, I see more inconsistencies with IH’s position than I do with Leonardo’s. Have we received all of IH’s side of the story? Probably not. And we probably haven’t received all of Leonardo’s side of the story either, and I suspect good records have been kept on both sides.

      Will we be able to draw better conclusions as the lawsuit takes its natural course? Yes, assuming there is no settlement. I hope this dispute is not settled. I’d rather see it go all the way and bring some sunshine in to clear the fog.

    • Ciaranjay

      Well said. We have lots of opinions but very few verifiable facts.
      But conspiracy theorists only need a few.
      Rossi puts out his side, so it seems more complete.
      We have heard little concrete informatin from IH.
      There are key pieces missing.
      I suspect like most things it will make sense and be quiet simple when it all comes out. Of course it would be entirely possible that a deal will happen before the court case and then Rossi will continue in his secretive way for another few years.

  • priestie

    Is it possible, that IH just couldn’t deliver the $89M, and in fear of loosing their piece of the cake, for not honoring their side of the deal, they are simply trying to delay things, by claiming AR didn’t deliver as agreed, to buy time to find the capital (and spooking other investors by claiming non-delivery by AR)?
    Risky strategy for sure, but what else can they do, if they are $89M short?

    • timycelyn

      Remember -Cherokee’s money seems to be haemorrhageing in all directions in the last year or so…. Perhaps it wasn’t there when they needed to pay….

    • NT

      “but what else can they do”. Hmmm, they could try talking it out reasonably with Rossi. Did they try, or just let the clock run out and hope Rossi would not act – not very business like for so-called professionals?

  • Albert D. Kallal

    A possible explain of IH’s actions are they believed the ecat worked at the start, and then over time realized they been deceived. In other words, at the start they forked over money, did some
    tests and were convinced they had something of value. This would also explain
    spending money on patents etc.

    And then over time, they realized that they had nothing. So in this light, their initial actions and efforts makes sense. This would also support those allowing customers etc. to see the working
    1MW plant. And thus they did raise money in good faith based on what they
    considered due diligence. So based on initial findings IH likely believed in
    the ecat.

    So “now” that IH thinks the plant don’t work also makes sense in regards to not handing over 90 million. However, earlier actions makes perfect sense.

    Of course the above is speculation. If claims are correct that IH built and supplied the dog bone reactor for the Lugano report, then I have to assume that IH “thought” at first the Lugano test was
    valid – and again this supports IH’s actions at that point in time (and again
    would be considered due diligence). However, there has been “doubts” cast on
    the Lugano test, and now IH may have doubts about the Lugano test.

    So one can spin this either way, but in the above light, then IH actions makes sense.

    This actually puts a VERY high value on the Lugano test and results. If that 3rd party test and results are considered high value, then IH’s position is confusing. However, doubts “later on” about
    the Lugano test would much explain IH’s position.

    That 3rd party test is really the only external validation and report we seen. I not spent time looking at
    objections to that 3rd party test, and perhaps it time to do so.

    As for Penon, he may well have measured what he measured in good faith. On the other hand, with 90 million in the pipeline, it rather easy to co-op someone in that position for a few million. However, I think it unfair of me to speculate such dishonesty, and I apologize for doing so. At this point in time, I still give all people involved benefit that they are telling the truth. That being the case, IH honestly don’t believe the ecat works, and Rossi honestly does. One of them is right, and the other is wrong.

    As per a few comments below, a public trial would indeed be rather good for Rossi and LENR (or very bad). This is rather high stakes, and a pubic trial would not really be much about Ross vs IH, but a trial of LENR.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Josh G

      Here is my response from Mats’ blog to someone who had a similar response:

      “Your answer assume that IH only started testing the e-cat themselves very late in the game. I don’t see any reason to go with that assumption, and many to go against it. To name just one — After they forked over the second payment of 10 million dollars, Rossi is said to have given them his IP and shipped them the e-cat. Don’t you think they would have been eager to take out their new toy and play with it a bit? In your scenario, they had it in their lab but never tested it out for themselves. They just relied on the previous testing. They spent a great deal of manpower and money to develop a new model (the Lugano model), but instead of testing it out themselves to see if it performed similarly to the $10 million they had bought, they just shipped a few over to Lugano and crossed their fingers? Nah. Sorry. Doesn’t make sense. They didn’t just develop a new model without many iterations of testing and checking to see if all all their modifications were OK.

      “Just how “late in the game” do you think they began to realize that if they couldn’t get it to work, it probably doesn’t work? It couldn’t have been all that late. According to Rossi, there was a year long delay in getting the 1MW test started due to IH not finding anyone. All that time, according to Weaver, IH was begging him to prove it works. Under your assumptions, they never tried to get one working themselves and relied on the Lugano test. Why would they have been pressuring Rossi to show that it works all that time?”

    • SG

      Some nice speculation there, but if true, then IH are incompetent at best. With direct access to the internals and details of the reactor, it would not take 2-3 years to come to the conclusion that it does not work. You would know pretty quickly, as even Mary Yugo has pointed out thousands of times around the “series of tubes” known as the Internet.

      • Frank Acland

        I don’t know that they have said explicitly the E-Cat doesn’t work. They have said they haven’t been able to substantiate Rossi’s claims.

        We know that they contracted with Fabio Penon to do a Validation test on an E-Cat Plant and after that test they paid Rossi $10 million, so they must have seen something that impressed them. And they have filed 2 patents for the E-Cat, one of which claims a COP of 11.

        It indicates that at one point at least they were satisfied that the E-Cat worked.

        • SG

          Yes, that is a main question. Josh G suggests in his main post that IH means that they were never able to replicate, ever. If in fact, they were satisfied that it worked at one point (which is possible), then that doesn’t square with their recent “leaks” to Jed and others, and by way of nckhawk. That is one of the things that frustrates me with IH: the inconsistencies.

          • Ged

            And their patent of their own Lugano design (made by IH, not Rossi) claims COP 11, which not even Lugano came close to claiming. So from whence did that come and why did IH claim that COP on their own device if it didn’t work? Just doesn’t make sense with what we currently know.

        • Michel Vandenberghe

          If you have a COP11 but another people has a COP50, COP11 value is 0. If you have a COP50 – with heat but another poeple has electricity…

        • Albert D. Kallal

          I agree. The key part is “at one point in time”. However, will admit SG has a really good point. It not that IH had to “believe” all these people on their word – IH had access to materials and could test any of these devices with relative ease. I find it hard to think that something more then the 3rd party test occurred. The 24 hour tests with Penon are fine too (but if later on they don’t trust Penon, then that again explains reasons for doubts). However, this does not invalidate SG’s point that they had ample chance to verify these devices since they had the ability to build their own. This is a perplexing issue and point.
          R
          Albert

  • Jonnyb

    The Carrier has turned to Titanic.

  • Industrial Heats problem maybe that without Rossi, they have been unsuccessful in replicating his e-cats in a way that they are happy with. Who cares?! Industrial Heat is looking like idiots anyway they try to spin it. This is why they need a public relations firm. If IH was telling the truth all they would have to do is have Rossi sell a few 1MW plants to customers in Europe and let them tell the world that they don’t work. Better yet, have a team of independent people connect a few 1MW Ecat plants in random places, turn it on and see if it works. This is not difficult. No lawsuit needed. But IH will not go the easy route because it actually works.

  • Axil Axil

    Without verifying the timing, Rossi got the 10 million before the Mouse/Cat technology was perfected. This means that the 10 million was paid for a LENR system that produced a low COP of 3 of less.

    Rossi then invented the self sustain mode using the Cat/Mouse. Rossi did not reveal this tech until it was patented. IH never got the SSM mode and associated high COP. IH wants the high COP tech.

    • SG

      Interesting conjecture. There does seem to be a weakness though: apparently the Lugano dog bone had an SSM mode available, which they chose not to use (mistake in my opinion). But if it had an SSM mode, and IH built the dog bone, then wouldn’t that mean that IH had access to the SSM tech?

      But, ignoring that weakness, and assuming your conjecture is true, then both sides should re-negotiate the license: put the $89 million in escrow, the release of which is contingent on a one week test of the high COP tech. A panel of three disinterested scientists will monitor the test, and produce a report. Neither Leonardo nor IH representatives allowed to be present on the testing premises during the test. The report will have two checkboxes indicating which entity receives the funds from escrow: IH or Leonardo. A majority (e.g., 2/3) of the disinterested scientists will decide which check box gets checked.

      • Axil Axil

        There does seem to be a weakness though: apparently the Lugano dog bone had an SSM mode available, which they chose not to use (mistake in my opinion). But if it had an SSM mode, and IH built the dog bone, then wouldn’t that mean that IH had access to the SSM tech?

        No

        The SSM requires a number of unpowered drone reactors identical to the activator. The control box had SSM control logic installed but no drone reactors were supplied for the Lugano test.

        • SG

          “We also chose not to induce the ON/OFF power input mode used in the March 2013 test, despite the fact that we had been informed that the reactor was capable of operating under such conditions for as long a time as necessary” Page 7, Lugano Report.

          There is no mention of un-supplied drone reactors in the report. Where did you hear this?

          • Axil Axil

            Rossi describes the SSM n his Blog multiple times and the role drone reactors play in SSM. Rossi’s description of a drone shows no such part in the Lugano test.

          • SG

            Just did a backsearch, and the only drones ever mentioned on Mr. Rossi’s blog are references to actual flying drones. Is there another keyword I can search for?

          • Axil Axil

            Drone is my word. Rossi’s terms are activator, mouse, cat. ssm.

          • SG

            But do we know the dimensions of the mouse/activator? There is nothing to suggest in the Lugano report that the SSM was not available, and fact, quite the opposite all indications based on the express language of the report indicate that it was structurally and functionally available. And they had even *used* the SSM mode in their March 2013 short-term test prior to the long-term Lugano test.

          • Axil Axil
          • SG

            Nice. But I’m still sure the Lugano dog bone had the SSM mode available, and the Lugano testers decided not to use it.

          • Axil Axil

            Rossi would not have allowed the SSM mode to be revealed without that IP being protected by a patent either in part or on the whole.

          • Brent Buckner
          • SG

            The patent applications that discuss SSM mode were filed prior to the Lugano test.

          • Axil Axil

            I did not know that. Do you have a link to that patent. It is not the Hot cat patent, is it?

          • SG

            Yes, U.S. 9,115,913, with priority date of March 14, 2012, and also pending international application (publication No. WO2016018851A1) with priority date of August 1, 2014. Great stuff in both, with more interesting disclosure in WO2016018851 regarding anode/cathode and electric field to cause direct current through fuel. The replicators should really shift their attention to these two.

      • Brent Buckner

        Who would make and fuel the test reactor?

      • “from the 13 families that ”

        I have always wondered, how does ‘new money’ get inducted into this upper echelon of ‘rulers?

        Ppl like Gates and Buffet … and the twitter guy ..

    • Michel Vandenberghe

      Yes

      • Ophelia Rump

        Lugano worked. I read the report.

        IH never came out and said that the report was a fraud. Wouldn’t that have been the time to break off relations?

        • Axil Axil

          What COP is required for a successful working reactor?

          COP = 2.6

          • Ophelia Rump

            1.05

          • Alex Fenrick

            While 1.05 would technically be a successful working reactor…it would definitely not be commercially viable for most companies…especially those that cannot have downtime in power supply. While a successfully working reactor is very important in the research of LENR, commercially viable is the important factor in this particular circumstance.

          • Anon2012_2014

            The contract had a level specifically beyond which payment was due. Originally the October 26th, 2012 license agreement section 5 “guaranteed performance” had COP of 4 as the minimum. The second Amendment data October ____, 2013 has COP 2.6 being the minimum threshold.

        • Obvious

          I think it may have been as late as March 2015 before the Lugano report was completely eviscerated.

          • SG

            You mean by the slight of hand conjecture?

          • Obvious

            By detection of easily verifiable errors or omissions.

            Don’t worry. There are still plenty of mysterious things in the report left to wonder about.

          • SG

            Forget about the emissivity, the excess heat, the COP, the thermal camera, and everything else. If there were isotopic shifts that occurred, then the report and the e-Cat can’t be easily dismissed. Those who believe in the slight of hand hypothesis, have a point, although it seems highly implausible to me, given that it would have occurred under the noses of the Lugano scientists.

          • Obvious

            The Lugano isotopes are definitely the most interesting aspect. All the possible versions of how they got that way effectively exclude human error or accident of fate (ie. fantastically unlikely multiple consecutive random selection demonstrating accidental reaction-simulating bias).

          • SG

            It takes capital, and a lot of it. If nobody believes you, then good luck. His shift to Quark X makes much sense to me in this regard because he can start it up with less capital and ramp up from there.

          • But while controlled introduction of centralised CF powergen may be ‘acceptable’, uncontrolled introduction of private/domestic energy producing devices certainly won’t be. Interference in safety certification processes (difficult enough even by default) and continued blacklisting in the MSM would provide a simple, invisible means of preventing this happening. For this reason alone I don’t believe the court case will go ahead.

          • SG

            Why does it seem that all of IH’s apologists are unregistered Disqus users. Among the few who are registered, a posting history of one to two months?

          • Bob Greenyer

            When I helped the Occupy London media team, and lectured on the fact that most people working in Banking struggled with normal salaries – I learned a lot about commercial and government false flag makers and shills.

            The Occupy collective was very good at spotting the agent provocateurs – they published photo lists of people to look out for at events, people that were policemen in disguise or paid hands put in place to turn public opinion. In addition, the protest in front of St. Pauls had a strict no drink or drugs policy and yet the media would round on homeless people that came to get the free food being offered in the food tent.

            Once I was just standing there wearing an orange rain coat, a drunk or otherwise intoxicated guy, never seen before (or after) came and started shouting at me and then grabbed my umbrella from inside my jacket – some Sky News film crew ‘saw’ the event and immediately came over and wanted a story on camera about how I had suffered an attack and theft by a protestor. I said, I had never seen him before at the protest and so I did not consider his actions relevant, the seemed a little put-out. Members of the protest pursued him and tried to recover the umbrella but he fled.

            Personally, I would not add any weight to people that

            1. Hide behind a pseudonym that have not had a long history
            2. Do not have a registered Discuss account, so that their comments can be followed across their interests
            3. Have appeared recently

            Remember, for most of us, this exploration of claims is something that we do part time for personal interest. Beware of those that appear from nowhere and look like they are full-time paid to do this work. Perhaps an analysis of times of posting will reveal paid shills working patterns – though they may be engaged on a per post or home-work basis. Certainly the Agent Provocateurs at the Occupy protests could be there at literally any hour.

            Also, you need to understand that these operations have people that appear to have the opposite point of view and argue with a colleague (possibly unknown to them) the opposite point of view – this means a Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) campaign can get a proper airing without the need for participation from those that would not engage the shill.

            The challenge with the internet is that you can ask a question and an intelligent employed shill can construct a plausible response following research – this is very different if someone is face to face – you can out them almost immediately with a few questions targeted at establishing if they really know the topic they have been paid to manipulate.

            Then there are the media teams of an interested party – I worked for 9 years in earshot of these types of people – they manipulate the evidence with great skill – seeding blogs, newspaper reporters etc with alternate explanations and smooth talk and are adept at covering any challenge. This is how most people were taken surprise by the ‘financial crisis’… they ‘didn’t see it coming’.

            SG – you are becoming enlightened.

          • SG

            Bob, just a few years ago, much of what you said here would seem pretty unbelievable. But in the post-Snowden era, things are viewed by most people in a much different light–at least those who have spent even a small effort in understanding them. Having engaged with people in controversial topics on the Internet for some time now, I’m very familiar with FUD, and in some ways, I’ve become immune to it. Small doses of fear at the right moments might be beneficial for self-preservation, but the main problem with FUD arises when it is used by humans to unjustifiably control other humans, especially when done without the greater good of humanity in mind. That, in my mind, is unacceptable.

            Thanks for your insights and the time you volunteer for MFMP. At the end of the day, I believe MFMP will hold a special place in history. Maybe we can meet some day.

          • psi2u2

            They make sense to me.

          • It looks like Mats has finally had enough of the garbage being dumped onto his ‘Lets get to the truth’ thread:

            “Ok folks, thanks–we won’t get any longer regarding conspiracy and engineers. If you don’t have something essential to add, please continue look for more useful info.”

            It’s not clear though if that is a plea, or whether he intends to moderate OT comments from now on.

          • doug marker

            Obvious,

            As I am aware, Thomas Clarke is opposed to LENR (LENR & LENR+). He is also honest enough to say so.

            If you ask him to debate Randall Mills brilliant light claims he will say Mills is wrong too or he will avoid the discussion.

            As such Thomas IMHO has a closed mind on the subject. That in itself is his prerogative but I am someone who is convinced LENR and LENR+ has been proven multiple times, I don’t find Thomas’s arguments very persuasive when he claims things I understand to be proven to be false.

            We all have our POVs.

            Doug M

          • Obvious

            I defended the report until I did enough calculations and tested the assumptions to death. The professors messed it up, no doubt about it. Even if there was excess heat they fail to show it, and anywhere it could have been hiding they did not test. I confirmed Thomas’s results independently, using a slightly different method. There are some minor ways that some excess heat could have been made, but these are not enough to get it over 1.9 COP. Probably much less is far more likely. The only way to salvage any excess, in my opinion, is a large IR output in the transparent IR band portion of the alumina. Maybe coherent IR in the transparent part might be even be a way to get some more out… But how do you quantify what is not measured?

        • Private Citizen

          “Lugano worked. I read the report.”

          Thomas Clarke has this to say about the Lugano test:

          ” the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. … The infra-red
          thermography results must thus be adjusted … We show that when this error is corrected …The total estimated
          power out from the system shows a COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error.”
          http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf

          But as for the isotope changes, you either have to believe isotopic changes accompanied a null COP experiment or that someone spiked the ash

          • SG

            Reasonable minds differ on the emissivity question. “Experts” on the subject have opined in different ways, both for and against the Lugano findings.

            What is very tough for the Lugano report detractors to overcome is the isotopic shifts. The best conjecture that they could summon was that Mr. Rossi acted like a magician with slight of hand.

          • Charles Twain

            He could also simply have mixed in the isotopes beforehand. No sleight of hand needed.

          • cashmemorz

            Except for the fact that the particular isotopes, found after the test, were of a very extreme scarcity such that to have done the slight of hand would have cost prohibitively high.

          • SG

            The Lugano scientists themselves took random pre-test and post-test samples. Both samples were examined in great depth (refer to the Lugano report for details). Yes, slight of hand would be needed to explain away the isotopic shifts.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            As I have pointed out recently (and I know you read my comment since you replied on it), the shifts could also result from isotopic fractionation. Such fractionation happens, for example, in compact fluorescent light bulbs:

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258370746_Mass-independent_fractionation_of_mercury_isotopes_in_compact_fluorescent_light_bulbs

            There would be an easy way to check this: Put Ni and Li (no LiAlH4 – but perhaps some Al) into a dog bone, heat it for one month. Then analyze both the fuel grains and the condensate on the inner reactor walls and see if you find significant differences.

            I have also said years ago that the sleight-of-hand hypothesis makes no sense since the composition of the ash contradicts the Rossi-Focardi theory, after which Ni is transmuted into copper. Somebody who favours this theory (which Rossi did at that time) and had the intention to manipulate would certainly add copper to his samples.

            So sleight-of-hand is nonsense, but fractionation is not yet off the table, IMHO.

          • SG

            None of the expert scientists in the area who have criticized the Lugano report have suggested fractionation, that I’m aware of, so my opinion on this conjecture is that it is unlikely. Please provide me with some citations to authority if you believe otherwise. If you look at the lenr-forum and follow what the Mr. Ekstrom’s primary hypothesis is, you will see that it is “planting” or slight of hand.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            If you consider Mr. Ekström as an authority, why don’t you ask him what he thinks about the fractionation issue?

          • Omega Z

            They took before use samples of the fuel and after use samples of the ash.

          • Private Citizen

            “Reasonable minds differ on the emissivity question.”

            Citation please

          • Eyedoc

            And so Thomas Clarke is what type of authority on this?

          • Private Citizen

            Were he a homeless dropout, his scientific paper is clearly sourced and well reasoned. Attacking the man when you can’t impeach the argument is
            ad ho·mi·nem 1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
            “vicious ad hominem attacks”

          • Eyedoc

            Stop blowing hot air and answer the question (but I already know you won’t)

          • Eyedoc

            Sorry to offend. What scientific paper are you referring to ?

    • US_Citizen71

      The initial verification test the 24 hour test in Bologna, required a COP of 6. Section 4 of the agreement.

  • I’ll stop believing Rossi when people like Krivit stop attacking him and leave him with a clear path to do whatever he wants, which will never happen if the Ecat works. Before this is over they may even try to take him out, thats how messed up we are as humans when it comes to money. I think the only reason they have not already tried is because Rossi is always covering his back making sure that he is needed for the technology to progress at this stage. Rossi knows how to feed the goose that lays the golden eggs once his enemies find out what that is… watch your back!

    • SG

      Mr. Rossi has also stated publicly that the technology in its entirety is safeguarded by others in the event of anything untoward happening to him. Let’s hope that is the case. When Tesla died, government agencies immediately descended on his premises and took what they wanted.

  • US_Citizen71

    Maybe they know how to make the device, but not the fuel. I do not see the fuel called out in the agreement.

    • Brent Buckner

      The first recital of the License Agreement mentions “the catalyzer formula used to fuel the E-Cat”.

      • US_Citizen71

        The first recital states that Rossi/Leonardo owns “the catalyzer formula used to fuel the E-Cat” and that is all! The first recital doesn’t state one iota of it being licensed.

        • Brent Buckner

          The first recital characterizes the E-Cat IP (“collectively, the ‘E-Cat IP'”), so other references to the ‘E-Cat IP’ in the License Agreement include the catalyzer formula used to fuel the E-Cat.

          • NT

            You have a good legal argument IMHO Brent. I suppose we will hear that one out in court, hopefully one day…

          • US_Citizen71

            Not necessarily, the first recital simply states Rossi/Leonardo own what they are licensing. Section 16.1 defines E-Cat IP further and does not include the word fuel.

            “”E-Cat IP” has the meaning set forth in the recitals to this Agreement, and shall include all document, manuals, technical data, formulae, and other items and materials necessary or useful to enable the Company to (i) operate the 1MW E-Cat Unit, (ii) make E-Cat Products, and (iii) exploit the E-Cat IP as contemplated by this Agreement.”

            Operation manuals cover (i) plans and designs and specifications for E-Cats and Hot-Cats cover (ii) and (iii) would be as a licensee to sell E-Cat products. None of which covers fuel manufacture.

          • Brent Buckner

            I am confident that “collectively, the ‘E-Cat IP'” is part of determining the meaning set forth in the recitals. YMMV, and clearly does!

          • US_Citizen71

            You still haven’t shown where they licensed the ability to produce fuel. The license was to produce and sell “E-Cat Products” – “E-Cat Products, including without limitation; the 1 MW E-Cat Product and the Hot Cat, are described in further detail on Exhibit A”

            Exibit A referenced in the first recital is the patent http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.1.pdf It suggests a fuel to use and much like the patents for diesel engines and other internal combustions engines it doesn’t desribe how to make the fuel in its entirety.

          • Brent Buckner

            The third recital refers to an exclusive license to use the E-Cat IP. Section 1.1 makes an unlimited term for the E-Cat IP that is not patents.

          • US_Citizen71

            The word used is “utilize”

            Full Definition of utilize

            utilized utilizing

            transitive verb

            : to make use of : turn to practical use or account – http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utilize

            The third recital goes on to state manufacture E-Cat Products which refers to the 1 MW plant and Hot-Cats. Still not showing a license to manufacture fuel.

          • Pweet

            Yes it is possible.
            Once one person of noted education and experience in a matter has accepted something works, most later arrivals will not examine it so critically. Focardi was the key person to help establish the veracity of the ecat. It was easy to get Focardi on side because LENR was a pet subject of his and had been for some time. Rossi selected him as a first convert for just that reason.
            Also, I believe Mr. Ross is extremely good at sensing when a difficult situation is about to occur and he has the ability to divert attention to something else, hence difficult questions and critical examinations were always avoided. I think anyone who questioned something too closely was made to feel they were disrespectful of the esteemed characters of those already on side. If they kept on with the point they were removed from the circle of favored witnesses.
            Stephen Krivit would be an example of what the procedure might be if someone drilled in a bit to hard.
            Mr. Rossi would have done much better had he invited Krivit back and addressed his points of disagreement with a better demonstration of the ecat working, and let him take the measurements himself. They were simple measurements. That could easily have been done if the ecat which Krivit was invited to see actually worked. Very much more difficult if it didn’t.

      • US_Citizen71

        We are both likely wrong. Page 20 of the agreement is the exhibit A that is referred to in the recitals.

        http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.21.pdf#page=20

        • Brent Buckner

          I appreciate your candour.

          I still I don’t think that I was wrong about where “E-Cat IP” is defined. I believe that: Section 16.1 really does refer to the recitals respective of meaning, and that I did not misrepresent the first recital.

          As you write, the fuel information was not part of the deal until after Validation. However, per Section 3.2(b) the requirement for Rossi/LC to deliver the E-Cat IP was after Validation.

          • US_Citizen71

            After a full detailed read instead of a partial read and scan of the agreement, I agree with you. The only wiggle room Rossi may have had with the fuel is that what he transferred only had to make the same COP as the validation test.

  • Stephen

    I think the situation may in part be down to divergence in interests over time. One as a VC company who wants to bring LENR to the world in a complete and not too disruptive and controlled way that satisfies his investors. The other as a industrialist who has been working all his life to bring critical lifestyle saving technology to the world at an industrial level has overcome huge opposition an difficulties and sees at last he has the opportunity to grasp that chance. In the beginning maybe they were both were on the same path and had a common goal to bring LENR to the world. I think this mutual respect and goal was genuine at the time especially if Darden invested his own money and Rossi also trusted them enough to pass on his technology to them.

    Once the initial tests were complete however if it was proven positive then their respective interests would diverge.

    For a VC company it would start to be their interest to diversify their skill and technology base and to try to buy other companies, technology or IP involved in the field and perhaps delay or control the release to maximize the return on their investment. For the industrialist the priority would be first to prove the technology at industrial level and then start production as soon as possible. I guess it’s hard to manage these diverse interests, and perhaps mistakes or misunderstandings and sadly conflicts, accusations and defensive stances are inevitable. And perhaps its right for the court to resolve these things.

    It’s really sad when things degenerate into tidal wave of mud even specks of mud start to accumulate and stick which weighs us down and is really bad for the eyes I guess. We need some good news to hope for I think.

    I’m looking forward to the fog clearing and some rays of sunshine, I hope we can have a bright and beautiful summer.

  • giovanniontheweb

    maybe IH became too small to play on this table and sold its token

    • Buck

      What about the impending creation of Saudi Arabia’s $2Trillion Sovereign Wealth fund?

      Buyout IH for a few $100M or $B with no change in the license territory . . . and Leanardo and Hydrofusion provide the incentive to Saudi Arabia to follow through on their investment.

      Just a wild idea.

    • Yes, the same thought occurred – that IH and Leonardo are now both proxies for bigger players.

  • doug marker

    Very pertinent and very valid questions. Excellent review.

  • I’m hoping Rossi will manufacture and sell a few very soon to people who will actually use them to save money on their energy use, thats the bottom line.

    • Brent Buckner

      Folks have been hoping that for at least four years!

  • passerby

    What you wrote is not unreasonable but let’s keep in mind we are not going on faith, there is good reason to believe he has something.

    Nickel/hydrogen reactions have been worked on by many people past and present. The replications of Parkhomov and MFMP are compelling, as well as the isotopic analysis. Rossi was not the first to come up with a nickel/hydrogen reaction either, that distinction belongs to professors Focardi and Piantelli. And even Brillouin uses a nickel/hydrogen reaction (perhaps no coincidence they are a direct competitor and funded by IH.) It is unlikely that all these people would have gotten positive results but Rossi did not at least have something.

    Anyway just thought I would point that out. The average E-cat skeptic likes to portray us as believing certain things merely because Rossi says so. And it is worth repeating that this is not the case.

  • Grégory Makles

    This is far to vague to describe how “every day funding” works.

    You do get funding for “I’ve got an idea and some clue it might works, let’s do a proof of concept”. You can get ~ $50K of funding.

    You do get funding for “I’ve got a proof of concept, let’s get a prototype”. You can get typically ~$300K of funding.

    You do get funding for ‘I’ve got a prototype, let’s got to market”. You can typically get millions.

    Rossi was in that last stage. He didn’t get millions in that deal. He was supposed to get tenth of millions. And this wasn’t selling the company. This was selling license. So we’re far, far away from you “every day funding”.

    You don’t buy licenses on a tech without guarantees. This means the deal with a lot of exit option in case it turns out things doesn’t work as agreed upon. Typically, having the big money pack being delivered only if certain stages have been validated is one. But why did they pay 10M first ? What development stages were funded by this ? Certainly not verification. Verification for such tech is a matter of 10k, not 10M. Remember we’re not speaking about ready for market product (the 1MW plant) but simply Proof of Concept, aka the kind of experience Levi did early with ecats (or quite a few others) but with their own experts.

  • Grégory Makles

    Question: do we know how much IH/Darden actually raised ? Is it possibly they simply failed to get the money for this due to LENR/Rossi’s rep and try to get out of this without loosing their licenses ?

  • Ged

    Legalese is truly an art form.

  • Suddenly, “it can’t be substantiated”. A legal difference, most likely in this case for strategic reasons.

  • doug marker

    Alex,

    “Rossi wants it that way…plain and simple”

    May be plain and simple to you but it is merely ‘opinion’ and thus not so simple at all.

    It is a fair opinion. Am sure others my have the opposite one. I think Rossi wants to see it validated because then he can push for a patent and can move on. But I could be wrong. Repeating, it doen’t seem all that “plain and simple”.

    Cheers D

  • Anon2012_2014

    We don’t know if anyone is lying. But someone is almost certainly wrong. It could be based on a technicality, apparent COP of 50 or otherwise. Trial of fact should be coming.

  • SG

    Aside from their copious leaks to carefully selected members of the LENR community and by way of one of their investors.

    • psi2u2

      Right. The leaking has been pretty continuous on both sides, and for a long time the chief IH leaker was operating under a pseud. He has since come out, which is to his credit, but for many weeks he poisoned the water without acknowledging his interest, which is apparently significant.

  • Karl Venter

    Hi Andrea

    Why dont you follow your own advise that you have been saying for years
    the only way is to put a product on the market i.e i can purchase it now( dont tell me about placing orders etc)
    People are going to criticize your product thats a fact,
    people criticize – BMW vs Mercedes etc etc etc some are even fanatical about different thing they have preferences – we are a strange bunch of people here on earth

    sell me a ecat –
    sell the world ecats

    I can promise even if it works beyond our wildest imagination – people will still criticize it
    Are you going to let them affect you I hope not

    question is:

    when can I buy a ecat.

    There are people out there chomping at the bit to buy your product but they cant

    Your advise to you

    Put it on the market for the market to decide – not you not IH the market

    • DrD

      I think he already answered that:

      quote:
      In past you already had written in this blog that you were working to
      make a massive production factory. It was more than three years ago.

      Cheers,

      Gene

      Andrea Rossi

      April 24, 2016 at 7:52 AM

      Gene:

      True. Then talks with Cherokee began in spring 2012, they were very
      serious and I changed strategy, because at those times I was convinced
      that Cherokee was really intentioned to make a big production concern,
      not a financial speculation. I was wrong.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

    • artefact

      On JONP:
      “kenko April 26, 2016 at 8:50 PM
      Dear Dr. Rossi,
      When can customers #2 thru #10 expect to receive their plants?
      Curiously yours, Kenko

      Andrea Rossi April 26, 2016 at 9:33 PM
      Kenko:
      The deliveries will start surely during this year.
      Warm Regards, A.R.”

  • Mike Rion

    “They”, whoever they are, will only allow it if (A) They can control its release and (B) They can divert a considerable amount of the profit from it into their own pockets. No matter how much more economical the production of such energy is the price will not be less than we are already paying. “Their” profits will just get larger. As I’ve said before it’s all about money and power, and I don’t mean ours.

  • Mike Rion

    It’s “losing”, not “loosing”. No offense, just thought you should know.

  • DrD

    and how will you guarantee truly independant testers. Most of the people I know, including scientists are still convnced (with closed minds) that it a big mistake.

  • DrD

    I am not convinced your right. Only if it’s used by opponents to LENR might it be vaild.
    First of all as others have pointed out, we already have radiation from home devices, I haven’t heard of any problems with smoke detector approval, maybe I missed it. Also, there is NO radiation from the E-Cat (if we believe Rossi) nor is the fuel or anything in it radioactive. At least not to start with and at the end — we await the analysis. Also, he didnt seem to have any dificulty getting approval from the US nuclear body that recieved the complaint about him operating a radio active device without approval. In fact I’m pretty sure he had already been granted approval. Admittedly, domestic is more of a challenge and I do worry in general that it could be used as a blocking mechanism to save the oligarchy.

  • sam

    This is what Woodford funds said on there
    blog on March of this year regarding I.H.
    With regard to Industrial Heat, we were, and have been, very aware of the scepticism about LENR technology. The company is currently working with numerous scientists and is acquiring both the technology and teams required to maximise the potential of this, and other, new energy technologies.
    The company recently said that it is willing to invest time and resources to see if this technology might be an area of useful research in its quest to eliminate pollution.

    • bachcole

      Thank you for that, sam. Sounds non-committal to me.

      • sam

        What does this sound like.
        April16 2016 ego out blog
        Peter
        You stated this on today’s ego out.
        Patrick Ellul (thanks) writes
        So IH invested in Brillouin (BEC).
        BEC’s team seems to have strengthened a lot.
        http://brillouinenergy.com/about/leadership/
        It includes Carl Page.
        McKubre is effectively an insider to IH.
        He/his team is probably the one who convinced IH that Rossi’s thing does not work.
        BEC is obviously in direct competition with Leonardo Corp (LC).
        IH have chosen BEC over LC.
        Here is a comment from A.R. related to this.

        Dear Andrea,

        When you state that IH has made successful replications, did they themselves prepare and process the fuel material to be used in the reactors — including catalyzers — according to IP provided to them, or did they simply use fuel pre-prepared by Leonardo Corporation?

        Andrea Rossi
        April 7, 2016 at 8:32 PM
        Hank Mills:
        They prepared everything, the charges, the body of the reactor EVERYTHING !!!.
        I just teached to them what to do.
        They never used anything pre-prepared by Leonardo Corp.
        Now, let me talk to you of a very singular coincidence: Brillouin has always made only electrolytic apparatuses: go to read all their patent applications made before their agreement with IH, and you will find confirmation of what I am saying ( I know their patents by heart, because I have studied them and probably I know them better than themselves : I wrote about 100 pages of notes about their patents ). And now the singular coincidence: they make the agreement with IH in April 2015, and Voilà, they made a public demo in Capitol Hill ( Washington, DC) with a device that is the Copy-Cat of something I am familiar with. Nothing that Brillouin has ever made before the agreement with IH. What a coincidence !!!
        Warm Regards,
        A.R.
        AnonymousApril 15, 2016 at 10:27 AM
        You are far too gentle with McKubre, the history of cold fusion shows him to be one of the worst arch villains. SRI and McKubre have been constantly promoted as experts when their experiments were always ridiculously minimal in terms of results. They created a strategy that called for use of a super calorimeter instrument that only they had built at incredible profit out of millions of EPRI dollars and while indeed it was a good instrument the experiments within were paltry and pitiful at best. Others who were invited to run experiments in the EPRI funded lab were systematically destroyed with ‘faint praise’ or secret bad mouthing by McKubre who clearly could never accept that others were better at this field of work than he. Ever it has been when technicians enounter true inventiveness and talent. When looking at the tell-tale signature of the ‘arrows’ sticking in the backs of pioneers you will most certainly find in abundance those of McKubre.
        The demonstration by Brillouin
        The demonstration by Brillouin on Capital Hill
        was Nov 9 2015

        Reply

        • builditnow

          “McKubre is effectively an insider to IH.
          He/his team is probably the one who convinced IH that Rossi’s thing does not work.”

          I’ve met Mike McKubre, been following him for some time.
          More likely McKubre was convinced that Brillouin’s system worked, after all Brillouin hired SRI International’s LENR lab that McKubre headed up (until recently, now retired), to validate Brillouin’s results, I know this for a fact.
          SRI was so confident in Brillouin’s results that they became joint partners, I know this for a fact. I see no evidence and knowing Mike McKubre, know that he would not make any statement he could not strongly stand behind. How could he possibly know that Rossi’s reactors “do no work”.
          PS: SRI is a Stanford University associated research lab, with the highest standards and credibility. It’s few miles from when I live.

  • Stanny Demesmaker

    Do you really think that it takes 3 years to test a 10kW LENR reactor to know that it produces excess heat?

  • US_Citizen71

    I am not convinced one way or the other as of yet after all you can buy small viles of tritium to use as zipper pulls at sporting goods stores. Most US laws concerning radioactive materials either name the materials to be controlled by name or specify a wavelength and energy level that triggers regulations. Without known radioactive materials as components or detectable emissions severe regulation will not be an automatic thing.

  • US_Citizen71

    That was tried 27 years ago and how did that turn out?

  • roseland67

    Evidence is more convincing.
    If Rossi’s Ecat data showing excess heat is admitted as evidence, I wonder what this will do to the scientific community?

  • Frank Acland

    For the E-Cat to be a fake it would have to follow that:

    Rossi tricked Focardi, and Focardi was incompetent to detect the trickery
    OR
    Rossi and Focardi together were mistaken in their measurements
    OR
    Rossi and Focardi were complicit in fraud

    • Brokeeper

      Allow me to attempt to simplify my belief why Andrea Rossi
      is a man of integrety. Order and truth does not come out of chaos. Deception and lies are chaotic and contradictive that can not be reordered without obvious corrections.
      Andrea Rossi is about the most ordered individual ever demonstrated short of some anomalies since corrected.
      What contradicitions Rossi may have made (usually through translation) have been admitted by him and corrected. Thus preserving his order and integrety. Andre Rossi is a good man.

      • SG

        That is generally my read on him as well. He has thrown up some smoke at times, but I think those were strategic to throw off his competition. My sense is that he is basically sincere. The main problem is that he is up against trillion dollar interests. If he is to triumph in the end, it will partly be because of the ECW community and others among the LENR community who refused to let the prospect die on the side of the road. LENR+ is an idea whose time has come. It is palpable. It won’t go away. As long as we and others refuse to let it.

        • Brokeeper

          ‘Money is a root of all evil’. Evil is chaotic. I see much chaos coming out of these accusations and is why I say its hard to make sense out of non-sense. AR is up against evil.

          • cashmemorz

            A very wise man once said ” The universe is indifferent to what man would have done”. To my understanding this includes man’s interpretation of good and evil. In that light what some may see as chaotic evil is calculated self interest. Self interest in concert with others that have the same interests becomes orderly, not chaotic.

      • SG

        Actually, Mr. Rossi agrees with you on this, and has stated several times that Quark X will be sold into industrial applications first. The certification companies will want industrial use data before they ever approve for domestic use. I basically agree with you on this as well. That said, the East will adopt more widely and more quickly than the West.

      • US_Citizen71

        How is what I posted above not true? According to the Consumer Product Safety Commision “The primary hazards to avoid when using a generator are carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning from the toxic engine exhaust, electric shock or electrocution, fire and burns. … Every year, people die in incidents related to portable generator use. ” -https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/69756/portgen.pdf A meltdown if it happened would be a fire hazard would it not? How is one fire hazard different than another? –

        • Alex Fenrick

          A meltdown of a LENR reactor would be so much more hazardous than that of what you mention above…we are talking about possible explosions. This danger would probably be worked out in time…but that is my point…home certification and safety testing will be a HUGE challenge that will take probably many years. I can post the video of even Rossi himself confirming that point if you wish to see it. I think you should do some research on past LENR meltdown/explosions and possibly rethink your perspective.

          • US_Citizen71

            So gasoline is not explosive? Hmm I always thought internal combustion engines used dozens of explosions per second for power. The only challenge is getting an E-Cat certified for consumer use is getting Rossi to allow one out of his sight for the lengthy tests. All kinds of hazardous things are certified for consumer use including things that use hazardous radiations as part of their operation, such as fluorescent lightbulbs which produce UV radiation including lethal UV-C in their core. There hasn’t been any proof that E-Cats produce anything even as hazardous as UV-C.

          • Rene

            I had a 15KW generator that had a meltdown/explosion. Bought it at Costco too. I picked up pieces of it scattered across hundreds of feet. Possible explosions can happen with certified high power equipment. Harping on REACTOR and HUGE challenge is disingenuous. The real issue here is whether when those end-state events occur do we see dangerous radiation. To date that has not been seen. On this one, Alex, you are barking up the wrong tree.

    • builditnow

      And the successful replications reported by Parkhomov and others were also similarly fakes, incompetent or fraud.
      To some extent it also implies that the thousands of LENR experiments done by top researchers were also all incompetent.

      The current proof that LENR is a real phenomena is stronger than the proof of the existence of any individual even if they stand in front of you, you touch them, you talk to them and you spend a year hanging around them. LENR+ at high useful power levels is less certain. Rossi claims he has LENR+.

      • Pweet

        Only one person claims he has an LENR device capable of producing kilowatt outputs with a COP of at least 6, and up to 50.
        All those who claim replication of the reaction have results of a much smaller scale which could well be explained by experimental error.
        I’m not saying they are, but the output power levels are so low that it is easily possible. The output power levels Rossi claims for his ecats are well above the level of experimental error in a well run experiment, unless of course, the experiment is specifically set up to produce large errors.
        At this point, the claimed replications from all other persons might suggest LENR could exist but they do not verify Rossi’s extraordinary results. And if true, they are very extraordinary. The dawn of a new age you might say, if only the sun would actually come up rather than to just be told it has. I still don’t see it, even though the person who is ushering it in keeps announcing an even brighter one over the horizon.

  • SG

    Well, I have mentioned before, that the Bitcoin mining industry will be the first adopters of LENR power generation, because they have the biggest upside. So I do basically agree with your point. The problem is, nobody believes him, even after multiple independent tests and positive reports, and now, even after he has filed suit in a federal court of the United States. So, we’ll see. As I say, the Bitcoin miners are quite used to taking large risks, and I’m pretty sure they will have some of the first power-generating e-Cats that become available.

  • psi2u2

    The identity of posters is only relevant, imho, if they have an unacknowledged direct interest in the outcome. Otherwise I think sticking to answered the arguments made by the poster is preferable to attacking his credibility just because he is anonymous.

  • SG

    Yes, they care, because they care how the history will be written. Multiple books are purportedly being written as we speak–one significant one already has been (and a few lesser-knowns). Probably a movie or two as well. People care how they will look when generations from now look back and read the history. ECW is a primary source of information. They care, believe me.

    • Ged

      I agree.

      One wrinkle is NCkhawk is supposedly personally involved with Tom Darden. But even so, the claims by those two commentators are not from IH directly to the public, as you rightly point out. It does show that IH has no tenable defense of they go that route, though.

      • psi2u2

        Yes it seems like rather getting down and dirty as opposed to relying on the “high road” of legal contest, which is what we might expect if the facts of the leakers were easily verifiable. Even if NCkhawk is not speaking officially for the company, his involvement does implicate them at least insofar as he has not apparently been asked to stop talking, except now (along with others including myself) by Mats Lewan.

      • Zack Iszard

        @nckhawk:disqus
        Not all readers of this board follow Rossi like a lost dog. Our anticipation for the release of the report was also anticipation of a concurrent positive announcement from IH, not the devolution of the IH/Leonardo relationship to a legal squabble.

        It does appear quite powerfully that Rossi is the divisive one in these recent litigious issues. For reasonable, cautious-yet-hopeful skeptics like myself, accepting Rossi’s narrative gets harder every day. When his narrative was corroborated by IH’s involvement, his words were much more plausible and credible.

        The number of Rossi followers who switch attention to the “next thing in the pipeline” just a real-world example of cognitive dissonance.

        One way to resolve that dissonance is denial, which involves deliberate ignorance of uncomfortable information. The other way is to embrace that uncomfortable information and re-evaluate, and consider one’s past self a fool. Which is much more difficult?

        Having said all of this, which may be deleted as unsavory by the moderator, I must admit that the truth is often more complex and subtle than any narrative, especially when your “fact table” is sorely lacking. We look forward to any good news from IH regarding other LENR technologies, as I’m sure that many who frequent this board would be happy internet fanboys/girls of truly verified technology!

  • Ophelia Rump

    I don’t understand how IH can say they believed that Rossi was a fraud for all that time and not be confessing to being guilty of the same fraud for having collected money to promote it.

    When do we see the investors sue IH?

    How does China feel about Cherokee now that it is claiming to have been selling them a faux fusion?
    There is no way that they can walk away from this looking trustworthy. It seems to me that the technology must be very real for them to be willing to publicly trash their own reputations fighting over it.

    • Alex Fenrick

      Ophelia…first of all…when and where has IH said they believe Rossi was a fraud? Saying they cannot substantiate his claim is in no way calling him a fraud. Therefore your suggestion of them being guilty of fraud is moot.

      Why would they sue IH? As has been mentioned already, investment in new technology is a risk…they may have gambled on Rossi to find it was a bad bet…that is the risk of investment.

      I can imagine any investor being no so happy if the technology they invested in went nowhere. You should research the dotcom bubble in the US for a good example of how all of this works…..

      • Ged

        I think Ophelia is referencing the supposed IH leaks through Jed and NCkhawk. That is the claim those two make saying IH told them so. But, you are right that IH has yet to actually say that, which is looking more like it discredits Jed and NCkhawk.

        And no, the claims are not about a bad bet, but that IH knew it didn’t work (Jed, NCkhawk) or that IH caught Rossi directly in the act of fraud (NCkhawk) yet continued on, which would make IH willfull perpetrators of fraud while taking sizeable amounts of investor money.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      See my above post. IH is not claiming they did not believe Rossi – they claiming they NOW don’t.

      • SG

        A crucial question is when they stopped believing. Mr. Weaver makes it sound like it was quite early on.

  • psi2u2

    You are either mistaking me for someone else or not understanding my comment. Best wishes, Psi

  • US_Citizen71

    Your concerns are public relations and marketing issues not ones of public safety. Portable generators produce dangerous levels of heat and electricity as well as toxic gases during operation. They also require toxic explosively flammable fuel to operate but yet anyone with the cash to purchase can obtain one at any number of places. A E-Cat is essentially no different than a portable generators for danger except it doesn’t have the toxic gas emissions.

  • bfast

    I find the patent argument — why has IH sponsored patents with Rossi named as an inventor — to be compelling. To apply for patents, knowing that the founding technology is fraudulent is in itself fraudulent.

    The only picture that makes sense of the whole IH/Rossi thing is that they want the IP. I think their business model doesn’t work unless they have the IP. I think they think they can break Rossi with court costs to force his hand.

    To Eng. Rossi, I offer this suggestion. Tell IH to go to that hot place that nobody likes to talk about. Cut your 89 million dollar losses. Your technology is worth Trillions! 89 million is a drop in the bucket and a major distraction.

    • builditnow

      Add a small but important wrinkle, what if Rossi wants to have a court case, “up front”, before IH is worth trillions and he is worth little or nothing, because they have all the technology and sideline Rossi and don’t pay him. (assuming the worst case which I’ve seen plenty of in Silly Con Valley.) Rossi is in a relatively weak position with only a contract and the work of some independent verifier VS a 1 billion dollar fund that would rapidly become a multi trillion dollar fund.

      To preempt the worst case and bolster his weak position, Rossi could have withheld his secret sauce from IH while at the same time applying his secret sauce to the 1MW test reactor setup, so that worked. This would be a reason for him to be on site with the 1MW reactor, 24/7, to protect his secret sauce. IH then can’t make a working reactor, that is essentially what they are saying, but they know Rossi can, so, they refuse to pay the $89 million due, in order that Rossi gives them his secret sauce. (in this imagined scenario)

      Rossi could have expected IH to refuse to pay the $89 million as he seems to have already prepared his court case, filing immediately the payment was due. He also could have arranged that the case must be filed in federal US court, because this court has more leverage than state courts.

      This way, Rossi’s rights are more solidly determined before IH can start using the technology and, if the court decision is not good for Rossi, he still has leverage to improve the contract. IH may similarly benefit from a stronger contract, removing potential doubts and misunderstandings.

      • Brent Buckner

        Note that in your imagined scenario that Rossi/LC would have been in breach of the contract upon failure to deliver all the E-Cat IP after the Validation test.

  • US_Citizen71

    The SRI incident was a hydrogen oxygen explosion from an electrolysis cell, which is no different than any other danger posed by anything using flammable/explosive gases. What else do you have except hype?

    • US_Citizen71

      As for internal combustion engine explosions these look quite spectacular – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6WDwsdH_A0

      • Bob Greenyer

        I personally had a car engine explode on me when I was traveling at 70 mph on a road in East Anglia in the UK when I was 21. The front end of the car lifted off the road and the potential for loss of control could have killed me – I was very lucky.

  • US_Citizen71

    I fail to see how this has become circle. I’ve merely asked for some type of proof of your assertions which you haven’t provided. I’ve backed up my claims with links because I can.

  • US_Citizen71

    The proof you have provided for “the possibility of a meltdown/explosion of a low energy nuclear reaction” is exactly what?

  • Grégory Makles

    There’s an easy way to tell who’s knowledgeable: please kindly provide one exemple of investment in millions on a tech that could be validated by 3rd party first but that wasn’t for some reason.

    If you can’t, then you’d have to agree this case is, factually, exceptional. Still I’d remain interested of an exemple on any technological licenses acquires without even a PoC because I don’t think it exists either. But hey maybe “it’s different in the US” and I can learn something here 🙂

    • Alex Fenrick

      Yes there is an easy way to tell who is knowledgeable. We don’t even have to talk the US alone Gregory…lets stay in the energy realm and start with Steorn and the $21million+ “on a tech that could be validated by 3rd party first but that wasn’t for some reason.”

  • Grégory Makles

    Sorry, if you did I can’t see where. Can you explain here again why the fact that IH paid for something without ensuring it had value is not relevant “in the context of investment” to your point (what point exactly BTW ? I was just replying to he above message and AFAICT it’s perfectly relevant to point out the ability to convince you have a tech stops to be relevant when you face players actually in a position to *check* that you have a tech.

  • Roger Roger

    Just like Montagnier, eh? this old fool studying water memory, we can’t have that 😉
    “They’re seniles!”

  • Eyedoc

    So what is the year test? chopped liver? I will buy one from AR as soon as available, with no hesitation….I advise you & B Gates to wait ~10 years just to be safe

    • Alex Fenrick

      Eyedoc…as it was not an independent study…yes not far from chopped liver…..

  • US_Citizen71

    Your proof for “a gasoline generator breaking down or even exploding is not even in the same realm of what a LENR could do in terms of an explosion or meltdown.” is exactly? I would love to read the study. What is called? Where can I find it?

  • Bob Greenyer

    I am a big fan of Ghandi’s 7 social sins

    1. Wealth without work.
    2. Pleasure without conscience.
    3. Knowledge without character.
    4. Commerce without morality.
    5. Science without humanity.
    6. Worship without sacrifice.
    7. Politics without principle.

    1 & 4 are a good fit in this story

    • Brokeeper

      Agreed, but Rossi definately reflects the inverse of 6 which excites the COP energy of his drive.

      • Josh G

        No, just logical.

        • Charles Twain

          Do you really believe that Stephen Hawking has been replaced by an impostor?

          • Josh G

            How could it possibly matter? Anyway why don’t you read his paper on it and decide for yourself. That’s what I did.

    • georgehants

      Wonderful

    • psi2u2

      No wonder everyone here likes MFMP. Strong corporate values. 😉

  • SG

    Alex, this has been discussed on ECW for years. We as a community know that the PTB will raise all kinds of safety concerns in an attempt to slow or impede LENR adoption, particularly in the west. This is expected. But consider that in my home, I have open gas flames in my kitchen, high voltage cables running through my walls, a loft overlooking en entry way with quite a small barrier in which falling accidents would be probably death, vehicles that store highly flammable gasoline, and well, I’m sure you get the picture. Did you know that you can create gammas using sticky tape? And not just a little, enough to make a dental x-ray exposure. Yes, we will hear all kinds of cries about how LENR is daaaanngggerous. But those cries will be in vein. There is no radioactive fuel, no radiation outside of the reactor during operation, and no radioactive waste. Plus, it is called an e-Cat. Very cuddly.

  • Rene

    You have no clue about the LENR realm, Alex. You are treating it like a fission reactor, totally not in the any forest. Do you have other insight? If so, show it.

  • SG

    It might be me projecting, admittedly. But it makes sense to me. People like Mr. Darden have already achieved riches beyond the wildest dreams of most people. I get impression that Mr. Darden cares about his image. My guess is that he cares about how history will view him, as a central figure in this whole affair. But I admit, it is only a guess.

  • Alex Fenrick

    Gregory…you should step over to the Orbo thread and educate yourself on the current situation…as well as the history of Steorn. I never claimed global knowledge of anything…presented a perspective and backed it up with a legitimate as well relative example. Point still stands firmly. You do not like my example…that I cannot help.

  • SG

    Filing a patent application with the United States Patent Office on a technology that you have not substantiated and believe does not work, is not with meeting the duty of candor requisite when dealing with this government agency. It is beyond shady.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Right, but the suggestion being floated here is that early on, IH believed what they had was real. And they believed the early tests and thus had substantiated the cat. So at that point in time it would be “normal” behavior to invest in patents and the technology. Seems like a perfectly natural response to
      finding such an amazing technology as LENR.

      I mean when bre-x started out, and good gold mine core results were published, then everyone include the Indonesia government attempted to “muscle” their way into one of the largest gold deposits. Of course it was only later on that people found out the mining core samples had been “salted” with gold, and the gold mine actually did not have any gold!. So was the Indonesia government in on the scam because they wanted some control of this huge gold mine? (no). Was the Indonesia guilty of not checking the core samples? (no but hind sight is 50/50 as they say).

      The simple matter is that stock moved from the Alberta exchange to Toronto and NY exchanges. And eventually reached a value of 6 billion (yes, you read that correct 6 billion – and yet no gold existed). So actions based on belief of the gold core samples, or early tests certainly makes IH’s actions seem perfectly reasonable.

      And at the start of any relationship, trust levels are at least neutral – it seems only later on did issues of trust occur.

      I mean, for IH to doubt results now does NOT help their case one bit (in fact it exposes them as you point out – so why bother to doubt test results now? I can’t see ANY up-side for IH to doubt the results).

      So actions of IH later on are quite consistent with a company that has doubts about the ecat, but their early actions shows confidence in the ecat.
      And the middle is where things get messy – do you say anything as doubts rise, but investment money is still pouring in?

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • SG

        Enjoyed the bre-x story… had not heard that one. But, if IH no longer believe that the inventions disclosed in their patent applications work, then they should file a request to intentionally abandon the applications, and not waste the time of the patent examiners who would otherwise eventually examine the applications. Do you think they will do this?

        • Albert D. Kallal

          They might, but now that the issue is in court, then perhaps they have to wait. And as others stated, it might not be an issue does the ecat work – but how well it performs.

          We may well see additional information over time that would explain IH’s actions, but IH clearly would not have entered into agreements if they did not believe in the ecat early on. Their actions do seem “relative” consistent with high belief, and then a decline.

          This video on Bre-x is tells the story – quite interesting:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxX4niytWFU

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • SG

            Enjoyed watching the Bre-X clip. Reminds me of the American Greed programming. No doubt, the world is full of scoundrels.

            As for IH, the fact that a lawsuit was filed does not change their duty of candor before the USPTO in any way. They have stated in no uncertain terms that they could not substantiate the claims of Mr. Rossi–all attempts without success. For this reason, they should immediately inform the USPTO of this and file requests to intentionally abandon their patent applications.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well the term substantiate does not mean that the ecat don’t work. They are doubting claims – we don’t know which claims

            Abandon their patent applications

            Too soon – IH may still well be open to “substantiating” the ecat. They also invested in Brillion – they have some VERY nice tests from SRI which I consider first rate and certainly independent. So IH actions in regards to the USPTO are not 100% tied to Rossi – they have alternate technologies.

            I mean how can IH make a patent on Rossi’s patent? In fact it could NOT be the case. In other words IH’s patent MUST BE AND HAS TO be different and NOT based on Rossi. So how does saying the ecat don’t work change their own patents that can’t be based on the ecat anyway?

            In other words IH’s is not challenging Rossi’s patent, and saying Rossi’s stuff don’t work could NEVER change their own patent which can’t be based on Rossi’s work anyway!

            More so, we not seen a statement from IH that confirms they can’t make their ecats work – but only they cannot substantive claims made by Rossi. The statement “nothing works” is not really direct or confirmed – but is via a second party. We simply don’t know the context and “restrictions” on what they mean here. In other words, IH might have their own working reactors, but are saying the ones from Rossi don’t work!

            And as noted, EVEN IF THEY KNOW the ecat don’t work, this does not invalid their USPTO applications. And maybe they built their own working reactors – just not ones from Rossi. And more so IH’s investments in Brillion do cover that LENR devices work and have been verified.

            In fact the above MAY VERY WELL explain the whole situation here. IH may have obtained the know how to build LENR devices, they just don’t want to admit that this IP comes from Rossi and thus they don’t want (have to) pay the 90 million.

            In fact the MORE I think about this, the MORE the above makes sense! I think I have a “winner” here!

            No question IH is in a bit of a pickle, since if they say nothing works, then yes they may well have revoke their patent applications.

            However, they not saying nothing works, they saying the ecat don’t work. And if they can prove that, they now can build LENR devices and NOT have to pay 90 million because they don’t need nor want Rossi anymore!

            By golly – this makes PERFECT sense now!

            Yes, IH simply does not want to pay the 90 million. All they have to do is claim that the ecat don’t work – but this has little to do with the fact that IH now knows how to build their own working devices. And this would ALSO explain why IH took out a patent – they simply trying to wiggle out of the deal with Rossi, and:


            –> IH has their own patents
            –> IH can build their own devices (based on their own patent)
            –> IH by saying the ecat don’t work saves them 90 million

            Gotta love logic!

            The above makes a heck of a lot of sense, now that I think about this.

            In fact, the above has JUST become my public position on this matter.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • SG

            Albert, I love some good speculation especially when rooted in logic, and I don’t want to take that away from you. Your guesses are as good as mine.

            But, just wanted to point out that you have some fundamental misunderstandings about the patent system in the United States and some of your premises are flawed. I was going to respond point by point, but in the end, it isn’t really going to alter the outcome, so I’ll just leave it at that.

        • Brent Buckner

          Do we know that IH made anything beyond provisional patent applications? Google tells me that provisional patent applications do not involve patent examiners, and are usually abandoned by allowing their one year clock to run out.

          • SG

            Yes, the filed non-provisional and international (PCT) applications.

  • psi2u2

    True, Krivit’s qualifications, by any objective standard, are pretty small compared to those of the other named parties who did vouch for the e-cat. His journalistic standards also seem weak compared to someone like Mats Lewan.

    On the other hand, I have to agree with Pweet that it is possible the big names were fooled. I don’t feel I have enough information yet to know the answer and that is why I will refrain for the time being from assuming too much or being easily swayed by either side.

  • Obvious

    “The past three days have been holidays for most, but for us have been a tremendous period of work during which we made a historic page for what concerns our tech: for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory ( a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, prepare,manipulate, treat, to make the charges, assembled , insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us. This event means that for the first time an E-Cat not built by me, not controlled by me and not charged by me, not tested in my factory, but manufactured from third parties upon our instructions and know how has worked properly. This is the first unit of the plant that will give to the factory of our USA Partner all its necessary thermal energy, and is also the school ship for the employees. It is very important that it has been completely made by the Customer, not by me: it is the first of millions, but the first is always special. We celebrated with Coca Cola ( alcohol is forbidden in that factory). All the former plants, even if built in the USA, had been supplied with reactors cores made by me, so this is a very important step.”
    A.R., JoNP, July 8, 2013

    • Curbina

      I remember that post clearly. But as we have never got any answer from Vaughn or Darden, it was always dismissed as just another “Rossi Says”. I am really waiting to see IHs response. So far they have, through NCkhawk, attempted to imply that they could never get any Excess heat in spite of what Rossi says, but, as their actions hint exactly the opposite, the explanation is that they hoped to find a solution at some point. I’m not buying that, Rossi says have been much more consistent with his actions than IH says (through NCkhawk and other posters that claimed insider knowledge by part of IH).

      • Obvious

        So is J.T. Vaughn the CEO of IH?
        Who did made the charge for the reactor?

      • NCkhawk

        Curbina – Frank has had a habit of deleting my post lately so I’m not sure that you’ll see this.
        IH wanted to test the referenced 1MW unit in Raleigh before shipping it to Miami but Rossi insisted that was a waste of time. he did the same thing for the Lugano reactors. The “ERV” report / data, which will be soon released, will give you the answers you need to make a final decision. The reactors that IH did build and test in their lab, per Rossi’s instructions, sadly never produced even a watt of excess heat.

        • Curbina

          Then I wonder if IH ever told a lie to Rossi about being able to replicate, otherwise I could only understand the Rossi comment as coming from a delusional person. This is the kind of stuff that is so puzzling about all this.

        • Interesting stuff.

          Since IH at this point deliberately had delayed the test by failing to find a suitable place during a whole year in Raleigh this comment is a new contradictory statement by the spinning Weaver … Why delay, and why trying to negotiate Rossi out of the test? And why being optimistic all the way until November 2015? It only gets worse …

          Maybe Frank deleting your posts is actually good for you Dewey!

          I’ve made an update to my post: http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/lenr-ecat-saga-the-most-important-inconsistency-by-dewey-weaver-so-far/

          • Josh G

            Also notice that in addition to twisting himself into more contradictions, he hasn’t been able to answer any of my questions.

            I mentioned something on your blog, and I’ll say it again here: I found it more than a little bit creepy that Weaver not once, but twice, confidently predicted on Mats’ blog that Rossi would “play the health card” at some point during the trial. Why would he be so sure of that? I don’t think it’s something that would have occurred to any of us, and AFAIK Rossi has never done anything like that, even when he was on trial in Italy.

            The certainty with which he said it almost made it sound like a veiled threat. It’s as if he’s already out ahead spinning it, putting out the narrative that when Rossi ‘suddenly’ starts to have serious health problems, it will just be part of the con, not something nefarious.

            I’m posting this observation here mainly so that if Rossi’s health takes a nosedive during the trial, we’ll have a more public record of it and know where to start looking for answers.

          • Agree. The best interpretation is that Weaver knows Rossi have/had some health problems and is now, as the creepy guy he is, trying to spin that into his advantage. Then, as you say, there are worse interpretations as well.

        • Josh G

          Except he’s not referencing a 1 MW unit. He’s talking about an e-cat module.

          I’ll also take this opportunity to note that, as I predicted, you didn’t answer any of the questions I posed, either here or on Mats’ blog. You may have thought that ‘Guest’ answered them in the thread on Mats’ blog, but he didn’t respond to all of them and the responses he gave only raised more questions. We’re still waiting…but nobody is holding their breath.

          My favorite part of this entire saga so far is how you outed yourself on Mats’ blog by referring to yourself in the first person when you got upset by Torkels’ post linking you to the hacking attack on his site. That’s rich in irony for someone who keeps insulting everyone else’s IQ.

        • Stephen

          Hello NCkHawk, I’m not really into the mud slinging which ever way it goes, and I guess you are also a bit tired of it now too.

          I admit on my side given I’m more a supporter of AR but I like to look deeper and try to understand what underlies both sides opinions. And readily admit I do not have the contacts or direct knowledge you have.

          We are quite lucky if you can express IH view point.

          I am quite interested in your insights about IH if you are able to share them. Can I ask you some questions? If you can’t answer them that’s also ok.

          1. Are the points you made regarding the 1MW ecat representative of IH point of view? (I’m confused about that because of the APCO statement warning us not to trust statements not endorsed directly by IH)

          1a. Are your statements officially from IH?

          1b. can you say if Darden or Vaughn both share those view points?

          1c. Can you say if other groups or projects in IH share those view points?

          2. Are the external investments in IH made by outside VC towards specific projects or more generally?

          2a are some of those specially e-cat or specifically other projects?

          3. Was you own investment also in E-cat. And if so does this also inform your opinion?

          4. Regarding the devices and charges made by IH.

          4a. We’re these factory tested at IH manufacturer?

          4b. Were they tested for Positive COP?

          4c. Given the fuel was apparently prepared by IH, what was the process to verify and accept there correct preparation and functioning by IH and Leonardo on site after delivery at the plant.

          5. More generally can you say anything about other LENR projects in IH?

          5a. are you involved in any of them?
          5b. are any of them showing very good results?
          5c. Are any of them also near industrialization?

          if you can answer thanks, I also understand if you cannot. I don’t want to pin you down in the saga but am interested in your insights into IH if you are able to share them.

        • sam

          Are you saying the Pennon
          EVR report will be released
          before the trial.

          • NCkhawk

            Maybe.

        • LuFong

          At the time there was questions about whether the Lugano reactor had been “primed” by running it prior to Lugano. Looks like not.

          Do you know why it was Rossi that was there at Lugano to handle the reactor? Surely IH must have realized the implications of this.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Did they also test other LENR technology, e.g. Brillouin’s?

      • bachcole

        I don’t care who confirms what Rossi says, as long as they have no self-interest. It could be Mats Lewan or Frank Acland or even Barry Obama for all I care.

        I just saw an episode of Sopranos, and this complete fool “invested” $50,000 into this company via the backdoor with no confirmation whatsoever that the product was worth a damn, no paperwork, no second independent opinion, nothing. Only the word of the seller that the product was the next big thing. OMG people can be so stupid.

        I am not stupid. If the credulity bar is too high, then we learn nothing new and our pace is very slow. Or, as in the case of skeptopaths, their progress is at a dead stop. If the credulity bar is too low, then we are like the fool in my paragraph above and we are suckers for con artists or demented psychotics like the Heaven’s Gate whack-pair.

    • Pweet

      Quote from Obvious post above;-
      “and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us” referring to reactor built by IH.
      I can well believe that Mr. Rossi is almost certainly telling the truth here, but it means something a lot different to what Mr Rossi intended to imply.
      I believe that the devices in all cases would show a COP of 1, no matter who builds the reactors. However, with the measuring techniques Mr Rossi uses he can plump that up to an appearance of three or six, or apparently now, even up to 50.
      You see, that has always been the case, going right back to the April 2014 demos, and then after that to the Lugano test. A different device, yes, but the same critical mismanagement of the test procedure.
      The problems now with IH would stem from the fact that IH, in there own tests, are taking a more critical approach to how these things are measured and are using measuring techniques as determined by people not associated with Mr Rossi or influenced by his demands. They would probably incorporate the alterations to the test procedures that have been asked for numerous times by numerous well educated people regarding earlier tests, but never previously done.
      And why not, if you were being asked to cough up another 89 million dollars?

      This is why it has always been so essential that Mr. Rossi be present at all tests of his device and why he apparently flatly refused an independent test done by Ed Storms some years ago, as recently reported here and in other places.
      That was an extraordinary denial.
      A positive test result by Ed Storms would have had such a positive influence on the early acceptance of the ecat and since Storms is a well known advocate of LENR, it could hardly be suspected by Rossi that he would give it an unfairly negative appraisal. In fact if there was a bias it could be assumed to be towards the positive.
      And yet Mr Rossi feigned indignance and huffed off, according to the report.
      I can well believe that because it is completely consistent with all other denials to let anyone near a reactor unsupervised by Mr. Rossi. In the same way, Uppsala University were not given the access they were promised to test the ecat in the early days, or any other person or organisation for that matter.
      I believe that has always been essential for the ongoing survival of Mr Rossi’s device. I also believe it will continue.
      In fact I think we can take it that the very day a device is handed over to a completely associated third party for testing will be the day we can believe he might actually have something which works.
      If we pay more attention to what has NOT happened rather than what has happened I think the perspective on this recent episode with IH will become more realistic.
      In this regard, I’m pretty sure the test Mr. Rossi announced for June this year will be along the same lines as all his previous tests, and that is, the test will be set up and performed by Mr. Rossi and no deviations from the procedure he sets up will be tolerated. If any deviation is insisted on, the test will be terminated.
      Depending on who the people are, that could make it very interesting.

      • “If we pay more attention to what has NOT happened rather than what has happened”

        Interesting way of thinking about it … Exactly how many things is that to take into considerations? Hmm. Only imagination sets the limit I would say …

      • Josh G

        More spin, diversion and FUD, yet no answers to my questions. You think IH forked over $11.5 million then just sat on their hands for 3 years without insisting on rigorous, critical test procedures? You don’t Woodford insisted on that before coughing up $50 million? Give me a break…

      • timycelyn

        A superficial and truly bizarre form of ‘reasoning’ that I’m afraid would lose out in an accuracy competition with throwing darts blindfolded at a board with various possible answers on it…

    • LuFong

      Which always made me wonder why it was Rossi who was there to install, startup, shutdown, and deconstruct the Lugano reactor. IH built that reactor and composed the fuel. It goes completely against the grain of the “independent” Lugano test to have Rossi present and handling the reactor. An IH person should have done this. Even this would have raised some eyebrows but certainly not to the extent with Rossi.

      Given that the technology had been transferred was it the case that Rossi didn’t trust IH or the professors doing the test? Did he just want a trip to Lugano? Rossi’s being there (along with Levi) completely discredited the independent nature of the test.

  • Alex Fenrick

    I will reiterate one more time that I did provide an example. If you are going to reject my example with a baseless argument then this will become circular.

    • Frank Acland

      Please, let’s not go round and round too much.

      • Grégory Makles

        You can’t avoid going round and round with someone who doesn’t want to admit she or he made unsubstantiated claims because that’s their only alternative. To me those are the real plague of any debate. That’s why I think it’s essential to force questions to be handled and if one party simply can’t, then that party it’s exposed for what it really is.

        We need people who debate in a constructive way like with scientific publication. Affirmations shall be challenged and in reply, consolidated, improved or refuted, all of this in a way that fuel the debate with new facts rather than stall it. We deal with advance topics and smoke screen are everywhere for people who want to use them. Either we don’t let them or we give up the very idea of constructive discussion.

    • Grégory Makles

      Only if you don’t answer the objection. But you can.
      I asked for tech that could be verified before funding, then wasn’t but was still funded.

      You provided an example. I looked at if and tried to see if we knew if it wasn’t checked. This could only happen through one of two scenario:

      Possibility A: it wasn’t because it couldn’t as years later it doesn’t work. Invalidated because the last update from this very site is that it might actually work (double checked the thread from Franck)

      Possibility B: they just didn’t. But I found a source, which I provided, indicating that there was actually an expertise running on at the time of funding.

      In the current state of information, I haven’t found any information confirming your example is relevant to answer the question. More importantly, you didn’t.

      An argument isn’t baseless because you say so. You have to demonstrate it, just like I demonstrated that in the current state of sources shown in this debate, you didn’t answer the question.

      • Alex Fenrick

        “I asked for tech that could be verified before funding, then wasn’t but was still funded.” Orbo is a perfect example as it not only fits your requirement but it is in the same relative field. There were numerous attempts at verifying the Orbo effect (as well as the other Steorn devices), but all failed to offer proof of claim…this is well documented. Steorn took in $21million+ in funding and is yet to still be able to show proof of claim. The two devices that Frank has DO NOT operate as intended and do not show proof of claim. If you follow the progress of the Orbo testing you would see this….I have been following very closely and interacting in the conversation. I am not sure how I can put this any more plainly to you. We are going in circles now…

        • Grégory Makles

          “There were numerous attempts at verifying the Orbo effect”

          You’re mixing up two things.

          One is to knwo whether Orbo is proven false. The latest test from Franck here tends to actually invalidate that claim. So one can not claim that Orbo effect is proven wrong

          One is to know if investor weren’t doing anything to check Orbo’s tech. Either they did not and you’re right, either they did – which is backed up by the source I presented and you seem to agree. In which case either the 3rd party, private evaluation conducted is known to have validated/invalidated the claim in the eye of the investor, either we don’t know. Please note that failing at public demonstration has basically very little to do with 3rd party, behind the scene evaluation. One can easily fail at one and succeed at the later. So while I know of the, as you correctly put, well documented public failure of Orbo, I consider I know nothing of what happened behind the scene. AFAICT, you don’t know more than me but assume what you don’t know. Unless you can prove by *a link* (rather than “it’s written somewhere”) I conclude from my very real research effort so far (I did some, you didn’t, as it seems) that your affirmation is groundless. You don’t know any more than any one here who funded Orbo, what evaluation they did at the time, what were the result and if Orbo had or not something at the time. If you do know more, it’s not enough to claim it: you have to prove it. You just know that they fail at public demonstration, that they claimed to have expert checking their tech, that they received some money, that they actually didn’t disappear but launched a product on the market, that this one after disappointing issues leave the door open, after many test, to maybe being indeed what it’s supposed to be. Am I correct on this or is there more than you not only think you know, but can consolidate with a link ?

  • Rene

    Flipped the troll bit on you. Let us depart disagreeing.

  • sam

    Did I.H. ask A.R to have another
    EVR report done by a US expert.

  • Pweet

    Focardi was the foundation stone.
    He already believed a working technology could come from LENR and he had contact with other eminent people regarding this. We know that for a fact. I believe as he was towards the end of his life he was waiting very hopeful of this. When Rossi came along with his supposed results he was so pleased that I believe he didn’t do the critical investigation into the test procedures being used by Mr Rossi because Rossi had already gained his confidence that he knew what he was doing.
    It worked.
    I believe Levi was probably also strongly influenced by the endorsement of Focardi.
    Then the acceptance and endorsement by both Foacrdi and Levi promted Essen and Kullander to be far less critical than they would have been had it been just Rossi by himself.

    Once Rossi had the endorsement of Focardi, Levi, Essen and Kullander, he was pretty much on the home straight. It was time to bring in the journalists and a few other artillery pieces.
    With the background of acceptance by all these other luminaries, all these would have taken what they were seeing as being in accordance with what they were being told they were seeing, a magical new technology able to turn nickel into copper, with the release of huge amounts of energy.
    I can recount all this because it pretty much describes why I so readily accepted what my education (and most of my associates) told me was impossible. And I wasn’t even there!
    But I could look up the qualifications and experience of those who had endorsed all this and I was impressed. Very impressed!
    How could they all be wrong? Well, in the same way that ten million mormons can be wrong of course. And some of them are highly intelligent educated. Not all, or even most, but some.

    Thus, when it is still asked;-
    “While: Petterson, Kullander, Stremmenos, Levi, Foschi, Lewan etc … etc … they are all of incompetents?”
    The simple answer is, yes they were.
    Not entirely their fault though, because they were dealing with someone who was extremely good at what he does.

    Keep in mind that many who initially supported Mr Rossi to the extent that they actually bought into it have now abandoned there stance and speak against him. Perhaps more weight should be given to their opinions rather than those who cling to a hope.

    • Wow! That is an impressive house of cards you are building to keep your illusions alive. Better hold your breath, otherwise it’ll fall apart. 🙂

  • Frank Acland

    NCkhawk — thank you for explaining that you don’t speak for Industrial Heat, and that you have been giving your interpretation of events.

    To avoid confusion, I am asking that you don’t post about facts connected with the court case here on E-Cat World, unless it is authorized and identified publicly as coming officially from Industrial Heat (something IH themselves warned us about in their recent press statement).

    • Frank Acland

      Also, let’s avoid the confrontational back-and-forth on this topic. Please take that elsewhere.

    • LuFong

      Boo.

      Are you going to apply the same to Rossi and what he says? You’ll have to take down half your site then….

      I know this is your blog and it has some basic premises about the E-Cat but NCkhawk seems to have some level of direct knowledge of the principals and what happened in this matter and for the most part (not entirely) he has been quite restrained. His bias is understandable. To muzzle him on this site I believe is going a bit too far.

      • Frank Acland

        Rossi speaks for himself, and has made some public statements; Industrial Heat has made a statement. NCkhawk says he is not speaking for IH, but giving his interpretation. If IH wants to comment on the court case on this site, they can do so officially. I’d rather not have the site used as an alternative courtroom.

  • Stephen

    Thanks for your reply NChawk, I understand and respect that you cannot go into details about your experience or some of those points I raised.

    With regard the case I also feel that it is the legal process is the right one to iron out the and clarify differences there.

    I don’t want to be controversial but wasn’t the statement from IH (that was rightly or wrongly on my side attributed to APCO?) about only trusting information release from them released before the ERV report and subsequent law suit? I can appreciate that since then events may have got ahead of themselves and the original statement.

    It is interesting to see your broader view on IH and other LENR work and also to see and understand a bit about your background. I do think we are fortunate to have your insight.

    I don’t like to form a negative opinion based on hearsay. So while waiting for the case to resolve I still hope for a good resolution based on clarity. I think in that regard we can agree I guess even if in my case I still hold hope for good results and that ECAT can be a good beacon for LENR.

    Since it is apparent you have an inside role with IH, I hope when things have resolved a bit later and you are able and they are willing, that you can share some details about those other projects. I’m also curious about how they are doing and I do think in the long term there is scope for very broad spectrum of technologies with LENR where different approaches will be optimum.

    • NCkhawk

      Thank you Stephen – we’ll see what develops that can be eventually shared. The IH approach is speed to ubiquity once we find something that verifies and becomes a candidate for engineering / applied R&D.

  • Eyedoc

    Hey Hawk, do you agree with Alf that ” IH has obtained the signatures of three Nobelists and almost one hundred reputed physicists on their document., including some LENR experts and a psychologist.”

    • Obvious

      Hmmm. There are flocks of birds, gaggles of geese, herds of cows, etc., so this is…. a concurrence of physicists?

  • Josh G

    But you apparently do but are not telling us. How convenient. In the meantime the only logical conclusion is that IH/Cherokee/Darden are suckers and cheats. And that’s where things stand until we get more information. Your drip, drip strategy is not working in your favor…

  • Nigel Appleton

    A couple of comments/queries

    Official or self-appointed “point man”?

    With whom has Rossi coordinated his PR efforts.?

  • Steve c

    sorry if this has come up before but it was news to me and I have been following for a while. check this out http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=127890 Steve c

  • Zephir

    cheatedinvestor May 5, 2016 at 9:44 PM

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:

    Tom Darden together with Cherokee Investments Partners have filed for 2
    bankrupcies in February 2016. Their investors lost 23 million dollars.
    Obviously all money of the investors: the money just disappeared.

    postandcourier.com/article/20160208/PC05/160209426

    It appears that Mr Darden customary collects investments in companies
    that end up dissipating the money of the investors with the excuse that
    the business is not gone well. With you they just found the wrong man:
    against any expectation, the E-Cat works and you really want to make an
    industry to produce it: you have broken their rules.

    We will sustain you to the end.

    Never give up.

    C.

    Rossi declined to comment.. I guess he is more busy with fire than fog