Rossi on Restricted Access to the E-Cat Customer's Production Facility

One of the interesting pieces of information to come out from Mats Lewan’s recent article following his meeting with Andrea Rossi was that no one from Industrial Heat had access to the production unit that was using the heat generated by the 1 MW E-Cat plant. The plant and the enclosed production unit were housed in the same warehouse in Doral, Florida where the 1 year test took place.

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Andrea Rossi was asked why Tom Darden was not allowed to go inside the customer’s production facility. Rossi responded:

Andrea Rossi
May 20, 2016 at 5:07 PM
In the agreement signed between IH and the Customer it had been agreed by the parties that nobody of IH was allowed to enter in JM area and nobody of JM was allowed to enter the area in which the plant was in operation. This had been agreed upon to defend the IP of both. This agreement has been signed by IH and JM, plus also me.
The text of the agreement has been written by IH and accepted by JM.
Warm Regards,

To me, this indicates that JM (the customer) was involved in some very sensitive production process that took advantage of the low-cost heat that the E-Cat plant provided. Probably this was a pilot project that the customer wanted to test out to see if it was a profitable endeavor — and according to Andrea Rossi, they were satisfied enough to order three more plants from him once the test was over. Mats Lewan has reported that visitors to the plant met someone from JM. Mats wrote here:

Ok, so people I have talked to, who visited the plant, got a presentation from someone supposedly being the ‘Director of Engineering’ at JM Products Inc, that supposedly produced metal sponges for catalytic applications. The Director of Engineering told them that they were very satisfied since the yield per amount of electric energy consumed was significantly larger than in the company’s other production sites, maybe 10x or 20x (figure uncertain). Someone got a glimpse though a door and saw what seemed to be production activity.

This production is at the crux of the whole story surrounding the 1MW plant test. If the customer was satisfied with the energy received and were able to produce products at much less cost than they could do otherwise, the E-Cat is a success — regardless of how it works. If you are producer in a competitive industry and want to maintain an advantage over your competitor you might not want to alert them about a new source of energy that allows you to produce items far more cheaply, and still be profitable. You might not want word to get out what you are doing, and so perhaps that would explain the reasons for them wanting to keep their work so secret.

I wish the customer would be more public, however. It would be very interesting to hear them go on record about what they were doing, and what they thought of the E-Cat. Maybe we will hear from them in the court case if it goes to trial, as their role in the whole story is a critical one.

  • SG

    Frank, way to zero on the core issues, and this one is core. I think we will hear something about or from the customer eventually, whether the customer likes it or not (e.g., by subpoena).

    Mr. Rossi’s explanation, once again, rings true. Prediction: Mr. Weaver will deny such an agreement was drawn up, was ever signed by IH, and is a figment of Mr. Rossi’s imagination. After the agreement is submitted to the court, it will be alleged that the agreement in fact existed, but was fraudulently procured. This whole story, including the volleys, and the responses, is becoming very predictable. It is all coming down to one question: was there fraud or not. Measurement error and delusion are no longer viable explanations.

    • Engineer48


      If fraud why has IH not involved the police in a $89m fraud investigation?

      I suggest if IH don’t involve the poluce, they have no proof of fraud.

      Just maybe what Weaver is doing is to generate doubt for 1MW plant orders, who defer their order to post the court decision, to cause cash flow pressure on Rossi and force him back to the negotiating table to accept some IH settlement offer. Dirty yes but it is how some do business.

      A word to the wise, knowing Italians very well, that strategy might just make them dig in their heals & fight such pressure tactics.

      • How’d you like to be the detective assigned THIS case?!

        • Engineer48

          I would find some very experienced steam engineers to review the equipment used, where installed & how the measurements were made.

          Would then ask them to run the plant for say 1 week & write me a report.

          This is not rocket science. Every steam thermal power plant in the world does this 24/7.

          • Obviously. I just meant it’d be like winning the lottery for a detective.

            World-changing technology wrapped in layer after layer of ambiguity and misdirection!

            And lucrative movie consulting fees to look forward to for helping Brad Pitt train for his role as Mats Lewan.

  • psi2u2

    I disagree.

    • DFarwell

      Psi, I am not saying this is impossible by any means, but I have just never seen such a strange arrangement with such an odd reasoning. By itself it might not be that substantial, but for me it adds a large part to the narrative I see coming together. Hopefully Rossi spills more info for us to all debate over……

      • psi2u2

        None of us have ever seen anything like this.

  • Curbina

    Haven’t I said that the customer holds the key for resolving all the controversies raised by IH? 😉

    If the customer insists in remaining secret, this can be going on for ever. I guess the customer has good reasons for remaining in the shadows, but at some point it can make all the difference in the outcome of the complaint.

  • Ophelia Rump

    By that point, Rossi was supposed to have volume and brand recognition.

    If he does not focus on the chip and core, then he has .0000000000001% global market penetration. The first competitor with funding gets to eat his lunch once the cat has left the bag. He must focus on chip production as that is the volume profit center. He can license manufacture and assembly of every other component, he can contract manufacture of every other component, but if someone else produces his core component, then they own the brand, and nothing they make is a low grade knock off. When they break away they take the volume and the brand with them, and leave Rossi without a supply line.

    Picture Intel contracting the chip manufacture, and the manufacturer goes rogue, leaving them with no product and that manufacturer sells his own variant on their product. Let the lawyers sort it out over the next twenty years, the last man standing gets the trillions.

    • Yes, licensing the core technology for use in vertical markets has been the only business model that makes sense to me as well.

      But there had to be a long duration test of the reactors in a field environment at some point and now Leonardo appears to be moving toward a business model of selling bundles of small QX’s. So maybe events are as they had to be, more or less, with a dash of stalling added by IH.

  • Brokeeper

    To add to Curbinas’ comment, if Rossi is a fraud then why, oh why, would he want to file a law suit to expose himself. The customer along with the ERV is the key to cleaning out this filthy mess left by these squirrels.

  • sam

    I think that T.D should have made sure he
    had one tour of the production in the plant.
    A.R should have made sure T.D. did have
    a guided tour.$100 million on the line.
    If there was not enough trust for that no
    wonder the deal fell apart.

    • Engineer48

      IH signed an agreement that they would not enter the customer’s area and the customer would not enter the IH area.
      Done deal.
      End of discussion.

      • sam

        Maybe A.R and T.D should have had
        a shake hands agreement also to get this deal done whatever it takes
        to do so

    • Robert Dorr

      Apparently they didn’t need a tour until it came time to pay Rossi the 89 million, then all of a sudden they needed to have a look at the factory. If they were so concerned about what was being produced they should have negotiated a tour of the factory before they signed the agreement.

      • This is consistent though with them being told by experts reviewing the report that they were duped and seeking more information to find out what’s what.

        • Robert Dorr

          I think it may have been easy for I.H. to feel they had been duped when the time to pay 89 million arrived. They may have been searching for any plausible reason not to pay.

  • SG

    Yes, I agree, settlement out of court would be one of the worst results for the LENR+ community, because it will keep the subject matter in limbo. We need everyone in this whole affair put under oath and see what comes out. Let the chips fall where they may.

    • HS61AF91

      would not an out of court settlement De facto show the E-cat worked? That’s at least something like an admission, behind an NDA curtain. Not ideal, but not one of the worst results.

  • Gerard McEk

    Rossi will have a very strong case if the customer will testify that continuously 1 MW of heat was received. The question is if the customer wants to be drawn in this hornets nest. I am sure JM Products is on the side of Rossi, but they must have taken precautions to avoid negative publicity.
    On the other hand, why would they not testify that for court when they really received the 8.4 GWh of heat for such a low price? Besides that, they have ordered 3 according to Andrea. I am sure he can show the order contract papers.

    • Engineer48

      IH had
      pre agreed the ERV report was the single item to trigger payment,
      pre agreed to the use the customer
      pre agreed to not enter the customer’s area.

      Why is this so hard to accept? This was a commercial deal and those were the agreed conditions.

      There is no need for the customer to say anything.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Yes, but the judge could call the customer as a witness, or at least force AR to disclose his identity.

        • HS61AF91

          Yes the judge can provide E-cat with huge publicity by his calls, then the jury will have the chance to decide who wins.

        • Engineer48

          Don’t agree.

          IH agreed for the ERV report to be the single determination of the $89m payment.

          The only way IH can avoid that payment is by declaring the data is false, which then opens up another can of worms as IH should have reported any fraud to the police for them to investigate. As they have apparently NOT done that, I doubt they can prove the data is false and are just stalling for time.

          The customer matters not.

          • wpj

            Mats L’s comments are the same based on talking to people who have actually seen the report.

          • The scenario seems to be that IH discovered fraud late, perhaps when the started circulating the ERV report for comment by experts.

            There is a sliver of hope that the expert analysis they got was wrong, the plant worked as the ERV said and it’s all just a bad misunderstanding. Maybe the experts pointed out how the data or flow meters could have been manipulated but that they actually weren’t.

            There’s a bigger chance that this is just IH seeing if they can get out of paying $89M or grabbing at more IP.

            And there’s also a chance that Rossi and company have been scamming for 5 years and finally got caught.

          • Engineer48

            Remember there was another earlier test of a 1MW ECat plant in Rossi’s factory by IH, who used the same ERV, lasting for 24 hours and resulted in IH paying Rossi $10m.

            That plant was then shipped to Raleigh & used as the prototype for IH manufactured plants.

            So even before the 1 year, 1MW plant test started, IH had 2 years experience in building & testing these 1MW plants.

            Plenty of time to call fraud, but nothing until Rossi’s invoice for $89m arrived in the “to be paid” pile of accounts owing.

            Seem a bit strange?

          • Oh yeah, I’m well aware.

            The last minute fraud detection story is almost total nonsense when you look at the big picture.

            But it is possible, however unlikely, that they trusted Rossi and Penon in particular to some degree and have just recently discovered they were duped.

          • Engineer48

            Today simple to buy instruments that directly calculate the energy content in passing fluid or steam (wet or dry). Put one on input and another on output. Thermal energy gain or not is then a done deal. Not hard. Not rocket science.

            IH claim to have several scientists, many engineers & techs, yet for almost 3 years none knew how to measure thermal gain until the $89m invoice payment was due? Sorry but that is BS.

          • Every microbe in my gut agrees with you.

            In a quest to remain open-minded I wish to hear the other side before I reach any firm conclusions. There is a lot that still doesn’t make sense, which points to an incomplete data set.

          • Engineer48

            So far the other side is Weaver and as an IH shareholder, he has 89m reasons to spin whatever to stop IH paying Rossi $89m, yet IH will probably never mention anything he has said in court, while everything Rossi says can be mentioned in court.

            So who has a higher obligation to only tell the truth? Weaver or Rossi?

          • Agreed. Weaver’s posts are interesting to analyze, but I don’t assign them to IH. I think they are most likely trial balloons so IH can hone their arguments.

            We await IH’s official position. Should have that in about a month and we can go from there.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Not paying the 89 million only makes sense if IH was not going then be able to sell and make buckets of money. I mean 89 million is chump change compared to the value of a working ecat.

            So why would a shareholder not want IH to pay out and obtain rights to a technology?

            A simple press conference and announcement by IH would and could raise 100’s of millions of dollars in a relative short time and also send the stock price soaring. I fail to see how stopping payment would help IH’s shareholders?

            I mean, if IH thought they had enough info and rights to go ahead and building such devices without Rossi, then I can see how not having to pay 90 million could help shareholders, but 90 million compared to a technology that worth billions does not seem to be a rational decision by any shareholder.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • The loading doors were supposedly left open the while time, so perhaps a fan driven vent in the roof would have been enough to maintain a tolerable temperature.

            The alternative would be water cooling to drain. In the UK that would require a license above a certain limit, but I don’t know what the situation is in the ‘states.

            Assuming that Weaver is full of it, the heat had to go somewhere – there is no known endothermic process that could absorb more than a fraction of 1 MW in the volume cited by Rossi.

          • wpj

            No, it requires leaching of aluminium from an alloy of nickel. Depending on the type of catalyst that you want (W1-W7), then the temperature varies between 50 and 90C.

            Additionally, for the honeycomb sponge types, this requires removal of the caustic and replacement as you use chunks of alloy rather than powder (so called “multiple boils”). These are considerably more expensive due to the processing costs, which is the major contribution. Thus, the 1MW plant would be ideal for this.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            What are the sponges used for?

          • artefact

            One example: Defkalion used Ni mesh as fuel or fuel container …

          • wpj

            A variety of uses depending on the form. Things like hydrogenation of oils with very fine stuff. The honeycomb material is packed in tubes and reactions are done in the vapour phase.

            Interestingly, Sponge Metal is a registered trademark of Johnson Mathey from when they took over a US operation in about 2003.

          • sam

            Is it possible that A.R and Penon
            seen how well the test was going
            and then duped I.H.

          • Anonymous

            Secret Services? The closest you get in North Carolina is Blackwater Security. They are said to be a “private Christian army”. Well known for rape, collateral murder, torture of small animals etc

            They operate in many ways, as mercenaries, computer experts, surveillance and every day security guard services.

          • Stanny Demesmaker

            I find it’s strange how many people who follow this story for many years still thinks that the e-cat doesn’t work. Sometimes they’re convinced and a few stories later they start doubting again.
            It’s fascinating to see how the FUD effect affects them.
            When we talk about the E-cat, we talk about SSM, at that moment calorimetry is non- issue. It works or it doesn’t. The Idea that IH needs 3 years to check that there is excess heat or not, is a joke. It only takes 1 test to show SSM at work.

          • DFarwell

            Those of us here who distrust Rossi have very valid reasons to do so, the “FUD” comment is deeply worn out at this point. You are correct that it should not take IH 3 years to check if there is excess heat, Rossi could easily prove this in a week or less with good testing methodology among trusted observers, yet he has refused to do so. We continue to wait for verifiable legitimate proof of claim of the Rossi effect.

          • you can say that again! 2 or more freekin years and only in 2016 did they figure out it was a “scam”?? laughable!

          • psi2u2

            One might might add the forms of “proof” offered by IH thusfar for the test’s failure are laughably unprofessional.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            Yes. At least here at Spain IH would be the one to proof that the report is wrong or false.
            I find difficult that the data read from the instruments can change that so the only possible way is to claim fraud.
            And for that the only way is to make a technician from the justice to check the plant working and see the readings (maybe changing some instruments)
            The customer being real or not, being production or not may hurt rossi if false but at last that wont matter if the readings are true.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            It is correct that the contract does not demand the existence of a ‘real’ customer. However, an existent customer would be an important witness if there are disagreements about the validity of the report.

          • Engineer48

            IH needs to prove the ERV measured COP is wrong & that the real COP was equal to or lower than 2.6 to avoid any payment to Rossi.

            Who IH call to support a equal to or lower than 2.6 COP is their business.

          • cashmemorz

            This is exactly why I have proposed this particular scenario several times. “Substantiated”(IH word) this way from 2 sources: 1)the ERV report and 2)the customer’s evaluation of power used/saved, will bullet-proof the results of the one year test. That ‘s all that IH needs. That the justice department does not see the need of the customer’s evaluation is a side of the matter that is beyond what IH wants. What IH wants is a business related matter to help convince investors. What Rossi/court needs is a legal matter separate from the business needs of IH and Cherokee investors needs.

          • BTW, I have to say, I’m so glad you are a prolific poster here. Thank you for your clear headed insight.

          • SG

            Not sure where this idea that police have to be involved for a fraud claim. Fraud can also be a civil matter.

      • Gerard McEk

        Not for me. Maybe, IH if they are going to continue their claim that the plant didn’t have a COP>1. The only thing they can do is prove it by anothe set of data. That will then be the ERV’s data against theirs. Then other evidence is required and there the ‘customer’ may kick in: ‘Er…, yes we received 8.4 GW heat’. Then the only disput left can be that either the customer gave a fraudulous statement or the electrical power/energy measurement was faulty. That’s why I said the customer may be not so willing to testify.

      • SG

        I agree except for the last line. The customer will need to say something because they will likely be compelled to do so, assuming the court case proceeds without settlement.

    • Engineer48

      This is a contract dispute.

      The court has no interest in proving or not LENR.
      The court has no interest in knowing the customer’s opinion.

      The issue is did the ERV report trigger the contractual requirement for payment?
      Yes or No?

      If IH claims NO (which is still to been seen if they do or not) then THEY (IH) need to prove the data was false. Rossi needs to prove nothing other than he engaged the test as required by the contract and the ERV needs to prove he engaged the measurement as required by his contract.

      Should add that if IH does claim the data is not correct, they then need to engage the police in a $89m fraud investigation.

      Remember here that IH pre agreed to the ERV, his instruments & to his method to measure and collect the data, plus they had 3 prior reports covering the 1st 3 quarters. Plenty to time to call foul, they they did not and apparently shared the early ERV report with potential investors and sub licensees.

      • wpj

        You also have to go back to FF’s interview with Mats L where he states the he, an IH employee at the time, was overseeing the control of the 1MW plant and was taking 1.5 million data points/day- this in addition to the 12 million of the ERV. He also was very positive about the 1MW test.

        It is difficult to see how IH say that their “experts” saw differently to the ERV.

        • Engineer48

          Please understand what Weaver says it not from IH. It is not official. So far IH have said very little. Plus Weaver, as a IH shareholder has 89m reasons to spin whatever to try to stop IH paying out $89m to Rossi.

          What Rossi says must match the 18 volumes of undisclosed statements yet to be presented in court.

          So Weaver can say whatever he wishes, while Rossi is restricted to making statements that support and align with already lodged documents.

      • Should be a short trial if it ever gets started. Somebody is lying their butt off.

        • sam

          Possibility they are both
          just mixed up.

      • Robert Dorr

        Don’t forget, they also had two people on hire reporting the performance of the plant every day.

      • wpj

        No, it was reclassified as a patent dispute!

        • SG

          It has various flavors including contract, patent, and determinations of fraud. Ultimately, by the way IH is posturing, it will come down to a question of whether there was fraud or not. The legal system is best equipped to make this determination.

    • BillH

      There are many ways to supply 1MWth of steam at a specific temperature, pressure and flow rate. The only things that would worry the customer are price and reliability. According to the contract between IH and AR the cost of the energy was fixed at a price of $1000/day, payable to IH. Therefore the customer may only be required to comment on the reliability of the supply in a court case.

      Any savings made by the COP 50 being achieved as opposed to the minimum of COP 6 would be pocketed by IH, mainly in reduced energy costs to them.

      The customer must have thought that $1000/day was a very reasonable price to pay for their energy needs, perhaps they usually paid $5000/day from their previous supplier( just a guess), so as long as the supply was reliable they were always going to be happy.

      The customer may well be willing to buy new plant, as by cutting out the middle man, in this case IH, it means that they could reduce their costs even further.

      However, as and of itself this doesn’t prove anything about how the plant works, so buyer beware…

      • wpj

        Sorry, but if it was making sponge metal catalysts this could be done with less than 6 people assuming 24h operation- only need that number for health and safety considerations as well. On a normal plant operation this would normally be run by a single person.

        • adriano

          We are talking about someone that decided to disassemble from his factory one of his plant (this is already critical since stopping the usual production rate can bring a factory out of the market), ship all the parts and components (how big and complex those components are?), reassembling it in another structure, trasfering someone from his headquarters to another location to make the plant work. Now we have tecnician assembling a plant. Who paid them for being away several days from their own usual work place? Once the plant is operative you need people activating the plant, loading it with raw materials, following the production process, disloading the finish product, preparing it for delivery in the delivery area where probably tracks will come several times at week to load boxes or pallets. We should also assume that those people (or this single person) should be able to repair or fix any inevitable problem during one year of production of the plant.

          Between the situation described above and the possibility that the production described by Rossi is not what you all imagine I will put my money on the second option. Is just more likely to be true.

          • wpj

            They were probably using a single reactor which required heating. There would be a need for a couple of storage tanks; one for 50% caustic and one for waste. The reactor can be had for $25k and the storage tanks would be caged plastic for picking up with a fork lift. I doubt that the equipment would come to more than $50k assuming their own engineers set it all up.

            The product is dumped straight into barrels and stored over water.

          • Perhaps (as I’ve suggested elsewhere) an energy-intensive plant item such as a drying oven of a type operated by the customer was used as a ‘load’, but without any product processing. This would have replaced the second heat exchanger in my earlier speculation.

        • Stephen

          It’s a big if but If it was making nickel catalysts for ecat technology I suppose would be using small quantities concentrated in heavy isotopes.

          If someone had a special process for this, including maybe production of the material, shaping and processing it into its required form, incorporating it intoncomponents and packaging the product I could imagine them wanting to keep that secret.

          This could also apply to any new technology with IP constraints.

          Given the experience of LC and perhaps IH when someone in IH filed patents of e-cat tech with out LC knowledge, I can imagine them being even more concerned and careful about secrecy.

          I’m also a little surprised, especially given their apparent allegations, if IH were allowed to see inside production unit even if a third party legal group got access.

    • bfast

      “Rossi will have a very strong case if the customer will testify that continuously 1 MW of heat was received.”

      I love understatement.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    “The Director of Engineering told them that they were very satisfied since the yield per amount of electric energy consumed was significantly larger than in the company’s other production sites, maybe 10x or 20x”. The world desperatly need this kind of energy source and we can’t find a customer willing to confirm?

    • Engineer48

      Had IH made the $89m payment, I bet there would be LOTS of customers lining up at IH’s and Leonardo’s door. But maybe IH did not wish to manufacture and was intending to flip the IP to a sub licensee, which of course would need to gear to for manufacturing while Leonardo was ready to go.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        It has been my theory ever since IH entered the picture that their goal was to delay the implementation of LENR. But why hasn’t Rossi found a customer who will confirm”10-20″ COP?

  • “…according to Andrea Rossi, they were satisfied enough to order three more plants from him once the test was over.”

    ‘From him’ presumably means from Leonardo Corp, but shouldn’t that have been ‘from IH’ at that time, which was before the tiff? (Because IH held the rights according to the agreement, which had not been broken by either party at that point).

    • Engineer48

      IH territory does not cover the UK.

      • It just seems rather strange to me that the test was conducted under the auspices of IH and the allegedly UK based JMP with no ostensible involvement of Leonardo, yet it is Leonardo that walks away with a large order, apparently with no objection from IH.

        • Engineer48

          IH agreed to the customer, knowing it had a UK parent.
          Had IH made the payment, just maybe they might have a few orders as well.

          BTW the test was conducted as per the contract IH signed with Rossi.

          • As LuFong reminds us below, Rossi referred to ‘the customer of IH’ over an extended period. I wonder how and when this entity became ‘the customer of Leonardo’?

            Rossi’s comment about the order being made as soon as the tests were over infers that it was made before the bust up, which took place after the period for payment of the $89M had expired. The story still doesn’t seem quite right.

          • Engineer48
          • SG

            The shell company was IH’s “customer.” The parent company falls outside of IH’s licensed territory, assuming IH’s license is even still valid.

          • It was still valid at the time of the alleged sale. If things are as put forward, then IH would probably have a case for ‘bad faith’ on Rossi’s part, as they had supposedly provided the reactor and at least partially underwritten the cost of the test, which was the basis on which the sale was made.

            But the chances of things being as we currently understand them are approaching zero IMHO.

          • SG

            Good point, but then again, if IH doesn’t believe that it even works, then would they have a legitimate beef if Mr. Rossi made more sales of the plant to the customer from Europe?

  • Jarea

    It makes no sense that JM choose a prototype (or secret) process to help testing a new energy source. The unknows should be only one at a time. I can’t think any reason to accept these conditions (By Rossi and IH) other than they didn’t have any other option (important client). This is quite improbable. Another reason is to cause delay for LENR acceptance.

    • Engineer48

      Here is a thought.

      Just maybe the UK parent of the US customer had been in discussion with HydroFusion and Rossi about doing a trial of the ECat.

      When IH failed to find a customer for the test, Rossi approached HydroFusion, who approached their potential UK customer to see if they were interested in doing their trial in the US.

      They agreed and Rossi’s lawyer made the necessary legal documents to cause this to happen, which included getting IH to agree to the deal. I’m sure IH receiving $1k per day was a nice sweetener.

      When the US customer’s UK parent was satisfied with the US trial results, the UK parent proceeded to order 3 x 1MW plants from HydroFusion.

      • That’s exactly the kind of missing puzzle piece I was referring to below. Some kind of commercial tie-up involving ‘the customer’ seems to be a reasonably high probability – if they actually do manufacture catalytic foam metals, Rossi’s reactors would open up a virtually infinite market for them. Win-win for Leonardo and ‘JM Products’ but rather less so for Cherokee/IH, who begin to look rather more like victims (probably deserving victims) than previously. Never play chess with Rossi – perhaps.

        • Engineer48

          You need to ask yourself if you think IH ever intended to actually manufacture, sell, install and support 1MW ECat production in all their territories or if they intended to use the sub licensee clause of the contract to flip the IP to another very large existing manufacturer?

          Problem with doing that is any large & world wide manufacturer would not like the territory limitation that would be imposed on them by the existing IH license with Leonardo.

          So just maybe IH came up with a method to eliminate the territory limitation on their sub licensees? Just a thought. Just a guess.

          IH filing a EU ECat patent that Rossi never knew about sure asks questions about why IH would file a patent outside their existing territories but just maybe they were working to remove their territory limitations.

          • In reply to your rhetorical question, I am certain that IH never had any intention of manufacturing CF reactors. I assumed that they would at first purchase them from Leornardo and just sell on at a profit, then as you suggest, sell out to an international concern (if they haven’t already done so) and retain some royalties.This would as you also say, almost certainly involve some means of getting around the territory limitations.

            If even a part of some of the speculation here is true, then it seems that Rossi may have been some way ahead of them.

          • “the hidden consortium behind Darden”

            A possible source of the overnight behavior change in IH.

            “Don’t pay the $89M until they can prove it in court.”

            “Slow this train down Darden, we’re not ready yet.”

            “We’ve decided to go with Brillouin. Find a way to sideline Rossi.”

            “We’ve got to get the QX IP, that’s the ball game! Take him to court if he won’t share it willingly.”

          • Frank Acland

            However it was Rossi who took IH to court.

          • I’m sure they could project that if they didn’t pay Rossi would go to court.

          • He had clearly prepared to do so for some time, so he must have got wind of the intention not to pay quite early on. Perhaps he learned that Darden was no longer in the driver’s seat, and realised at that point that his deal would not be honoured by whoever had come aboard, and that he would need to bale before crucial IP had to be handed over.

          • kenko1

            I can see the headlines now in the Federal Register.”Crackpot inventor sues Investors. Court agrees. Device works as inventor claims. Awards inventor $89M + damages from investors.” Can’t get much better confirmation than that. It’s my guess that Rossi & IH are still pals.

          • kenko1

            I believe AlainCo came up with that scenario several weeks ago in another thread.

          • I’m more pessimistic now.
            One scenario, the best, is Rossi refuse to explain how E-cat works, and made a faked test, either because he is irrational and refuse to collaborate, or because he have a better investor.

            bad scenario is that he have nothing valuable since the beginning.

            last scenario is not refuted by available information.

            what data shows is that IH cannot make E-cat work, and is not estimating it can make it work one day .
            They would otherwise care for Rossi, as they did initially. maybe they were too kind and refused to consider tha bad option.

            anyway they have good scientists in their team, they will bounce again.

          • sam

            Anything is possible but that
            theory of what happened is a
            long shot.

          • He had little alternative when the final payment wasn’t forthcoming. He may have been played to some extent, but was probably aware of that.

    • HS61AF91

      I can sort of see a scenario as follows:

      IH has no customer to fit their plans, but wants demonstration and proof of enduring E-cat operation

      Rossi knows E-cat works, and needs some special manufacturing to mass produce some metal sponges

      JM listens to Rossi and sees possibility of making those mass produced sponges, and lots of profit

      so for one year the heat is on, and the products are made, IH is paid day-by-day.

      IH conceives of a method to get all the marbles, and starts balking at the contractual agreement,

      the good Doctore sues,

      IH lawyers up.

      jury finds for Rossi

      ( the world is saved! ;-} )

      • psi2u2


    • wpj

      It wasn’t. It was stated to be an established process, but a scaled down version to consume 1MW based on their other production.

      What is in there, though, may be propriatary knowledge.

    • psi2u2

      “The unknow[n]s should be only one at a time.”

      This is the correct scientific answer, but this was not a science experiment. I can think of several reasons why, given Rossi’s objectives, combining “unknowns” might be advantageous.

  • We don’t know what the customer’s production area was like, busy or not. Trucks appearing periodically at the loading dock would have been completely normal for that type of building.

    We have heard nothing from people in neighboring business either way. Maybe it was a busy place. But even if it was relatively quiet, so what? Means nothing unless you make unfounded assumptions about what was happening in there.

  • Couldn’t they proceed with the validation portion of the sale though? The plant visit with their own engineers? With money in escrow being released if that visit does not verify the tech?

    Why wait to do that part? That business intel would be well worth the opportunity cost of whatever money was tied up in escrow, no?

  • Engineer48

    The court is not interested in proving or not the validity if LENR.

    The issue before them is why has IH refused the contractually agreed payment based only on the ERV report of the COP. For IH to not be found in default they need to PROVE to the court, the ERV’s report is incorrect and the real COP was equal to or less than 2.6.

    Nothing the customer could say is involved in this.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Here in Madison, WI I know that a 160MWatt co-generation facility is run by two people on the night shift. A 1.2 million gallon anaerobic digester is run by one person remotely. A 100 Million gallon per day sewerage processing facility is run by 2 people on the night shift. It is amazing what modern automation can do to increase productivity.

  • Steve Swatman

    oh, now you have spoiled my day and I am all over offended.

    But I agree with you about Engineer48’s comments.

  • Robert Dorr

    What I find hard to understand is why haven’t several large multinational corporations already purchased these 1MW plants from Rossi? I realize they cost around 10 million and to most of us that’s a considerable amount of money but to a multinational 10 million is nothing considering the potential cost savings and or profits to them. I also realize that it is an unproven technology but they gamble with that kind of money all the time.

    • Engineer48

      Where did you get $10m for a 1MW plant? That is $10/watt. The contract states manufacturing cost under $0.10/watt. At $10/watt there is no business out there.

      I do believe there are 1MW ECat plants in operation but the customers do not desire their phones, inbox and postbox full of questions & visit requests. Nor do they desire their competitors to know they have very significantly dropped their cost of production.

      When I get my customers 10 x 1MW 105C steam plant installed and operating to their satisfaction, I & my partners do intent to build an open to the public 1MW ECat demonstration & education facility in Australia.

      • Robert Dorr

        I may be mistaken but I thought that Rossi’s advertised price for the 1MW container plant was 10 million. Please correct me, did I add a zero or two?

  • kdk

    I think that there are probably other people with deep pockets who may not be so dependent on the status quo for their money, and would like cheap energy. I don’t know how susceptible they would be to being “leaned on”.

  • SG

    Curious what the sentiment in Italy is right now for Mr. Rossi? Is he talked about in the local press? Are people aware of what is going on with the LENR+ developments from Mr. Rossi and others?

  • LuFong

    From Rossi, 36 m^3 of water were circulated per day. If the “customer” merely piped the water into/through a water tank to capture some heat and then dumped this water into the sewer replacing it with cooler water before recirculating the water back to the 1MW plant then it would cost something like $100/day (water rate dependent) for water and just $35,000 for the 350 days. This is a very small amount when you consider $1000/day was being paid by the “customer” for this energy and $89M was on the line.

    I’m not sure what the water temperature of a water tank the size of 20x3x3 m^3 (180 m^3) would elevate to if roughly 36 m^3 of 100°C were passed through being replaced with cooler inlet water but it but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was about 60°C. Someone here might be able to do this calculation to see if it’s ballpark correct.

    Note I am referring to 100°C water and not dry steam which would be required if the 1MW plant did indeed generate 1MWh/h. It would be very interesting to see the customers water bill and the temperature of the input water over the year (although in Miami it might be relatively constant, unlike other places).

    The point of this exercise is to show how easy it is to fake “production” by the “customer” especially if Rossi had access to the “customer” side (which evidently he did).

    • The simplest arrangement might have been two heat exchangers, the first steam-to-water, the second water-to-air (fan driven thermal exhaust to roof vent). Varying the fan speed could be used to simulate demand variation, while measuring flow and return temperatures and flow rate in the output of the first HE would give an accurate and very robust figure for energy produced. The whole thing could have been mounted in a third container provided by the customer. Occam’s razor and all that.

      • LuFong

        I would imagine the flue would be visible in the space since it is probably an open warehouse.

        I’ll take your word on whatever is easier.

        • Basis of my guess: The one and only (very colourful!) photo of the interior of the warehouse shows a relatively dark area behind the screen which looks rather inconsistent with a production floor. What looks like two insulated pipes (one through the partition, the other just over it) connect the larger of Rossi’s containers with what could be another container. The arrangement suggests to me an unmanned(?) test facility, possibly container-mounted, rather than active factory.

          The ‘two heat exchanger’ theory is just the simplest arrangement that might do the job of simulating a load requirement. One of the roof vents visible in satellite views of the factory is towards the front of the building and possibly out of the lit area, so ducting to it might not be immediately obvious from the well-lit e-cat area.

          • Frank Acland

            Rossi said the container which enclosed the production area was 20 x 3 x 3m, so like a small mobile home.

          • LuFong

            In the picture on the left you can see what I think might be part of the customer production area. It’s behind the partition and has a white pipe going/coming to/from it.

            On second view the partition may be the customer container and there is two conduits, a lower white one and an upper silver one bigger one.

          • The dark object behind the partition and silhouetted against the light is what I was referring to. There are two pipes visible, presumably flow and return. The heavier insulation on the upper one indicates steam flow.

          • Frank Acland

            Rossi has also said recently that the doors of the plant were left open, as in this picture.

          • Yes, something that size may be possible. It wouldn’t fit through the warehouse doors though, and would have to have been erected on site.

          • Moved – wrong place!

          • Stephen

            Regarding the higher lagged pipe? It’s quite high up relative to the units in the container. Really it looks like it is coming from the top. Could it even be possible for it to just contain hot water as suggested by some, if so would it need to be under pressure or have sufficient head to circulate? Or is some pump involved?

            To my naive eyes it looks to me more likely that this pipe contains steam, but I could be a wrong.

            I wonder if there is an internal image that matches to this pipe?

          • LuFong

            It would have to be 100% dry steam I believe to meet the 1MWh/h requirement given the 36 m^3 being circulated. On Mats Lewan’s blog he talks about boiling the water so it’s pretty much steam.

          • Stephen

            Good point.

          • SG

            Thanks. Was just curious. Seems like the MSM press blackout is quite extensive.

          • wpj

            See previous discussions; it appears that the steam needs to be wet to work properly.

          • LuFong

            I missed that and will look for it. In that case the customer did not use 1MWh/h energy or the 1MW plant did not produce it.

          • Frank Acland

            I don’t know of any reference from AR or other source that the steam had to be wet. Rossi has only ever referenced steam.

          • DrD

            Also, we have not been told the steam temperature. The 100.1C isn’t from a reliable source.
            ALSO, the energy to heat the recirc water to boiling point was ignored when calculating the COP for the contract with IH. This does not mean and is very unlikely to have been ignored by the customer when calculating his consumption. The two are quite different.

          • wpj

            This was from Engineer48 or another (beginning with “S” but can’t recollect his full name ; it appears that totally dry steam does not transfer heat very well. E48 also posted a link to the equipment which is used for determination of the humidity of the steam.

          • wpj

            From “Slad”, 3 days ago in the other thread

            What Clarke doesn’t realise is that most commercial boilers (at least those not spinning turbines) are designed to produce wet steam.

            Wet steam (a.k.a. saturated steam) can transfer it’s heat more efficiently than dry steam. Dry steam is actually an insulator.

            Every person who works with steam knows this, and is quite able to work out the energy content wet steam.

          • wpj

            The quotes that Engineer48 has been getting are for 105C steam.

          • LuFong

            I updated my post to include the possible significant input air flow requirement.

            It’s not clear what is what from the satellite view of the roof top. In this picture we don’t see everhting as you say but the customer area seems to be toward the front and left side of the building. There is something on the roof that is in that general area but I’m not sure what it is.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I’m not sure if this is a photo of the test site. The building in 7861 NW 46th St, Doral, FL 33166 has large windows in the front and back side. Also, the current photo obviously shows a rather old-style building. This does not seem to fit the exterior views that we have seen.

          • US_Citizen71

            Warehouses and receiving docks generally are not too glamorously decorated, bare and painted concrete is very typical.

          • radvar

            Perhaps another description of the building.


    • Robert Dorr

      Assuming Rossi had sensors in the correct positions to get an accurate reading of the performance of the 1MW reactor, what would he gain by faking production? Would it somehow change the amount of heat being produced by the reactor?

      • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

        This is an educated guess of what we have

        The only way for the e-cat not working should be a big scam.
        That would mean fake production, fake customer, fake readings, Penon on collusion…

        If the customer is real – Ecat works.
        Even if it is not, the ecat may work.

        It seems easier to think that IH doesnt want to pay, the reasonds behind this may be different but at this moment, i see difficult the fraud option.

        • Robert Dorr

          My point is, as long as the measurements were made properly and accurately it makes no difference whether he had a customer and whether or not the customer actually produced something. It either made the 1MW of energy or it didn’t and that will be shown by the more than 66 million measurements taken and recorded during it’s operation. Hopefully, someday we will get a chance to see the data.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            I doubt the existing data will be disputed. What will be claimed is heat measurements were missed and not taken into account. So if some input data is not included, then what good is 2, 3 or 3,000,000 measurements?

            And often a building has multiple meters and electric accounts. So once again until such time that additional information about who paid the energy bills – and how many metered electrical accounts existed for the given site, then again little can be determined here.

            It either made the 1MW of energy or it didn’t and that will be shown by the more than 66 million measurements

            But determining this can be more difficult especially when both parties have close ties.

            Just because a conflict of interest exists due to Rossi having hired a company of
            his own creating, or one with close ties to him does not mean that dishonesty occurred here.

            So the onus will fall on IH to show what and when and how measurements of heat could have been missed. However, toss in the close ties and conflict of interests – these help IH to make their case.

            IH will certainly need solid proof of doubt. However, if IH can cast doubt on the sources of energy, then such doubt will hurt Rossi.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Robert Dorr

            If the ERV positioned his sensors in locations agreed to by both Rossi and I.H. and the measurements from those sensors confirm that the reactor performed as Rossi indicates, i.e. COP>50 and the sensors were not tampered with, then it boils down to a few possibilities, Rossi conspired in a fraud, I.H. made a mistake in agreeing to the sensor locations and therefore there is an error in the COP calculation, I.H. is mistaken in there calculations, the ERV made a mistake in his calculations, I.H. knows that the 1MW reactor works as confirmed by the ERV and they are either stalling for time or hope for a ruling in there favor on some technicality, and finally I.H. does not have the funds to pay Rossi and is stalling for time.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Sure, I can agree with this.

            IH is in somewhat of a pickle or catch 22. You can say one does not believe the ERV, but they have to provide evidence to that fact.

            If the plant and industrial setup is now not running, then IH only has data that been logged from the ERV and PERHAPS their own data. I can’t see IH making much of a case here unless they have some compelling evidence – perhaps they have data that disagrees with the ERV?

            A position that one does not like the data is not an “out” clause for not paying contracts one agrees upon. However data that disagrees with the ERV certainly could and would be used to disagree with the ERV report.

            We don’t have the official position and response from IH as of yet. As pointed out even disagreements over IP rights etc. are a different matter and a different issue as compared to the duty of paying out at completing time of the test.

            Right now, it looks like IH simply does not want to pay – we don’t know if they have good evidence to support this position.

            We will need more from IH that defines their position. It could be as you state they don’t feel like paying, or they don’t have funds, or perhaps they do have solid evidence that puts the ERV report in doubt.

            As pointed out, with good evidence suggests that some kind of charges etc. would have to be brought forward and laid.

            However IH likely could take the position that IH and AR are negotiating a position and until further analysis of their conflicting data, then litigation is occurring between the two parties. Often two parties will forgo charges or particular claims in Lou of a negotiated settlement before any court appearances or even laying of charges appears.

            I seen many a case where one party agrees to not make (or pursue) a claim of fraud during such litigation.

            Most cases require that fraud charges must occur within one year of the given party having knowledge of such fraud. However that party claiming such fraud can hold off on charges by offering other agreements to such claims. The results of this is that a “pending” fraud claim does not have to be filed within that one year time frame while lawyers hammer things out.

            So even in the case of IH of claiming fraud still allows their lawyers agreeing to not moving forward on such charges as their layers hammer out agreements (they usually will not give up the rights of claiming fraud, but can and will use such a claim as negotiating leverage for something in return). Once the party has been informed of such fraud – then such parties can negotiate over the issue without having to use the courts.

            I should also point out that such litigation occurs between the lawyers is not public knowledge or subject to public filing. What above means that IH may well have a positon of fraud but do not have to file or state as such in pubic while the lawyers hammer this issue out.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Robert Dorr

            I think there are indeed backroom negotiations going on as we speak but final results may not be known for quite some time. I wont be surprised if this never makes it to court.

      • LuFong

        We don’t know what the production of the 1MW plant is. That is what they are trying to measure, The customer’s production would be one measure. If there is near 100% confidence in the other method, then yes it’s not important.

        • Robert Dorr

          Even if we knew what the “customer” produced and that production somehow matched the amount of energy that was produced by Rossi’s reactor, how would we know that the customer wasn’t also using electrical energy to add additional heat production on the customers side? That’s why all of the useful information has to come from Rossi’s reactor side and it doesn’t matter what the customer was or wasn’t doing.

          • LuFong

            If the “customer” were an existing customer not related to Rossi then their word would add to the validation. It’s not foolproof but it does add to the validation.

            And for me, I would rather trust a established customer and the electric company than Rossi and company. We shall see.

  • SG

    Not necessarily. Fraud can be both a civil and/or a criminal matter.

  • Rossi Fan

    Sandy put away your transducers. Just think about to the alleged statements and you will notice that you are on the receiving end of chaff. He cannot have it both ways. He can’t say one day that he is suing IH and the Chinese because he showed them everything and did not pay him in return. Then the next day that nobody had access to anything. These kinds of contradictions give IH’s statement not to believe anybody says that does not come from IH that much more credibility

    • psi2u2

      The primary if not the sole condition for the $89 payment was the performance of the 1MW plant, which IH at least through leaks has indicated did not work. IH has made it about that issue. We don’t know what if any IP Issues are at the root of this or even if they are, although it seems probable to me. The point is that IH has so far not contested anything about IP but has said that the test failed.

  • wpj

    That is not true. The temperature was about 60c, but varied due to what was happening in the production. Therefore, they discarded the amount of heating that was required to take it back to 100c. They only considered in their calculation the heat required to do the boiling. In another post here it has been calculated that this would increase the COP by about 7%.

    • hum.. hum.

      let us consider the case :
      – you pretend to make steam at 100C
      – fluid back have temperature varying from 90 to 60C.
      you dump back temperature, but you tune it to be 89C .

      instead of 540 calories per gram of water, you heat 11 calorie per gram…


      • wpj

        As stated elsewhere, fraud is an option by the ERV/AR.

        If you are going to court, that doesn’t sound too sensible.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I agree that the ‚fluctuating’ inlet temperature raises questions. First, it is more difficult to estimate the energy that was required to heat up the water – which would become important in case that steam production and/or -quality could not be verified. Secondly, an instable temperature might indicate a possible backflow (see Gamberale’s report on the Defkalion reactor). We will have to wait and see if the ERV’s report addresses this issue.

        • By Rossi’s description of the number of sensors, I believe the ERV’s report will include data from temperature sensors on the incoming water to each reactor.

          • psi2u2

            Let us hope that is how it was set up.

    • Anon2012_2014

      “The temperature was about 60c, but varied due to what was happening in the production.”

      Fine — show me a plot with data sampled every 1 minute throughout the test.

      What if the temperature was 100.1c ? We would never know if the “customer” flowed back steam or superheated water because it was intentionally not measured. Why not measure it.

      I can’t wait to read the ERV report.

  • cashmemorz

    “Substantiated”(IH word) is by way of 2 sources: 1)the ERV report and
    2)the customer’s evaluation of power used/saved. 1) is a good start. But 2) will substantiate 1), to bullet-proof the
    results of the one year test. That the court case does not need the customer’s evaluation is separate from what IH wants for its business decisions.

  • LuFong

    Nope. All contracts are executed on good faith including the fact that the ERV executes its task correctly.

    In addition nowhere in the contract does it say that the ERV is the determining factor. It only says that the the report must be positive in order for the General Performance test to be positive. That makes it a necessary but not sufficent condition. Looks like both of you need to re-read the contract.

  • Andrew

    Please provide a source for this new found information.

  • Timar

    Dear Sandy,

    that was neither clever nor convincing (twisting the stated fact that the flow-back temperature wasn’t accounted for in the COP calculation into the entirely unfounded assumption that it wasn’t monitored). Do yourself a favour and reattend that astroturfing course offerred by your employer APCO before you come back here or else they might figuere that you are a failure as a shill.

  • Josh G

    “As Weaver has stated, IH offered Rossi a deal to stop the trial, which he refused to do.”

    As far as I know, it was Rossi (via Mats) who made this claim. Weaver never rebutted it, but that’s not the same as him stating it. Unless he did so in another forum that I’m not aware of.

    • I don’t remember who stated that, maybe jed, but the goal was to stop that useless test and focus on basic scientific evidence of E-cat technology.
      IH was unable to make it work and it is their only real problem, to know how to make e-cat that works.
      What Rossi can do is not their problem.

  • theBuckWheat

    We are at the point where some public display of some form of e-Cat device is going to be necessary in order to retain credibility. Happily, we are seeing a sufficient number of LENR outbreaks (both short and sustaining) in experiments to know that the phenomena is real.

  • US_Citizen71

    I’m sure he did think your hypothesis was absurd.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    The cooling for the Cray machines had to operate with efficient vapor compression systems. The hot side could not be too high in temperature, hence the need for a cooling tower. If you are allowed to exhaust heat near 100C, the cooling devices can be much smaller. For example, you could simply blow the steam off.

    Seymour Cray once stated that the two most difficult things about supercomputers were packing things close together (speed of light issues) and getting the heat out.

    • And when cooling a supercomputer, you don’t have an endothermic process consuming/absorbing the thermal power. Even if that could be a good idea…

      • psi2u2

        Mats, has anyone run numbers on this? – I mean, assuming a certain volume of production of making, say metal sponges (for a guess), how much heat is absorbed? And then checking that against the different scenarios for the heat budget of the building?

  • Anon2012_2014

    Access to the “customer’s” facility — don’t care. Want to see proof, not access to the heat exchanger.

    I guess there is no news here…

  • radvar

    “To me, this indicates that JM (the customer) was involved in some very sensitive production process”

    Love ya, Frank, but the more parts that are added, the harder it is to add the whole thing up. The simplest explanation, that accounts for all the facts, is that something very simple was going on in the “production facility”.