Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that "Looks Like it Worked"

Thanks to Alan Smith for posting this quote from Jed Rothwell on the LENR Forum, which suggests that there has been an E-Cat test, presumably by Industrial Heat, or on their behalf (Jed Rothwell has just stated the test was not for Industrial Heat), when Rossi was not present. On the LENR Forum, Abd Lomax makes this statement: “What there has been, over and over, is “demonstration,” where Rossi manages. Not independent, ever. Rossi has never trusted anyone to do that.”

Jed Rothwell responded:

That is incorrect. As I said, there was a test conducted in the U.S. when he was in Italy. The instruments belonged to the people who did the test. Unfortunately they do not want me to publish any details. I cannot explain what happened or whether it actually worked. I have only a little information. It looks like it worked, but I can’t be sure.

In a later comment here he stated:

Yes, they installed all the instruments in their own location. Rossi had nothing to do with it . . . I don’t have much on this. Just a summary, some graphs and 6 photos of equipment. It looks like a standard HVAC boiler test to me.

It seems then that Rothwell is referring to an internal test, not meant for public distribution, but which he has been permitted to see. The interesting point to me is that he says “it looked like it worked” — although he doesn’t definitively say that it did.

Once again, however, we are not hearing first-hand from Industrial Heat; it’s through someone they have spoken to. (According to Jed Rothwell, this test was not done for IH)A question that I keep returning to is whether IH believes the E-Cat might work. The fact that they say they can’t substantiate Rossi’s claims is not the same as denying that it works. Maybe they just feel like they haven’t seen enough evidence to 100 per cent convince them yet, and it does seem so far that they don’t want to give up on the license agreement with Leonardo. Perhaps the test mentioned here is something that gives them reason to not want lose the license.

  • Ged

    Too much supposition, too much hearsay, too much gossip. I’m tired of the “people told me by back channels and dark alleys” stuff being thrown around increasingly on other forums. I want data, I want proof of their supposed insider details. Mats I can accept as he is a professional journalist and it is their ethical code of conduct to protect their sources, and their position gives implicit trust through editorial oversight. But forum posters, not so much.

    I apologies for being crabby, but I’m weary of these games, and the particular people playing them.

    • As I said before ( ! ), somebody is playing us. Maybe both sides.

      We are in the fog of war and it’s getting hard to distinguish advances from feints.

      • Tom59

        If it actually was a roaring success (COP 50), would we be in the situation to discuss what substantiation means? I am curious where Brillouin stands and about results from the Kimmel Institute.

  • Ged

    Too much supposition, too much hearsay, too much gossip. I’m tired of the “people told me by back channels and dark alleys” stuff being thrown around increasingly on other forums. I want data, I want proof of their supposed insider details. Mats I can accept as he is a professional journalist and it is their ethical code of conduct to protect their sources, and their position gives implicit trust through editorial oversight. But forum posters, not so much.

    I apologize for being crabby, but I’m weary of these games, and the particular people playing them.

    • As I said before ( ! ), somebody is playing us. Maybe both sides.

      We are in the fog of war and it’s getting hard to distinguish advances from feints.

      • Tom59

        If it actually was a roaring success (COP 50), would we be in the situation to discuss what substantiation means? I am curious where Brillouin stands and about results from the Kimmel Institute.

  • You have to see this in the context, that Jed Rothwell currently no longer believes that Rossi has anything!

    Jed had contact to IH and saw a few pages of the ERV report, which changed his oppinion on Rossi dramatically!

    • Ged

      Guess your old buddy just changed his tune again and left you out to dry. Sorry, Barty.

      • Why should he be my buddy?

        I just wanted to show the whole picture. Nothing else. It’s just interesting to hear the “it looks like it worked” from Jed, after he discredited Rossi several times the last weeks.

        • Ged

          Maybe you shouldn’t trust any of the unsupported things he says, no matter which way he puts it, until some sort of proof is offered. Otherwise, you are the one left holding the bag when he changes his tune, just like Weaver has done to plenty of other folks. It is embarrassing to watch.

          Stop taking what he says as fact, and start demanding evidence. That is my view on all this.

          • wpj

            He says that he has the 10 page report sitting on his desk. Seems less convinced later in the thread (a pain to go through with all the vitriol).

          • Ged

            Then he can take a picture or scan of it and redact identifying material. Again, I apologize for being crabby, but I want evidence so I can make my own determination, and I no longer trust his word till he re-establishes credibility.

          • You mean Jed is less convinced of what he said about the ERV report in the past, and now more positive about it?

          • No. Jed is talking about a separate report (10 pages, mostly pictures) that appears to indicate a working 1 MW plant — a test done in Rossi absence by unknown (to us) parties. But he says there’s not much to go on.

            Not to be confused with the ERV report, which Jed also claims to have seen part of.

          • wpj

            As below.

    • A lot of these skeptics are sticklers for calorimetry from back in the days when people were trying to discern COP 0.99 from COP 1.1. I get the feeling that Jed wanted much higher accuracy and better procedures from the 1 MW test and what he saw instead made him cringe.

      But those days are long gone. Measurement error cannot be the source of our current situation (Lugano ash, COP 50). Either there’s fraud or it works. An honest, highly educated and successful nuclear engineer does not unintentionally mis-measure energy by a factor of 50 for over a year. Does. Not. Happen.

      • Zeddicus23

        LENR G,
        I completely agree!

        • Steve Swatman

          One would obviously say not, if Jed is halfway to be believed, if it looks like it worked then it might well have worked

          It would seem that you may have read the comment with a high degree of negative pre-concieved bias, could that be so?

      • Zack Iszard

        I disagree, it could happen. Acquiring solid measurements on a new device is far from trivial. It could be that only one or two of the many instruments used were outputting erroneous data and got ignored. Such a large and complex and new device has no operator’s manual, no troubleshooting guide, no installation manual. Working in a busy lab with many moving parts, it is ENTIRELY possible for someone with plenty of experience to drop a ball every now and then. Have you seen pictures of the inside of the 1 MW plant??? I would HATE to be responsible for keeping a measurement and maintenance log!!!!

        Except here (continuing the idiom), dropping one ball is as good as dropping all of them.

    • Zeddicus23

      As far as I can tell, Jed has never seen the ERV report. He initially he said he saw some data provided to him by IH. Then he said he saw “Rossi’s data” (which is not the same as the ERV data). Then when questioned he said, well it may not be Rossi’s data but the numbers are the same as those “given by Rossi publicly” (even though Rossi only provided overall information publicly) so it must be the same as “Rossi’s data”. But the determining factor in the dispute between IH and Rossi is the ERV report not “Rossi’s data”. The point here is that when questioned about these issues, he has repeatedly posted misquotes, and constantly “redirects” the question to ‘Rossi’s data’ which I know nothing about and is not the ERV report. Getting back to the ERV report, on Mats Lewan’s blog (see: https://animpossibleinvention.com/blog/ ) he states that “people with insight into the MW report, that hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced—COP, Coefficient of Performance, is Output Energy/Input Energy) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration with Rossi. Nothing in the report itself seems to give any opportunity for large mistakes, invalidating the claim of a high COP (as opposed to claims by people having talked about the report with persons connected to IH).” So there is a big disconnect here and no way to know until we see the actual report. In even that case, IH might claim that the report was a fraud.

      • Jarea

        Can you edit your comments and introduce some full periods.
        Thanks

        • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

          We have a perfect example with Engineer48 client wich with the last developments prefers to remain hidden.

          All the mud that is now in the air makes the customers to do not want to be known that they are trying this technology. Too much advantage for being hidden. Too much inconvenience to be known by public domain.

        • Ged

          No, just read the inlet right before the reactor; ridiculously easy. Anything else is downright silly and less accurate. And you can’t inject heat in the outlet, it is flowing -away-. Mass has to go somewhere, and it carries all heat with it.

          There is absolutely nothing the customer side has to do with input/output measurements at the reactor itself.

      • SD

        Jed just calls the ERV data “Rossi data” because some of it corresponds to data published by Rossi (e.g. water flow). Technically he is wrong because it is Penon’s data.

        However you are right he has never seen the report; just parts of it supposedly.

  • You have to see this in the context, that Jed Rothwell currently no longer believes that Rossi has anything!

    Jed said (!! => no proof for that) he had contact to IH and saw a few pages of the ERV report, which changed his oppinion on Rossi dramatically!

    • Ged

      Guess your old buddy just changed his tune again and left you out to dry. Sorry, Barty.

      • Why should he be my buddy?

        I just wanted to show the whole picture. Nothing else. It’s just interesting to hear the “it looks like it worked” from Jed, after he discredited Rossi several times the last weeks.

        • Ged

          Maybe you shouldn’t trust any of the unsupported things he says, no matter which way he puts it, until some sort of proof is offered. Otherwise, you are the one left holding the bag when he changes his tune, just like Weaver has done to plenty of other folks. It is embarrassing to watch.

          Stop taking what he says as fact, and start demanding evidence. That is my view on all this.

          • wpj

            He says that he has the 10 page report sitting on his desk. Seems less convinced later in the thread (a pain to go through with all the vitriol).

          • Ged

            Then he can take a picture or scan of it and redact identifying material. Again, I apologize for being crabby, but I want evidence so I can make my own determination, and I no longer trust his word till he re-establishes credibility.

          • You mean Jed is less convinced of what he said about the ERV report in the past, and now more positive about it?

          • No. Jed is talking about a separate report (10 pages, mostly pictures) that appears to indicate a working 1 MW plant — a test done in Rossi’s absence by unknown (to us) parties. But he says there’s not much to go on.

            Not to be confused with the ERV report, which Jed also claims to have seen part of.

          • wpj

            As below.

    • A lot of these skeptics are sticklers for calorimetry from back in the days when people were trying to discern COP 0.99 from COP 1.1. I get the feeling that Jed wanted much higher accuracy and better procedures from the 1 MW test and what he saw instead made him cringe.

      But those days are long gone. Measurement error cannot be the source of our current situation (Lugano ash, COP 50). Either there’s fraud or it works. An honest, highly educated and successful nuclear engineer does not unintentionally mis-measure energy by a factor of 50 for over a year. Does. Not. Happen.

      • Zeddicus23

        LENR G,
        I completely agree!

      • Zack Iszard

        I disagree, it could happen. Acquiring solid measurements on a new device is far from trivial. It could be that only one or two of the many instruments used were outputting erroneous data and got ignored. Such a large and complex and new device has no operator’s manual, no troubleshooting guide, no installation manual. Working in a busy lab with many moving parts, it is ENTIRELY possible for someone with plenty of experience to drop a ball every now and then. Have you seen pictures of the inside of the 1 MW plant??? I would HATE to be responsible for keeping a measurement and maintenance log!!!!

        Except here (continuing the idiom), dropping one ball is as good as dropping all of them.

    • Zeddicus23

      As far as I can tell, Jed has never seen the ERV report. He initially he said he saw some data provided to him by IH. Then he said he saw “Rossi’s data” (which is not the same as the ERV data). Then when questioned he said, well it may not be Rossi’s data but the numbers are the same as those “given by Rossi publicly” (even though Rossi only provided overall information publicly) so it must be the same as “Rossi’s data”. But the determining factor in the dispute between IH and Rossi is the ERV report not “Rossi’s data”. The point here is that when questioned about these issues, he has repeatedly posted misquotes, and constantly “redirects” the question to ‘Rossi’s data’ which I know nothing about and is not the ERV report. Getting back to the ERV report, on Mats Lewan’s blog (see: https://animpossibleinvention.com/blog/ ) he states that “people with insight into the MW report, that hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced—COP, Coefficient of Performance, is Output Energy/Input Energy) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration with Rossi. Nothing in the report itself seems to give any opportunity for large mistakes, invalidating the claim of a high COP (as opposed to claims by people having talked about the report with persons connected to IH).” So there is a big disconnect here and no way to know until we see the actual report. In even that case, IH might claim that the report was a fraud.

      • Jarea

        Can you edit your comments and introduce some full periods.
        Thanks

      • SD

        Jed just calls the ERV data “Rossi data” because some of it corresponds to data published by Rossi (e.g. water flow). Technically he is wrong because it is Penon’s data.

        However you are right he has never seen the report; just parts of it supposedly.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Dottore Rossi has patents, and he has tiny little reactors which can power a single 100w lightbulb.

    Dottore, I strongly urge you to build a few dozen desktop toys which do nothing more than power a lamp for a year, hand out a few dozen of those. No one will ever doubt you again. Give them to key people, professors, financial experts, major reporters, and a couple of internet video bloggers who would gladly run them live on the internet. One to our good friend Frank Acland here.

    Please end the doubt. You easily have the power in your hands to do this now.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      If it’s so that IH is funding B. or another group meanwhile and if AR knows it, it might even be in his interests to do what you are suggesting. But you should make the suggestion on JONP for him to see it.

      If you do it, I suggest to prepend the speculation that IH is funding another group.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I think that as long as there are no competitive products on the market, uncertainty is an advantage. A football player would not tell the goalkeeper into which corner he plans to shoot the penalty.

    • Jouni Tuomela

      Found this theory interesting, (thanks Peter Gluck).
      So be careful with that light from LENR!

      http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/1/6/13166465/electron_mediated_nuclear_reactions.pdf

      • Pekka Janhunen

        And what is meant by neutral radiation?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          OK, now read the whole presentation. The ideas are interesting, well thought-out and give rise to many considerations. About safety: the red slide should be considered in its context as part of the presentation. In the middle of physics speculations, let’s remember that no one’s gotten physically sick, let alone died.

        • Jouni Tuomela
      • “It will be necessary….” Very definitely – some tracks have been observed to end with a microscopic nuclear detonation within the matter it is passing through.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Ophelia,

      Have asked Rossi to give me a price and delivery time on 3 x 10kWt QuarkX reactors so I can prototype up this Remote Area / Disaster QuarkX based power system.

      From: Engineer48
      Date: Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:37 PM
      Subject: Purchase of 3 x 10kWt QuarkX reactors
      To: Andrea Rossi

      Dear Andrea,

      I would like to express my sincere interest to purchase, ASAP, 3 x 10kWt QuarkX reactors.

      I feel I now have enough input and output information to do a basic design of a battery powered remote / disaster QuarkX reactor system.

      Is it possible to know a rough budgetary price for the 3 x 10kWt reactors with 240vac 3 phase 50Hz excitation and direct AC 50Hz output plus if possible a rough idea of potential delivery availability?

      All my best regards

      Time to put the Pedal to the Metal.
      .

      • Ged

        If willing, please keep us in the loop on how this develops, if possible!

        • Engineer48

          Hi Ged,

          For sure.

          • Engineer48

            Time passes so quickly and now the QuarkX Remote Area Central power and hot water design now cleans up dirty water thanks to 2 filters and a seperate high temperature superheated steam circuit as attached.

        • Engineer48

          Hi CW,

          As I understand it IH, Rossi and the ERV jointly decided on how to do the measurements required for the 1 year trial before it started.

    • I agree, Ophelia, but dare I claim “priority” from my own blog post of nearly four years ago from http://www.thinktankreport.com/2012/08/06/the-promise-of-controlled-nuclear-fusion-part-v/

      where I said:

      Among Rossi’s latest claims are that his e-cat has now achieved much
      higher temperatures – up to 1000C(!) If even half this temperature can
      be sustained to produce continuous superheated steam, then it would be
      economical to produce electricity by means of a steam turbine
      and Rossi could already claim a kind of “gold medal”. However, I’d say
      Rossi should, for now, settle for the bronze medal by simply marketing a
      “Heat Multiplier” – one that effectively outputs more heat than it
      inputs, whether that input comes from an electrical source or any other.
      Heat pumps aside, we have yet to see anything like this at our friendly
      neighbourhood store. Such a device would quickly silence most of the
      skeptics, especially those who might quietly buy one to warm up the cold
      offices that their rather grumpy natures would suggest they inhabit!

      – That was posted at the time of the London Olympics, nearly 4 years ago; hence the references to medals. But I submit that it also serves as a reminder that Rossi has been running what some might call a “ponzi scheme of promises” for at least this long.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Dottore Rossi has patents, and he has tiny little reactors which can power a single 100w lightbulb.

    Dottore, I strongly urge you to build a few dozen desktop toys which do nothing more than power a lamp for a year, hand out a few dozen of those. No one will ever doubt you again. Give them to key people, professors, financial experts, major reporters, and a couple of internet video bloggers who would gladly run them live on the internet. One to our good friend Frank Acland here.

    Please end the doubt. You easily have the power in your hands to do this now.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      If it’s so that IH is funding B. or another group meanwhile and if AR knows it, it might even be in his interests to do what you are suggesting. But you should make the suggestion on JONP for him to see it.

      If you do it, I suggest to prepend the speculation that IH is funding another group.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I think that as long as there are no competitive products on the market, uncertainty is an advantage. A football player would not tell the goalkeeper into which corner he plans to shoot the penalty.

    • Jouni Tuomela

      Found this theory interesting, (thanks Peter Gluck).
      So be careful with that light from LENR!

      http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/1/6/13166465/electron_mediated_nuclear_reactions.pdf

      • Pekka Janhunen

        And what is meant by neutral radiation?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          OK, now read the whole presentation. The ideas are interesting, well thought-out and give rise to many considerations. About safety: the red slide should be considered in its context as part of the presentation. In the middle of physics speculations, let’s remember that no one’s gotten physically sick, let alone died.

        • Jouni Tuomela
      • WaltC

        Thanks for posting the link to that theory. Very interesting.

      • “It will be necessary….” Very definitely – some tracks have been observed to end with a microscopic nuclear detonation within the matter a ‘hyd’ is passing through.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Ophelia,

      Have asked Rossi to give me a price and delivery time on 3 x 10kWt QuarkX reactors so I can prototype up this Remote Area / Disaster QuarkX based power system.

      From: Engineer48
      Date: Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:37 PM
      Subject: Purchase of 3 x 10kWt QuarkX reactors
      To: Andrea Rossi

      Dear Andrea,

      I would like to express my sincere interest to purchase, ASAP, 3 x 10kWt QuarkX reactors.

      I feel I now have enough input and output information to do a basic design of a battery powered remote / disaster QuarkX reactor system.

      Is it possible to know a rough budgetary price for the 3 x 10kWt reactors with 240vac 3 phase 50Hz excitation and direct AC 50Hz output plus if possible a rough idea of potential delivery availability?

      All my best regards

      Time to put the Pedal to the Metal.
      .

      • Ged

        If willing, please keep us in the loop on how this develops, if possible!

        • Engineer48

          Hi Ged,

          For sure.

          • Engineer48

            Time passes so quickly and now the QuarkX Remote Area Central power and hot water design now cleans up dirty water thanks to 2 filters and a seperate high temperature superheated steam circuit as attached.

          • NoMCA

            I would connect the “DC to AC inverter” to the battery pack.

    • I agree, Ophelia, but dare I claim “priority” from my own blog post of nearly four years ago from http://www.thinktankreport.com/2012/08/06/the-promise-of-controlled-nuclear-fusion-part-v/

      where I said:

      Among Rossi’s latest claims are that his e-cat has now achieved much
      higher temperatures – up to 1000C(!) If even half this temperature can
      be sustained to produce continuous superheated steam, then it would be
      economical to produce electricity by means of a steam turbine
      and Rossi could already claim a kind of “gold medal”. However, I’d say
      Rossi should, for now, settle for the bronze medal by simply marketing a
      “Heat Multiplier” – one that effectively outputs more heat than it
      inputs, whether that input comes from an electrical source or any other.
      Heat pumps aside, we have yet to see anything like this at our friendly
      neighbourhood store. Such a device would quickly silence most of the
      skeptics, especially those who might quietly buy one to warm up the cold
      offices that their rather grumpy natures would suggest they inhabit!

      – That was posted at the time of the London Olympics, nearly 4 years ago; hence the references to medals. But I submit that it also serves as a reminder that Rossi has been running what some might call a “ponzi scheme of promises” for at least this long.

  • help_lenr

    Jed rothwell has become a rumor-archiver, more and more he throws a vague story with many details missing and tries to give interpretation to this story. He is not the only one in lenr-forum who digs in rumors. I don’t think that digging in rumors is productive. I understand that the situation now is dry, no much solid information, but digging in rumors doesn’t help.

  • Hi all

    My thoughts still gravitate to an October Surprise.

    It would not be the first time companies used a court case to run out the clock to fit a time frame.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Ophelia Rump

      Are you suggesting that Cherokee may have another device which they will bring to market?

      • Ged

        That is an interesting thought and it could be possible. Between the IP transfer and IH building the 1MW plant, they could certainly have made another of the past year and four months.

        • Ophelia Rump

          You also need to consider that they are supposedly funding other LENR researchers. If they have decided to push a different researcher’s product to market that would explain the failure to pay Rossi.

      • Fact: IH is involved with Brillouin.
        Fact: IH have been accused in court of (inappropriately) sharing E-Cat IP with competitors.
        Fact: Brillouin recently converted from wet to dry reactors.
        Fact: Brillouin presented on Capitol Hill in late 2015.
        Fact: IH behaved like E-Cats worked and even raised much investment money from them until late 2015.
        Fact: HotCats have been lapped by E-Cat X and QuarkX technology, developed in late 2015 and early 2016, the IP for which has apparently not yet been shared.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Their hydrogen hot tube sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, and the perfect excuse for the technology never to get into public hands.

          • I wouldn’t stand near it : )

        • Frank Acland

          LG, Brillouin have been talking about “wet” and “dry” systems since 2012 at least. See this article from April 2012: http://pesn.com/2012/04/19/9602078_Brillouin–Understanding_How_LENR_Works_Will_Enable_Us_to_Be_First/

          Excerpt: “One of the next development steps is going to involve a relationship with SRI to build and test the Brillouin New Hydrogen Boiler™ (NHB™) or “Hot Tube”, entailing BEC’s new dry boiler system, which will be capable of heats from 400ºC to 500ºC. This technology will be capable of running power plant turbines. Licensing this boiler technology is going to be the lowest hanging fruit because of the number of power plant systems that have been mothballed by increasingly stringent EPA regulations. By re-energizing these “stranded assets,” the capital cost of building a system is dramatically reduced, since the only thing they have to add is the clean boiler”

          • There were no dry systems on display (iirc) when Sterling released that video walk-through of their facility.

            Then all of a sudden they’re schmoozing with lawmakers, passing around E-Cat like reactors.

            Not proof of anything. Just another data point to consider.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, I don’t remember them showing any of their dry systems until lately, but they were talking about them.

          • A Brillouin timeline would be interesting. When did they get involved with IH and when did they start talking about dry reactors…

            Hmm.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Frank,

            Show and Tell day.

          • It does look like a couple of the flanged gizmos we’ve seen occasionally, although I’d assumed that these were designed to fit into a faceplate on a boiler. Is that a hydrogen connection at the left? And why so many wires? (6? – 2 x power, 2 x sensor, 2 x control EM?) –

            Tell us a bit more about the image?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Agaricus,

            Doesn’t look like a H connector, more like a rod that goes all the way through the water boiler outer jacket. Maybe the Reactor rod that can be withdrawn if needed for fuel recharge. There seems to be 4 wires, 2 twisted white, 2 twisted red with a 5th shielded or braided Earth wire.

            Image is a zoom into the reactor from the Brillouin US Congress presentation.
            .

          • Ah… It does look rather like some ‘cross-fertilisation’ may have taken place then. With the advent of the Quark X (usual disclaimers) it is probably obsolete technology, but still highly saleable when fully developed. The power feeds (if that what a couple of wires are) look encouragingly small.

            It’s a bit hard on Rossi but I’d really like to see a race to market to put some fire into both parties (and any others out there).

          • Engineer48

            Hi Agaricus,

            If I was Brillouin and I accepted, in good faith that IH could legally share it, Rossi IP and incorporated it into the HHT reactor, I would be very concerned Leonardo would sue as soon as the HHT hit the market.

          • Quite so, although if Brillouin is contracted to IH/Cherokee, it’s the latter who will take the flak (again!).

          • Engineer48

            Hi Agaricus,

            Except Brillouin will not be able to commercialise the HHT or any company with a reactor with Rossi IP inside.

            If Rossi has the H2 generation from the Lithium hydroxide secured in his patent, it may be very difficult for any other NIH reactor that uses LiOH as their H2 source to get to market. Plus using an external H2 supply bottle will involve a lot of regulatory issues as no one likes H2 stored in bottles and then flowing through pipes and connectors.

          • bfast

            I am still pretty convinced that IH knows right well that it works. I am convinced that they loved the one year test because it kicked the can a year down the road.

            I am convinced that IH hates working with Rossi. I think that they think that he wants too much of the pie. I think that their entire strategy has been to get into this game, and get spun up while Rossi beats away on their one year test. Now I think that they want this court thing to hold stuff up for a couple more years.

            This is the only scenario that makes sense in light of the fact that IH is continuing to apply for patents with Rossi and others’ names attached. This is the only scenario that makes sense in light of IH dragging other players down to congress to show off their wares.

          • I think that’s becoming something of a consensus view, although personally I’m uncertain whether Darden planned things this way from the outset, or changed course at some point. Either way it looks pretty sure that Rossi was to be cut out of the loop and left to play with his ten mill.

          • Omega Z

            The history of VC’s would say Darden planned on assassinating the inventor from the beginning.

            Just saying…

          • Hi all

            Rossi can manufacture and sell while the court case goes on, and with more advanced technology he can outstrip IH and win the court case if that is what is happening.

            As I have said elsewhere on several occasions I still think we may be looking at an October Surprise.

            Kind Regards walker

          • cashmemorz

            To your thoughts I see that IH would rather go with Brillouin as it seems that IH has given Brillouin aspects of the E-Cat to integrate into their Hot tube. Then add to that the claim that Brillouin has a working theory of how their version of LENR works and you have a more appealing investment portfolio as compared against Leonardo, that does not have a working theory but what can be called a speculative theory and large COP. In the long term investors will see in the Brillouin mix a possibility of improved COP with design improvements using E-Cat tech and a working theory.

          • sam

            Lovely Lady
            She is smart to.

          • Robert Dorr

            The yellow connector looks like a standard thermocouple to meter connector.

        • I have done some research on IH’s connections with Brillouin, and my conclusion, based on informed sources, is that there is no formal or informal connection between them.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats,

            Sure hope so and that their dry HHT reactor has no Rossi IP inside, like using LiOH as the H2 source.

          • Almost missed this due to the Jed-fest.

            This association was first reported back in 2014 to my knowledge as Dick Samson, futurist/author and Director of the EraNova Institute saying Darden had also invested in Brillouin. However, based on what I could find it’s probably best characterized as a rumor and not a fact; I don’t know where he got that info. I will edit my post.

            http://www.superlife.ws/profiles/blogs/shhh-new-energy-breakthrough-is-quietly-powering-up

            Thanks.

      • Hi all

        In reply to Ophelia on the matter of what I mean by October Surprise.

        I simply mean that there are political considerations in the announcement and that the event may be being run to a timetable.

        Kind |Regards walker

  • Hi all

    My thoughts still gravitate to an October Surprise.

    It would not be the first time companies used a court case to run out the clock to fit a time frame.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Ophelia Rump

      Are you suggesting that Cherokee may have another device which they will bring to market?

      • Ged

        That is an interesting thought and it could be possible. Between the IP transfer and IH building the 1MW plant, they could certainly have made another over the past year and four months.

        • Ophelia Rump

          You also need to consider that they are supposedly funding other LENR researchers. If they have decided to push a different researcher’s product to market that would explain the failure to pay Rossi.

      • Rumor: (Edit: was Fact): IH is involved with Brillouin.
        Fact: IH have been accused in court of (inappropriately) sharing E-Cat IP with competitors.
        Fact: Brillouin recently converted from wet to dry reactors.
        Fact: Brillouin presented on Capitol Hill in late 2015.
        Fact: IH behaved like E-Cats worked and even raised much investment money from them until late 2015.
        Fact: HotCats have been lapped by E-Cat X and QuarkX technology, developed in late 2015 and early 2016, the IP for which has apparently not yet been shared.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Their hydrogen hot tube sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, and the perfect excuse for the technology never to get into public hands.

          • I wouldn’t stand near it : )

        • Frank Acland

          LG, Brillouin have been talking about “wet” and “dry” systems since 2012 at least. See this article from April 2012: http://pesn.com/2012/04/19/9602078_Brillouin–Understanding_How_LENR_Works_Will_Enable_Us_to_Be_First/

          Excerpt: “One of the next development steps is going to involve a relationship with SRI to build and test the Brillouin New Hydrogen Boiler™ (NHB™) or “Hot Tube”, entailing BEC’s new dry boiler system, which will be capable of heats from 400ºC to 500ºC. This technology will be capable of running power plant turbines. Licensing this boiler technology is going to be the lowest hanging fruit because of the number of power plant systems that have been mothballed by increasingly stringent EPA regulations. By re-energizing these “stranded assets,” the capital cost of building a system is dramatically reduced, since the only thing they have to add is the clean boiler”

          I think this would be before any relationship with Cherokee/IH

          • There were no dry systems on display (iirc) when Sterling released that video walk-through of their facility.

            Then all of a sudden they’re schmoozing with lawmakers, passing around E-Cat like reactors.

            Not proof of anything. Just another data point to consider.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, I don’t remember them showing any of their dry systems until lately, but they were talking about them.

          • A Brillouin timeline would be interesting. When did they get involved with IH and when did they start talking about dry reactors…

            Hmm.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Frank,

            Show and Tell day.

            Is that a HotCat like reactor surrounded by a water boiling jacket?
            .

          • It does look like a couple of the flanged gizmos we’ve seen occasionally, although I’d assumed that these were designed to fit into the endplate on a drum boiler. Is that a hydrogen connection at the left? And why so many wires? (6? – 2 x power, 2 x sensor, 2 x control EM?)

            Tell us a bit more about the object in the image, and it’s origin?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Agaricus,

            Doesn’t look like a H connector, more like a rod that goes all the way through the water boiler outer jacket. Maybe the Reactor rod that can be withdrawn if needed for fuel recharge. There seems to be 4 wires, 2 twisted white, 2 twisted red with a 5th shielded or braided Earth wire.

            Image is a zoom into the reactor from the Brillouin US Congress presentation.
            .

          • Ah… It does look rather like some ‘cross-fertilisation’ may have taken place then. With the advent of the Quark X (usual disclaimers) it is probably obsolete technology, but still highly saleable when fully developed. The power feeds (if that what a couple of wires are) look encouragingly small.

            It’s a bit hard on Rossi but I’d really like to see a race to market to put some fire into both parties (and any others out there).

          • Engineer48

            Hi Agaricus,

            If I was Brillouin and I accepted, in good faith that IH could legally share it, Rossi IP and incorporated it into the HHT reactor, I would be very concerned Leonardo would sue as soon as the HHT hit the market.

          • Quite so, although if Brillouin is contracted to IH/Cherokee, it’s the latter who will take the flak (again!).

          • Engineer48

            Hi Agaricus,

            Except Brillouin will not be able to commercialise the HHT or any company with a reactor with Rossi IP inside.

            If Rossi has the H2 generation from the Lithium hydroxide secured in his patent, it may be very difficult for any other NIH reactor that uses LiOH as their H2 source to get to market. Plus using an external H2 supply bottle will involve a lot of regulatory issues as no one likes H2 stored in bottles and then flowing through pipes and connectors.

            Rossi has said using the LiOH as the H2 source has eliminated a LOT of certification and regulatory issues as the LiOH and H2 is sealed inside the reactor.

          • sam

            Lovely Lady
            She is smart to.

          • Robert Dorr

            The yellow connector looks like a standard thermocouple to meter connector.

        • I have done some research on IH’s connections with Brillouin, and my conclusion, based on informed sources, is that there is no formal or informal connection between them.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats,

            Sure hope so and that their dry HHT reactor has no Rossi IP inside, like using LiOH as the H2 source.

          • Almost missed this due to the Jed-fest.

            This association was first reported back in 2014 to my knowledge as Dick Samson, futurist/author and Director of the EraNova Institute saying Darden had also invested in Brillouin. However, based on what I could find it’s probably best characterized as a rumor and not a fact; I don’t know where he got that info. I will edit my post.

            http://www.superlife.ws/profiles/blogs/shhh-new-energy-breakthrough-is-quietly-powering-up

            Thanks.

      • Hi all

        In reply to Ophelia on the matter of what I mean by October Surprise.

        I simply mean that there are political considerations in the announcement and that the event may be being run to a timetable.

        Kind |Regards walker

  • roseland67

    Almost, kinda, sorta, maybe?
    Does Rossi have to be in attendance At every test and available to functionally operate the Ecat for it to work?

    • Steve Swatman

      One would obviously say not, if Jed is halfway to be believed, if it looks like it worked then it might well have worked

      It would seem that you may have read the comment with a high degree of negative pre-concieved bias, could that be so?

      • Bruce__H

        I would suggest that by an enormous margin the bias is normally in the other direction on this site. I see Steve Swatman’s comment as injecting a little much needed sense of reality into the conversation. Surely that can’t hurt.

      • roseland67

        Swat,

        Absolutely,
        I have heard the same story about excess heat for 5 years, and there is still lot 1 single person on this planet that can say unequivocally that, “Yes, it has been replicated and it works as stated”.

        • Steve Swatman

          So you watch this game, you are not happy with the team, the fans or the game itself, yet you still come to the training area and the matches every day, to do nothing but complain and pass on negative comments too the fans of the game.

          Personally I would not waste my time or efforts to come to a discussion board daily to comment negatively on something I not believe in and a man I do not believe in, I mean, whats the point, unless you are been paid.

          I think there are many instances of replication, You just do not accept any because of your preconceived bias maybe.

          • roseland67

            Seat,
            I want to KNOW, not just be told to believe something that someone said on the Internet, and as of today, after 5 years, I still do not know, nor does anyone else, we all just hope.

          • Steve Swatman

            Hope is a positive, a positive attitude (when done right), I find your comments to be far from hope, far from positive, far from wanting to know, much more like, negative, hopeless, not wanting to hear or listen to anything positive.

            Maybe you need a break, a vacation from watching the game/show, so that you can appreciate the value and the potential a little more, afteral, it is a game, a show, a potential game changer, a potential show stopper, buy some popcorn, watch the football for a while, come back less and look with a more positive view point, its much more fun that way.

  • malkom700

    Many people do not understand the essence of polemics on this site that no one wants to prove anything but willing to share some information. Thanks for any new information.

    • Ged

      Hearsay “information” without proof is no different than making stuff up if the source isn’t proven credible by other means. A snare for the gullible.

      • Historians have to deal with this crap all the time. They get information from various sources and have to evaluate the credibility of the source of the information. The credibility is seldom zero or one, it’s somewhere in between and you have to weave a tapestry of information of various likelihood until a solid picture finally emerges. Motivations are often murky.

        That’s what we are forced to do here, sift through it all. Therefore any info from a source having greater than zero credibility is potentially of some value and should be considered, IMO.

        • Ged

          Usually I would agree with you, but this is one case where I am unable. He has zero credibility with me, and anyone can claim anything on the internet. I could say I was loaned a confidential E-cat reactor to test in my basement, and then give you my thoughts on it working or not, but that wouldn’t make it true.

          • Jed has a history though. I think it’s harsh to say his credibility is zero.

          • Ged

            Maybe you are right. I have been soured by his recent history as others have outlined below, which is clearly not credible (self inconsistent and misrepresented) and possibly just gullibly being used to stir up trouble, who knows. But that is just my position on this. I won’t stop demanding proof from him till he provides something to re-establish credibility. But hey, it wouldn’t take much effort for him to do so.

          • I think it’s zero.

          • roseland67

            Frank,

            48’s design will work in theory,
            Most engineers capable and competent in heat transfer and controls design could pull it off, it would actually be an interesting study to see how different they would all look.
            The obvious problem is that no one on the planet knows if the Ecat works as stated so everyone’s solution would have a big gaping hole where the Ecat is supposed to go.

          • Robert Dorr

            You were?

          • Ged

            Maybe I was ;). Or maybe I don’t even have a basement. How can one be sure with no data presented?

      • malkom700

        Yes, but no one calls anyone to believe, is not required to read the page. Thank you for verifying that what I have written. Many people are desperate for positive developments and impatient. But this is just a psychological phenomenon which may not be pointing forward.

      • Robert Dorr

        Information is better than no information, that is unless you have absolutely no ability to filter out the noise. Yes, I know there are a few around here that are incapable of filtering but that’s their problem. I say just give me the raw info and let everyone decide for themselves what is useful but please try to keep the hateful stuff to a minimum.

  • malkom700

    Many people do not understand the essence of polemics on this site that no one wants to prove anything but willing to share some information. Thanks for any new information.

    • Ged

      Hearsay “information” without proof is no different than making stuff up if the source isn’t proven credible by other means. A snare for the gullible.

      • Historians have to deal with this crap all the time. They get information from various sources and have to evaluate the credibility of the source of the information. The credibility is seldom zero or one, it’s somewhere in between and you have to weave a tapestry of information of various likelihood until a solid picture finally emerges. Motivations are often murky.

        That’s what we are forced to do here, sift through it all. Therefore any info from a source having greater than zero credibility is potentially of some value and should be considered, IMO.

        • Ged

          Usually I would agree with you, but this is one case where I am unable. He has zero credibility with me, and anyone can claim anything on the internet. I could say I was loaned a confidential E-cat reactor to test in my basement, and then give you my thoughts on it working or not, but that wouldn’t make it true.

          • Jed has a history though. I think it’s harsh to say his credibility is zero.

          • Ged

            Maybe you are right. I have been soured by his recent history as others have outlined below, which is clearly not credible (self inconsistent and misrepresented) and possibly just gullibly being used to stir up trouble, who knows. But that is just my position on this. I won’t stop demanding proof from him till he provides something to re-establish credibility. But hey, it wouldn’t take much effort for him to do so.

          • I think it’s zero.

          • Robert Dorr

            You were?

          • Ged

            Maybe I was ;). Or maybe I don’t even have a basement. How can one be sure with no data presented?

      • malkom700

        Yes, but no one calls anyone to believe, is not required to read the page. Thank you for verifying that what I have written. Many people are desperate for positive developments and impatient. But this is just a psychological phenomenon which may not be pointing forward.

      • Robert Dorr

        Information is better than no information, that is unless you have absolutely no ability to filter out the noise. Yes, I know there are a few around here that are incapable of filtering but that’s their problem. I say just give me the raw info and let everyone decide for themselves what is useful but please try to keep the hateful stuff to a minimum.

  • Frank Acland

    On the LENR Forum, Jed states: “It wasn’t by I.H. People should not presume too much.
    Sorry I cannot provide any details.” When asked if the test was for Ampenergo he responded “Sorry, I cannot discuss it.” I will update the post above.

    • The plot thickens.

      Who would have access and who would have the incentive to test?

      Plant Customer?: no, they would already know.
      Rossi’s New Almost Partner?: But how would the resulting report get into IH’s hands? And Rossi would have wanted to be there almost certainly.
      Someone from IH’s Stable: IH could get them in while Rossi was away perhaps and it’s not IH per se, but someone in IH’s orbit.
      Woodford: they did forcefully claim due diligence as if they had kicked the tired themselves.
      The Chinese: might have wanted an up close and personal before investing hundreds of millions in LENR.

      Anyone else?

      • Frank Acland

        Ampenergo seems like a good possibility. They had some E-Cat testing done. They had the US license before IH.

        Craig Cassarino said this when they announced they had obtained the US license:

        “Cassarino: We did three demonstrations here in the US, and these were non public. We did have a group of scientists here that understood exactly what was going on, and we helped actually set up the demonstrations.

        Obviously we still don’t understand what’s going on inside, but he has something, and we believe that.”

        http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/energy-catalyzer-br-gets-u-s-partner-6421312

        • But they’ve always been in Rossi’s corner. Why go behind his back like that?

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            Perhaps Ampenergo shared their test data with IH during the early / good days and now maybe IH have passed it onto Jed & Weaver?

          • Yes, I suppose that’s possible.

    • Ged

      Could by any other of Cherokee or Cherokee subsidaries. IH is just a specific cell. Hopefully he can clarify if it is or is not related to Cherokee or any Cherokee holdings. And then provide proof, even just a single picture of the report with redactions.

    • Robert Dorr

      I find it very interesting that we haven’t heard a peep out of Ampenergo during all of this hullabaloo. They have been very quiet the last 3 to 4 years. I wonder what they have been up to other than not signing I.H. and Rossi’s last contract like they should have.

      • Barbierir

        It was me who asked to Jed if it was the same test he wrote about in 2011 or something else. The first was a test by Ampenergo with only scanty details published in some slides, see link here: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg59315.html
        From his answer it seems he’s speaking about another, more recent, test, but it’s hard to say. It’s frustrating that people with positive tests refuse to publish any details!

  • Frank Acland

    On the LENR Forum, Jed states: “It wasn’t by I.H. People should not presume too much.
    Sorry I cannot provide any details.” When asked if the test was for Ampenergo he responded “Sorry, I cannot discuss it.” I will update the post above.

    • The plot thickens.

      Who would have access and who would have the incentive to test?

      Plant Customer?: no, they would already know.
      Rossi’s New Almost Partner?: But how would the resulting report get into IH’s hands? And Rossi would have wanted to be there almost certainly.
      Someone from IH’s Stable: IH could get them in while Rossi was away perhaps and it’s not IH per se, but someone in IH’s orbit.
      Woodford: they did forcefully claim due diligence as if they had kicked the tired themselves.
      The Chinese: might have wanted an up close and personal before investing hundreds of millions in LENR.

      Anyone else?

      • Frank Acland

        Ampenergo seems like a good possibility. They had some E-Cat testing done. They had the US license before IH.

        Craig Cassarino said this when they announced they had obtained the US license:

        “Cassarino: We did three demonstrations here in the US, and these were non public. We did have a group of scientists here that understood exactly what was going on, and we helped actually set up the demonstrations.

        Obviously we still don’t understand what’s going on inside, but he has something, and we believe that.”

        http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/energy-catalyzer-br-gets-u-s-partner-6421312

        • But they’ve always been in Rossi’s corner. Why go behind his back like that?

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            Perhaps Ampenergo shared their test data with IH during the early / good days and now maybe IH have passed it onto Jed & Weaver?

          • Yes, I suppose that’s possible.

    • Ged

      Could by any other of Cherokee or Cherokee subsidaries. IH is just a specific cell. Hopefully he can clarify if it is or is not related to Cherokee or any Cherokee holdings. And then provide proof, even just a single picture of the report with redactions.

    • Robert Dorr

      I find it very interesting that we haven’t heard a peep out of Ampenergo during all of this hullabaloo. They have been very quiet the last 3 to 4 years. I wonder what they have been up to other than not signing I.H. and Rossi’s last contract like they should have.

      • Barbierir

        It was me who asked to Jed if it was the same test he wrote about in 2011 or something else. The first was a test by Ampenergo with only scanty details published in some slides, see link here: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg59315.html
        From his answer it seems he’s speaking about another, more recent, test, but it’s hard to say. It’s frustrating that people with positive tests refuse to publish any details!

  • Observer

    I could see, early on, IH seeking Jed out for scientific advice regarding LENR. I think the law suit has forced Jed to pick sides. He seems to have access to IH internal information. It would be nice for him to acknowledge any conflicts of interest at play.

    • He seems to have access to whatever IH decides to spoon feed him. By his own admission he has not seen full data sets or the full ERV report.

      It is hardly surprising that IH would only supply Jed with cherry-picked information that supports their defense. What’s troublesome is that there is apparently enough of such information that it allows experienced LENR-ers (<– new word!) like Jed to be completely convinced that the 1 MW plant never worked. But has Jed been misled? That's the $89M question.

      • Observer

        The scientific LENR community has always had mixed feelings about Andrea Rossi. He is not playing the game by their rules. My question is: Has IH bought good will within the LENR community with their investments that has affected people opinions about the law suit?

    • JedRothwell

      You wrote: “I could see, early on, IH seeking Jed out for scientific advice regarding LENR.”

      No, they did not.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Jed,

        You made a comment on the LENR Forum that intrigues me:
        https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3374-Jed-Rothwell-on-an-Unpublished-E-Cat-Test-Report-that-%E2%80%9CLooks-Like-it-Worked%E2%80%9D/?postID=25629#post25629

        To take an example, the 1-year, 1-MW test is clearly wrong, but the reasons it is wrong are clear. It would not fool anyone. Any experienced person who looks at the choice of instruments, their positions and so on (the configuration) will conclude that the results are wrong.

        Will you please share what was wrong with the choice of instruments, their positions and the configuration?

        As I understand it, the inlet water mass flow and temperature were measured as was the outlet steam pressure and temperature measured. Is this correct and if so where is there an error in the configuration?

        As to the instruments positions being incorrect can you please share what was incorrect with the positions?

        • JedRothwell

          You wrote: “Will you please share what was wrong with the choice of instruments, their positions and the configuration?”

          I am sorry, but I cannot discuss the details. I cannot say anything specific, or anything not already revealed by either Rossi or by I.H., in their press releases and legal filings. I regret the need for this, and I apologize for being so vague. It is out of character for me.

          Let may say this, which is probably not helpful. In their Motion to Dismiss, I.H. criticized Rossi for “ignoring inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices.” Based on the sample of Rossi’s data and schematic that I have seen, I agree with this description. The measurements were flawed and the instruments unsuitable. That was true of some of Rossi’s previous tests. For example, when he refused to measure the outlet temperature even though he had extra thermocouples available; when he refused to put an SD card in the thermocouple meter; or when he almost blew up Jim Dunn and the people from NASA. I was hoping this test would be better, but alas it was not.

          Scaling up a sloppy mistake does not make it less of a mistake. It just means you make a giant error instead of a small one.

          • Robert Dorr

            As far as I can tell Jed was fed cherry picked information from the ERV test and his statement means absolutely nothing unless he is willing to say exactly what instruments were used and there placements. Apparently I.H. sees nothing wrong in violating their non-disclosure agreement if Jed has indeed really seen parts of the ERV report.

          • JedRothwell

            Robert Dorr wrote: Jed’s “statement means absolutely nothing unless he is willing to say exactly what instruments were used and there placements.”

            You can say the same thing for Rossi. I suggest you ask him what instruments were used, and where they were placed. He has not revealed this.

            He did reveal the fact that he refused to allow the I.H. expert to see the customer site, even though the expert insisted he must see it. Even people who know nothing about the configuration, and do not know why the expert insisted on this, should find this suspicious. I suggest you ask Rossi why he did this.

            You have demanded technical information from I.H. and now from me. Why have you not also demanded such information from Rossi?

            Several reasons have been suggested by Rossi supporters, such as the idea that the expert might have been able to suss out the customers IP. This explanation makes no sense. It is not possible to understand IP just by looking at equipment, or by measuring the temperature and flow rates of a heat exchanger and ventilation equipment.

            “Apparently I.H. sees nothing wrong in violating their non-disclosure agreement . . .”

            Where did you get this information? Do you have access to I.H.’s offices and computer files? Have you talked to their lawyers? If you have not, I suggest you refrain from speculating about NDAs and other contracts.

          • Ged

            The ERV report exists even if not released to us yet (and why don’t you ask IH why they haven’t released it yet?) and obviously details the instrumentation data based on your arguments about what little of it you have seen above. And IH had workers in the container who could see what instruments were where. They could have changed things or insisted such long before a year, and had such authority.

            But you continue to directly contradict yourself. How could you know the instruments and that they are “wrong”, and then claim only Rossi knows but won’t say? Which is it? Do you know or does only Rossi know?

            Fraud or not, I want facts not inconsistencies that continue to fail to hold water.

          • JedRothwell

            Ged wrote: “The ERV report exists even if not released to us yet (and why don’t you ask IH why they haven’t released it yet?) . . .

            I suggest you ask Rossi for the report, or for a summary of it and some sample data.

            “And IH had workers in the container who could see what instruments were where. They could have changed things or insisted such long before a year, and had such authority.”

            Did they have such authority? Where did you hear that? Rossi said he did not allow one of them into the customer site, even thought the expert “insisted” on seeing it. (Rossi said the expert insisted.) That does not give me the impression they had authority.

            “But you continue to directly contradict yourself. How could you know the instruments and that they are “wrong”, and then claim only Rossi knows but won’t say? Which is it?”

            I did not say only Rossi knows. Anyone who sees the data and schematics will know. It is obvious.

            “Do you know or does only Rossi know?”

            I cannot read his mind, but if he does not see a problem he is not good at calorimetry.

            “Fraud or not, I want facts not inconsistencies that continue to fail to hold water.”

            What inconsistencies do you have in mind?

            In any case, I suggest you ask Rossi for the information you seek. Even if I were free to give you a complete description, I expect you — or perhaps others — would say I made it up. They would say my description is fake. So, you need to get the information directly from Rossi.

          • Jed, you know I have talked with people having insight in the report, making conclusions completely contrary to yours. And I have to admit that the few facts you provided in a private email conversation with me did not convince me at all about your conclusions. But obviously you could know more than what you told me.

          • JedRothwell

            Mats Lewan wrote: “Jed, you know I have talked with people having insight in the report, making conclusions completely contrary to yours.”

            I cannot address this. I cannot begin to judge why their conclusions are different from the I.H. experts’ analysis, and from mine. I would have to see an analysis by them.

            I would have to ask these people, for example, what they think of the pressure readings, the flow meter readings, the type of flowmeter, and the method of evaluating steam quality. Plus some other stuff.

            I could be wrong, and they could be right, but I would have to study their work carefully before reaching any conclusion.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Would you agree that if the steam pressure is measured, then any measured steam temperature at or above the superheat temperature, the steam is dry and superheated?

            Would you also agree that measuring the inlet mass flow rate is the outlet steam flow rate, assuming the boiler and superheater are not leaking?

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “Would you agree that if the steam pressure is measured, then any measured steam temperature at or above the superheat . . .”

            Sure, that stuff is all according to ASME protocols and physics textbooks. I never argue with the ASME! What I am saying I do not think Rossi measured according to code.

            I have little imagination and I do things by the book. I printed out the Florida codes and compared them to the instrumentation and configuration described by Rossi. It looks wrong to me. Plus, I do understand how flowmeters work because I have used 5 or 6 of them, and I have made every stupid mistake you can make with them.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            You do understand that at 0.0 barG (1 standard atmosphere of pressure), steam temperature at or above 99.9743 is superheated / dry?
            . https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bad8480b18e6df312a91b0b9aa2e332249bd407c15587b1d21cdfb78e335839c.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d8f83b447868cd54aa68429012bb32e7a4ffa3ac83825f136bba5b351177a4e4.png

          • Timar

            I call you out for being dishonest, Jed. Anyone who has read a fair share of your comments on the test, even limited to this post, will notice that you can’t possibly condemn Rossi and the report the way you did, using the strongest available language in an almost inflationary manner and on the other hand write something like this:

            “I could be wrong, and they could be right, but I would have to study their work carefully before reaching any conclusion.”

            At least not withouth either being dishonest or shizoid. I’m worried about you, Jed. I have read your book on cold fusion and probably thousands of your posts in vortex-l. You have become one of my cold fusion heroes. The behavior – the blatant lack of consistency, modesty and now even honesty – you show lately regarding this subject is completely at odds with your former qualities and I am affraid that – if Rossi is real – people will not remember you as the highly accomplished librarian of LENR that you are but as the main proponent of IH’s campaign of denial and FUD.

            That wouldn’t the place in history that you deserve. I wonder if you have ever asked yourself if you may have been played by IH? If they may have fed you selective or even fabricated data in order to reinforce your bias about Rossi in order to turn you into their primary astroturfing agent? Have you ever remotely considered that possibility?

          • JedRothwell

            Timar wrote: “Anyone who has read a fair share of your comments on the test, even limited to this post, will notice that you can’t possibly condemn Rossi and the report the way you did . . .”

            Oh yes I can. I could say much worse things about him. I have refrained from that because I don’t want to interfere with the lawsuit.

            “At least not without being either dishonest . . .”

            Unless you have been reading my e-mail and following me around, you have no idea what I know, or what I have seen. You have no basis to think I have been dishonest.

            “. . . you show lately regarding this subject is completely at odds with your former qualities . . .”

            Because the situation is at odds with previous events in cold fusion, except for Defkalion’s fraud, described in detail here:

            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

            I condemned that just as strongly.

            Rossi has committed blatant fraud, using crude methods such as removing essential instruments, erasing data, and hiding the “customer site” that he himself owns. He may have done legitimate tests in the past, but this 1-year test stinks.

            “I wonder whether you have ever asked yourself if you may have been played by IH? If they may have spoon fed you cherry-picked or even manipulated data . . .”

            There is no chance of that. I have evidence that I know came directly from Rossi. I have confirmed this in various ways, some with no connection to I.H.

            Frankly, I cannot imagine why anyone doubts Rossi is a crock. He as much as bragged about it when he told the world that he blocked the door to his pretend customer site even after the I.H. expert insisted on going in. If that were a real customer, with real equipment, Rossi would be paid $89 million for showing it to the expert. The only possible reason to block the door is to hide the fact that there is nothing in there but a small radiator. That is obvious from Rossi’s own data and configuration. It is also obvious from the $89 million reward for opening the door.

            (You can easily confirm the fake customer is owned by Rossi.)

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            In the JM document it seems the waste water and heat is stored in the 2 vats until called for. Waste Not, Want Not.

            This meant that larger process water tanks could be installed, which opened up the possibility of operating the processes with just one tank, not two. So the spare tank was converted into a recycled sodium hydroxide storage tank. Installation was completed in sections to minimise production downtime.

            The project also helped reduce the use of natural gas to run the boiler. Steam from the boiler is used to concentrate the byproduct liquors and now that caustic recycling has reduced the volume of the byproduct stream, use of steam from the boiler and natural gas has been reduced.

            Should add that Mats has stated he knows people that visited the plant and saw this type of product being manufactured.

            Nice photo of the UK & US flags flying outside the JM Catalyst facility.

          • Steve Swatman

            Deflection Bruce, that’s really a “reddit” kind of play, deflection is in the (chapter 4 i think) of How to win any internet argument, it a well known tactic, it serves little purpose unless you talking to people who not know “tactical social media manipulation” (12yr olds and really old people maybe).

            Do you not agree that the questions are, did the ecat work, was heat generated, was it a COP over 6?

            You are justified in asking a question, but to keep repeating the same question as if it is the “be all and end all” of the situation is, well, you know, just a waste of your time, your effort and the time and effort of those who do not have you ignored on disqus.. eventually of course that is what will happen.

          • JedRothwell

            Chapman wrote: “You still have not figured out how to use the “defrost” setting on your microwave, but you concider yourself an expert on Nuclear Physics…”

            This has nothing to do with nuclear physics. All of the physics described by Rossi and Penon are conventional HVAC-related engineering physics, relating to things such as temperature, pressure, and steam quality. These were well established by the mid-19th century. (Although flow calorimetry in the lab was not used until the early 20th century, I believe.)

            Also, this has little to do with me. The experts at I.H. and elsewhere who have reviewed Rossi’s data concluded that it shows no evidence of excess heat. That is what I.H. said in their motion to dismiss and elsewhere. I agree with their conclusion, but I contributed nothing to it.

            Apparently, Lewan’s experts disagree, but I have idea why.

          • Ged

            “Why does it take 1 MW of heat a patch of pipe around a thermocouple?”

            Because water does not change temp while phase changing. The temperatures are above 100 C so the water must be steam to read that, and worst, you keep neglecting that the water is flowing and carrying away all heat–it is a coolant in that scenario. It does not work that way, admist all the other flaws in your idea.

            The thermocouple is reading the water temp and it cannot be heated to above 100 C without it all being in steam phase–water absorbs -all- the extra heat, that is how phase changing works. Sorry, but the thermal dynamics disagrees, and once again the reasoning fails anyways as nothing on the customer side can alert you to this, just doing your own basic tests on the plant side.

            Close, but you calculated calories, not joules. The calculation should be 30,000,000 g/day * 4.182 J/gram C * 40 C = 5,018,400,000 J/day / 86,400 sec/day = 58.083 kW, but the plant can only accept 20 kW, and the power bill agrees. I work with temps in this region and there is no mistaking 60 C and 101 C, even just being close to it. 60 C is cold for our purposes. And again, nothing unique only to the customer side has anything to do with this.

            Now, since the argument has now changed: on the other topic, no, it is not physically possible to do what you say I’m afraid. You cannot stuff that much in a flowing pipe without impeding flow as to deliver 1 MW to phase change the flow to steam which is -required- to rise the temp above 100 C. You cannot hide the lack of heating in the upstream regions. Even heating to 100 C from 60 C is beyond the power input we have seen from the electric bill. There is no way and no evidence to do what you suggest. It is a fine supposition, but fits no facts and is easily discernable from the plant side.

          • Kevmo

            Rossi has countered every claim in the response to the request for dismissal. If IH had such data they would have seen bullshit more than a year ago rather than right when it’s time to pay up.

            IH is caught with their pants down. They were trying to appropriate a technology but instead signed a contract that in essence makes them pay for a year long demo plus an independent report from a tester of their own choosing. The fact that they can’t replicate it is tough beans, especially in light of a PHOSITA like Parkhamov who actually was able to replicate with less available information. They didn’t sign a technology appropriation agreement.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “If IH had such data they would have seen bullshit more than a year ago rather than right when it’s time to pay up.”

            I am sure they did tell Rossi a year ago. Who told you otherwise? Perhaps you are making unwarranted assumptions about events you know nothing about.

          • Kevmo

            Telling the fox not to raid the henhouse just doesn’t cut it in terms of due diligence when you’re investing other people’s money. Perhaps you are the one making unwarranted assumptions, plus you should add more bran to your diet.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “The most important thing you have said here, (for the “no reason to look behind the door” crowd) is that you believe only a SMALL radiator would be found. In other words, not a radiator capable of dissipating 1 MW of heat per day.

            Is that correct?”

            Correct.

            Rossi claims there is industrial equipment using 1 MW of process heat. That is to say, heat rather than steam; the fluid all comes back as water at 60 deg C. This could easily be confirmed by examining either the equipment or the ventilation system.

            In any industrial process, nearly all the process heat ends up as waste heat. It has to be safely disposed of, according to code. Two methods are allowed in Florida: air ventilation, with a 22″ vent and powerful fan, or steam. You cannot dispose of this much heat by heating water. That would take ~3 times more water than a large factory uses, because of temperature restrictions. The water service pipe to a building of this size is not big enough.

            Air ventilation or steam of 1 MW is very easy to detect. Even from outside the building, you could measure it at the street level or on the roof. I.H. and others have checked and found there is no 22″ vent — just an ordinary HVAC vent, and no heat release of this magnitude from any part of the building.

            I believe there is only a small radiator first because there is no large heat release, and second because I estimated there is little or no excess heat. Certainly not 1 MW. The error margin is large I cannot rule out some excess heat from Rossi’s data. However, I.H. says they have better data which conclusively rules it out.

            Here is the Google map view of the roof. The vents for each rental unit in the building are on the left side of this image. One unit has small AC fans (5th from the top). None of these vents or fans is big enough to vent 1 MW, and no such heat release has been detected. I think this photo was taken in 2014, but I have heard it looks the same now.

            https://www.google.com/maps/@25.8157611,-80.3250736,204m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

          • sam

            AR should have provided some photos of
            inside the customers plant to TD.
            Surely there would be no harm in that.
            He would have some idea of production.

          • JedRothwell

            Photos would not do the job. Just seeing equipment does not tell you how much heat that equipment is consuming.

            However, as I said, even though he blocked the door, I have heard that I.H. and others found ways to estimate the heat from the rental unit. So the issue is settled.

            Heat has to go somewhere, and there has to be vent or a steam pipe, so it is not hard to confirm 1 MW of heat. Methods of detecting heat from outside a building are not precise. I do not think anyone could detect 20 kW input and 30 kW output, with 10 kW of excess heat. But you can’t miss 1 MW.

            The police use IR cameras to detect heat from outside of buildings to find hidden indoor marijuana farms. See, for example:

            http://www.citylab.com/tech/2013/10/police-can-find-your-marijuana-grow-house-heat-sensing-helicopters/7246/

          • sam

            How do you know that I.H.testing
            was done properly.

          • JedRothwell

            They told me about the methods, instruments and so on. I have a general idea of what they did, and I think it meets the normal standards of HVAC testing in Florida. Plus, those people are sharp. They know way more than I do about calorimetry.

            They did not give me any specific numbers, so as not to prejudice my analysis of Rossi’s data. I want my analysis to be entirely based on Rossi’s work. With my interpretation, of course. His interpretation is that there is 1 MW of heat. His numbers, taken at face value, do indicate that. I am not suggesting he made an arithmetic error. I agree with I.H. that the instruments were probably unsuitable and the measurements flawed. Of course we could be wrong.

            I personally have done many studies with unsuitable instruments and flawed measurements. So I recognize ’em when I see ’em. I am an expert only by to Bohr’s definition: “someone who has made every possible mistake.”

            The people at I.H. are experts by official standards, such as advanced degrees. My degree is in Japanese, with advanced degrees in programming, assembly language, Pascal, instrument interfacing, calorimetry and so on from the School of Hard Knocks. As Franklin put it, experience is a dear teacher, but a fool will learn at no other.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            How do you know the data you have is from Rossi and has not been tempered with?

            You said it was from several tests?

            1) Which tests are the data from?

            2) How did you confirm your 2nd data is accurate?

            3) How do you know the instruments and their locations in each of the several tests?

          • JedRothwell

            “How do you know the data you have is from Rossi and has not been tempered with?”

            I have already answered this question. Please review my messages. To summarize, some people I have known for a long time outside of I.H. saw the tests and read the data directly from the instruments. These are old fashioned instruments with faceplates and displays. Plus, Rossi gave the data to Lewan who published it, and it is the same as I have.

            I have some other means of verification which I won’t get into.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed, who write:
            “Plus, Rossi gave the data to Lewan who published it, and it is the same as I have.”

            Excellent news. Finally we are moving forward.

            And the link to the Rossi data Mats published is?

          • JedRothwell
          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            There is no output pressure nor temperature data there, so where is your data from?

            BTW Rossi did respond to my email

            Jed has no data at all, they are trying to make me give data that can be disclosed only in Court.
            You can simply respond that Mt Rothwell is an imbecile who talks of data that he has invented.
            Thank you for your help,
            Warmest Regards,
            Andrea

          • JedRothwell

            “There is no output pressure nor temperature data there, so where is your data from?”

            There was flow rate, fluid temp in and out, and some other things I confirmed with Lewan.

            My data is from Rossi, as I mentioned before. He denies it. If the ERV is ever published, you will see at once who is lying here, and who is telling the truth. I would be pretty stupid to lie about numbers that anyone can check in an instant. Rossi calibrates his lies carefully, making them somewhat sort of hard to pin down or disprove even when the facts are against him. He has done a great job doing that with he pretend customer.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            So you confirm you have from the 1 year test

            1) ERV monitored data?

            2) ERV instruments used?

            3) ERV instrument locations?

            4) Where not given this information by IH or Rossi?

            5) Have somehow managed to confirm all the 2nd hand information you received is correct without involving IH or Rossi, as surely they might be upset that data had leaked.

            If you haven’t confirmed accurate ERV data from the 1 year test, then why are you posting statements made from old, not relevant and unsubstantiated data?

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “1) ERV monitored data?”

            I confirm I have some of it. Enough to give me confidence in my analysis.

            “2) ERV instruments used?
            3) ERV instrument locations?”

            Yup.

            “5) Have somehow managed to confirm all the 2nd hand information you received . . .”

            I wouldn’t call it second hand. I confirmed that the configuration and instrument readings in the sample data are correct. People I trust a great deal said that’s what the test showed. Plus some people I do not trust so much confirmed it.

            That’s all there is to it.

            We’ll have to skip your other questions. And you will have to wait to see the ERV before you know whether I am telling the truth, or Rossi is. It is regrettable the ERV has not been published.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            So if your data is ERV data, supplied to you by IH, why do you refer to it as Rossi data?

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “So if your data is ERV data, supplied to you by IH, why do you refer to it as Rossi data?”

            Shorthand. I mean the data from Rossi’s lab. I can’t tell whether Rossi collected it or Penon did.

            I strongly suspect Penon is Rossi’s puppet, and Rossi designed the test and collected the data. I say this because only Rossi could come up with such a sloppy, infuriating, outrageous, deceptive test. Only he would have the chutzpah to remove essential instruments and violate agreements so brazenly.

            Perhaps Penon merely signed off on this test. Penon authored an idiotic report in 2012:

            http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf

            Rossi said Penon should not be blamed for that because he only signed off on it, he didn’t actually write it. That’s not actually a valid excuse; you are responsible when sign a report just as much as when you author it. But I wonder if perhaps Rossi saw this 2012 report and figured: “Ah, ha! I will hire this nitwit, write a ridiculous Rossi-style non-report, and then have him sign it! I can foist it off on the court and get another $89 million.”

            Rossi uses people. He destroys lives & careers for profit. He destroyed Mats Lewan. He played him for a fool, leading him on, telling him he would release the ERV. Lewan spent a lot of time and his own money organizing his symposium, which he said would only happen if the ERV was published and positive. Rossi must have planned all along to file the lawsuit and then use that as an excuse to withhold the ERV. He knows the ERV proves he has no excess heat, and it makes him look like a fool or a fraud. Rossi is not stupid. He knows that as well as I do.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            What do you mean “the data from Rossi’s lab”?

            The 1 year test reactor was built & owned by IH. You surely mean the data collected by the ERV’s instruments, attached to the 1 year test reactor?

            Those ERV instruments, their location and monitoring/recording method were approved by the IH experts before the ERV acquired and installed the instruments.

            So if the instruments, locations and data were bad, the fault is with IH and not Rossi.

            I find it hard to accept your statement:
            “I strongly suspect Penon is Rossi’s puppet, and Rossi designed the test and collected the data. I say this because only Rossi could come up with such a sloppy, infuriating, outrageous, deceptive test. Only he would have the chutzpah to remove essential instruments and violate agreements so brazenly.”

            I guess you have no proof to offer about the above statement?

          • JedRothwell

            “What do you mean “the data from Rossi’s lab”?”

            I mean the data from test conducted in Rossi’s lab in Florida. Does he have any other labs?

            “The 1 year test reactor was built & owned by IH.”

            As far as I know, it was built by Rossi.

            “You surely mean the data collected by the ERV’s instruments, attached to the 1 year test reactor?”

            Yes, the ERV, Rossi’s puppet.

            “‘I strongly suspect Penon is Rossi’s puppet, and Rossi designed the test and collected the data. . . . ‘

            I guess you have no proof to offer about the above statement?”

            The paragraph begins “I strongly suspect . . .” If I had proof, I wouldn’t say that, would I? I would say, “I know for a fact that . . .”

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Better check with IH. The reactors used in the 1 year test were, AFAIK, built by IH in Raleigh and then shipped to Doral.

            Rossi’s lab is not the 1 year plant test site. So is your data from some test that was run in Rossi’s Florida lab or is it the ERV data from the 1 year test plant?

            Jed, just maybe if you have no proof of such claims, such as your Penon claim, maybe better to hold off making such potential libelous claims until you have proof.

            I mean so far Jed you have not presented any proof to support anything you claim or suspect is true.

          • Mats002

            Many knowledgable people discuss that below this article: http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/29/photos-of-1mw-plant-address/comment-page-1/

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            From my readings of IH’s official statement, they just say “can’t substantiate” Rossi’s claims. This of course totally discounts all of the unofficial claims made by Weaver & Rothwell.

            Clearly, for the 1 year test, the reactor was designed to deliver superheated steam.

          • Bruce__H

            Engineer has mentioned a number of times that the equipment for the 1 year 1 MW test was built by IH. This is certainly what Rossi seems to say. But I note that in the contract between IH and Rossi it mentions that the ECAT is to by Leonardo Corp and then shipped to the IH premises. So I don’t know what the actual situation is. When I pointed out to Engineer the section of the contract stating this, I did not receive a reply.

          • so much highly distasteful, libelous language from Jed today.

          • sam

            Jed
            Even with the mistakes in testing
            could the E Cat still have passed
            and is what A.R. says it is.
            Would another EVR by someone
            else be useful or a waste of time.
            Thanks

          • JedRothwell

            Sam wrote: “Even with the mistakes in testing could the E Cat still have passed and is what A.R. says it is.”

            Is that a question?

            Assuming it is a question, in the opinion of the I.H. experts, the mistakes in testing mean the measurements were wrong, and there was no anomalous heat. They conclude device was “inoperative” (as they put it in the Motion to Dismiss).

            Those experts have much more information than I do. However, based on what I have seen, I concur. I do not think the device produced excess heat. It is difficult to judge because the test was poorly done.

            When you put the wrong instruments in the wrong places, the answer is not positive or negative. It is meaningless. You cannot tell what happened. The Three Mile Island disaster was history’s most dramatic example of calorimetry gone bad. The instruments at times gave the operators bogus information, and at times no information at all. One of the key sensors of reactor temperature (which was only installed for a test — not permanently) overflowed and read “????” Scaling up to a megawatt or a gigawatt does not mean you get the right answer.

          • sam

            Yes it was a? Jed.
            I thought after I forgot?
            But was driving.
            Thanks for reply.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Thanks for the reply. Understand your non disclosure issues. Not the best but they are a fact of doing business and sharing information.

            Do you believe a configuration where inlet water mass flow rate and temperature were measured & recorded, plus outlet steam pressure and temperature were measured & recorded is an acceptable configuration?

            Then the kJ/kg for the inlet and outlet flow can be calculated and the plant thermal gain calculated as

            thermal gain in kW = (outlet kJ/kg – inlet kJ/kg) * kg/sec flow rate

            If not what do you feel is incorrect?

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Do you believe a configuration where inlet water mass flow rate and temperature were measured & recorded, plus outlet steam pressure and temperature were measured & recorded is an acceptable configuration?”

            Sure. The ASME describes how to measure boiler efficiency in various publications, for various types. See:

            https://www.asme.org/about-asme/standards/performance-test-codes

            These recommended methods are incorporated into the test codes of Florida and every other state. A trained HVAC engineer will use them, and produce a result you can bet your life on. You do, literally, bet your life on these methods, because an unsafe boiler can explode and cause massive damage.

            An HVAC engineer who does not follow these procedures will have his license revoked.

            The entire suite of boiler test inspection procedures includes things such as looking at the chimney, the emergency on/off switches, pressure relief valves and so on. A lot of it is over my head. It also involves measuring boiler efficiency, which is to say, calorimetry. That, I understand. It is more or less the same as a laboratory experiment, only there are no blank runs, no calibration, and precision is only about 10%, I think. This document describes the main procedures, look up tables and so on:

            http://www.cleaver-brooks.com/reference-center/insights/boiler-efficiency-guide.aspx

            I recommend that.

            Anyway, if Rossi had done procedures such the ASME recommends, and the state of Florida mandates, he would have produced a clear result, either positive or negative. Unfortunately, he did not. Not in my opinion.

            In other words, yes, “thermal gain in kW = (outlet kJ/kg – inlet kJ/kg) * kg/sec flow rate” but there are lot of ways you can screw up those measurements, or operate the thing wrong. That is why boilers sometime explode. This video shows what happens when you make a mistake on the megawatt scale:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCej2OQSKnY

            This is why it is a good idea to test prototype devices on a much smaller scale, say 10 W or 100 W.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Glad to see we agree:

            You wrote: “Do you believe a configuration where inlet water mass flow rate and temperature were measured & recorded, plus outlet steam pressure and temperature were measured & recorded is an acceptable configuration?”

            Sure.

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “So I must then consider that the configuration I outlined above and you agreed was viable, did not happen in the 1MW test reactor instrument configuration?

            What was missing or misplaced?”

            I with I could say, but I cannot reveal any details that have not already been revealed by Rossi or I.H., in press releases and legal papers. Sorry.

            If it were not for the lawsuit I think the details would have been made public by now. Unfortunately, the lawsuit may drag on for years. I know nothing about lawsuits, but lawyers tell me the ERV report and other data may never be published because of the lawsuit.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Fully understand.

            I would expect, if this goes to a jury trial, the ERV final COP report will at least surface as IH did agree to it being the decider and they will need to prove the real COP was 2.6 or less.

          • Ged

            There have been plenty of smaller scale tests over many years. We can argue for or against them, but -they exist-, so one can’t be disingenuous about that. You even supposedly have another 10 page report of yet another test on your desk.

            All we have is your word that you actually know any accurate info, and so far your word sounds disingenuous. Where are the facts? A model number, a position? Anything verifiable at all?

  • Observer

    I could see, early on, IH seeking Jed out for scientific advice regarding LENR. I think the law suit has forced Jed to pick sides. He seems to have access to IH internal information. It would be nice for him to acknowledge any conflicts of interest at play.

    • He seems to have access to whatever IH decides to spoon feed him. By his own admission he has not seen full data sets or the full ERV report.

      It is hardly surprising that IH would only supply Jed with cherry-picked information that supports their defense. What’s troublesome is that there is apparently enough of such information that it allows experienced LENR-ers (<– new word!) like Jed to be completely convinced that the 1 MW plant never worked. But has Jed been misled? That's the $89M question.

      • Observer

        The scientific LENR community has always had mixed feelings about Andrea Rossi. He is not playing the game by their rules. My question is: Has IH bought good will within the LENR community with their investments that has affected people opinions about the law suit?

    • JedRothwell

      You wrote: “I could see, early on, IH seeking Jed out for scientific advice regarding LENR.”

      No, they did not.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Jed,

        You made a comment on the LENR Forum that intrigues me:
        https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3374-Jed-Rothwell-on-an-Unpublished-E-Cat-Test-Report-that-%E2%80%9CLooks-Like-it-Worked%E2%80%9D/?postID=25629#post25629

        To take an example, the 1-year, 1-MW test is clearly wrong, but the reasons it is wrong are clear. It would not fool anyone. Any experienced person who looks at the choice of instruments, their positions and so on (the configuration) will conclude that the results are wrong.

        Will you please share what was wrong with the choice of instruments, their positions and the configuration?

        As I understand it, the inlet water mass flow and temperature were measured as was the outlet steam pressure and temperature measured. Is this correct and if so where is there an error in the configuration?

        As to the instruments positions being incorrect can you please share what was incorrect with the positions?

        • JedRothwell

          You wrote: “Will you please share what was wrong with the choice of instruments, their positions and the configuration?”

          I am sorry, but I cannot discuss the details. I cannot say anything specific, or anything not already revealed by either Rossi or by I.H., in their press releases and legal filings. I regret the need for this, and I apologize for being so vague. It is out of character for me.

          Let may say this, which is probably not helpful. In their Motion to Dismiss, I.H. criticized Rossi for “ignoring inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices.” Based on the sample of Rossi’s data and schematic that I have seen, I agree with this description. The measurements were flawed and the instruments unsuitable. That was true of some of Rossi’s previous tests. For example, when he refused to measure the outlet temperature even though he had extra thermocouples available; when he refused to put an SD card in the thermocouple meter; or when he almost blew up Jim Dunn and the people from NASA. I was hoping this test would be better, but alas it was not.

          Scaling up a sloppy mistake does not make it less of a mistake. It just means you make a giant error instead of a small one.

          • Robert Dorr

            As far as I can tell Jed was fed cherry picked information from the ERV test and his statement means absolutely nothing unless he is willing to say exactly what instruments were used and there placements. Apparently I.H. sees nothing wrong in violating their non-disclosure agreement if Jed has indeed really seen parts of the ERV report.

          • JedRothwell

            Robert Dorr wrote: Jed’s “statement means absolutely nothing unless he is willing to say exactly what instruments were used and there placements.”

            You can say the same thing for Rossi. I suggest you ask him what instruments were used, and where they were placed. He has not revealed this.

            He did reveal the fact that he refused to allow the I.H. expert to see the customer site, even though the expert insisted he must see it. Even people who know nothing about the configuration, and do not know why the expert insisted on this, should find this suspicious. I suggest you ask Rossi why he did this.

            You have demanded technical information from I.H. and now from me. Why have you not also demanded such information from Rossi?

            Several reasons have been suggested by Rossi supporters, such as the idea that the expert might have been able to suss out the customers IP. This explanation makes no sense. It is not possible to understand IP just by looking at equipment, or by measuring the temperature and flow rates of a heat exchanger and ventilation equipment.

            “Apparently I.H. sees nothing wrong in violating their non-disclosure agreement . . .”

            Where did you get this information? Do you have access to I.H.’s offices and computer files? Have you talked to their lawyers? If you have not, I suggest you refrain from speculating about NDAs and other contracts.

          • Ged

            The ERV report exists even if not released to us yet (and why don’t you ask IH why they haven’t released it yet?) and obviously details the instrumentation data based on your arguments about what little of it you have seen above. And IH had workers in the container who could see what instruments were where. They could have changed things or insisted such long before a year, and had such authority.

            But you continue to directly contradict yourself. How could you know the instruments and that they are “wrong”, and then claim only Rossi knows but won’t say? Which is it? Do you know or does only Rossi know?

            Fraud or not, I want facts not inconsistencies that continue to fail to hold water.

          • JedRothwell

            Ged wrote: “The ERV report exists even if not released to us yet (and why don’t you ask IH why they haven’t released it yet?) . . .

            I suggest you ask Rossi for the report, or for a summary of it and some sample data.

            “And IH had workers in the container who could see what instruments were where. They could have changed things or insisted such long before a year, and had such authority.”

            Did they have such authority? Where did you hear that? Rossi said he did not allow one of them into the customer site, even thought the expert “insisted” on seeing it. (Rossi said the expert insisted.) That does not give me the impression they had authority.

            “But you continue to directly contradict yourself. How could you know the instruments and that they are “wrong”, and then claim only Rossi knows but won’t say? Which is it?”

            I did not say only Rossi knows. Anyone who sees the data and schematics will know. It is obvious.

            “Do you know or does only Rossi know?”

            I cannot read his mind, but if he does not see a problem he is not good at calorimetry.

            “Fraud or not, I want facts not inconsistencies that continue to fail to hold water.”

            What inconsistencies do you have in mind?

            In any case, I suggest you ask Rossi for the information you seek. Even if I were free to give you a complete description, I expect you — or perhaps others — would say I made it up. They would say my description is fake. So, you need to get the information directly from Rossi.

          • Ged

            -“I suggest you ask Rossi for the report, or for a summary of it and some sample data.”

            He’s already said he’ll release it when his lawyer oks it. Sucks, but then again it’s a two way street. Why hasn’t -IH- released it, if it’s so good for their case? Convenient to side step that little detail, and does not support the position.

            -“Did they have such authority? Where did you hear that? Rossi said he did not allow one of them into the customer site, even thought the expert “insisted” on seeing it. (Rossi said the expert insisted.) That does not give me the impression they had authority.”

            Extreme red herring. The plant is not on the customer side of the warehouse, and so has nothing to do with the customer space. All the issues can be addressed on the plant side, and IH had full authority, they built it after all and the customer is paying them, not Rossi, for the steam–thus it is their responsibility to administer the plant. Seriously, why do you misrepresent such a detail, and then try to use a sleigh of hand to pass it off to the uninvolved, and irrelevant for this part of the discussion, customer? This is part of why I am having trouble trusting what you are saying.

            -“I did not say only Rossi knows. Anyone who sees the data and schematics will know. It is obvious.”

            Really? It’s easy to get lost in the sea of these replies. Let’s look above:

            “JedRothwell

            Robert Dorr • 3 hours ago

            Robert Dorr wrote: Jed’s “statement means absolutely nothing unless
            he is willing to say exactly what instruments were used and there
            placements.”

            You can say the same thing for Rossi. I suggest you
            ask him what instruments were used, and where they were placed. He has not revealed this.”

            There you go. I guess JedRothwell does not agree with JedRothwell?

            -“I cannot read his mind, but if he does not see a problem he is not good at calorimetry.”

            You missed that I was pointing out the contradiction and flaw in what you posted and reasoned. But perhaps the problem is you have been mislead and did not skeptically review the “information” you were given from a bias source. Thing is, we only have your word, claiming to know matters you are uninvolved in without a way to verify your claims, when others in the know are contradicting you, and your own reasoning contradicts you as I quoted above (and as you have done other times as other posters have outlined far below). It’s difficult to trust what you’re trying to say, until you present some shred of evidence that you are, or your sources are, credible.

            -“In any case, I suggest you ask Rossi for the information you seek. Even if I were free to give you a complete description, I expect you — or
            perhaps others — would say I made it up. They would say my description
            is fake. So, you need to get the information directly from Rossi.”

            Sure, but I suggest you ask IH to release this information; observe how the sword cuts both ways. Or even better, if you didn’t sign an NDA, there’s no legal reason for you to hold back what information you have. I want proof, a simple picture of a document, or a post, redacted to protect whomever you want, but anything to prove it isn’t just your word out of thin air (or someone else’s made to manipulate you by not having you fact check them and just blindly believe what they tell you), as right now that’s all I can see after the shenanigans surrounding these claims about the 1 year test and now this new test. One shouldn’t try to hide behind the “say I made it up” or “my description is fake” excuse, that’s just an attempt to dodge having to address backing up unsupported statements. Specifics are required.

            I guess we can say we “cannot substantiate [these] claims”.

          • Jed, you know I have talked with people having insight in the report, making conclusions completely contrary to yours. And I have to admit that the few facts you provided in a private email conversation with me did not convince me at all about your conclusions. But obviously you could know more than what you told me.

          • JedRothwell

            Mats Lewan wrote: “Jed, you know I have talked with people having insight in the report, making conclusions completely contrary to yours.”

            I cannot address this. I cannot begin to judge why their conclusions are different from the I.H. experts’ analysis, and from mine. I would have to see an analysis by them.

            I would have to ask these people, for example, what they think of the pressure readings, the flow meter readings, the type of flowmeter, and the method of evaluating steam quality. Plus some other stuff.

            I could be wrong, and they could be right, but I would have to study their work carefully before reaching any conclusion.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Would you agree that if the steam pressure is measured, then any measured steam temperature at or above the superheat temperature, the steam is dry and superheated?

            As I understand it, steam quality, the amount of wet and dry steam, is only applicable if the steam temperature is less than the min superheated temperature at the measured pressure.

            Would you also agree that measuring the inlet mass flow rate is the outlet steam flow rate, assuming the boiler and superheater are not leaking?

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “Would you agree that if the steam pressure is measured, then any measured steam temperature at or above the superheat . . .”

            Sure, that stuff is all according to ASME protocols and physics textbooks. I never argue with the ASME! What I am saying I do not think Rossi measured according to code.

            I have little imagination and I do things by the book. I printed out the Florida codes and compared them to the instrumentation and configuration described by Rossi. It looks wrong to me. Plus, I do understand how flowmeters work because I have used 5 or 6 of them, and I have made every stupid mistake you can make with them.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Except for the 1 year test the ERV and not Rossi did the measurements as pre agreed before the test started by IH, Rossi and the ERV.

            BTW do you know where the flow meter for the 1 year test was installed/mounted? Have looked in all the photos but can’t see any flow meter.

            And yes doing it by the book is the way to save your ass.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            You do understand that at 0.0 barG (1 standard atmosphere of pressure), steam temperature at or above 99.9743 is superheated / dry?

            I assume the ERV did measure both the outlet steam pressure and temperature so the Specific Enthalpy of the steam could be calculated?

            Correct?
            . https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bad8480b18e6df312a91b0b9aa2e332249bd407c15587b1d21cdfb78e335839c.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d8f83b447868cd54aa68429012bb32e7a4ffa3ac83825f136bba5b351177a4e4.png

          • Timar

            I am calling you out for being dishonest, Jed.

            Anyone who has read a fair share of your comments on the test, even limited to this post, will notice that you can’t possibly condemn Rossi and the report the way you did – claiming absolute (or “99.9999%”) certainty and using the strongest available language in an almost inflationary manner – and on the other hand write something like this:

            “I could be wrong, and they could be right, but I would have to study their work carefully before reaching any conclusion.”

            At least not withouth being either dishonest or schizoid. I’m worried about you, Jed. I have read your book on cold fusion and over the years probably thousands of your posts on vortex-l. You have become one of my cold fusion heroes. The behavior – the blatant lack of consistency, modesty and now even honesty – you show lately regarding this subject is completely at odds with your former qualities I had come to regard so much and I am affraid that – if Rossi is right – people will not remember you as the highly accomplished librarian of LENR that you are but as a main proponent of IH’s campaign of denial and FUD.

            That wouldn’t be the place in history that you deserve. I wonder whether you have ever asked yourself if you may have been played by IH? If they may have spoon fed you cherry-picked or even manipulated data in order to reinforce your bias about Rossi and to turn you into their primary astroturfing agent? Have you ever even remotely considered that possibility?

          • JedRothwell

            Timar wrote: “Anyone who has read a fair share of your comments on the test, even limited to this post, will notice that you can’t possibly condemn Rossi and the report the way you did . . .”

            Oh yes I can. I could say much worse things about him. I have refrained from that because I don’t want to interfere with the lawsuit.

            “At least not without being either dishonest . . .”

            Unless you have been reading my e-mail and following me around, you have no idea what I know, or what I have seen. You have no basis to think I have been dishonest.

            “. . . you show lately regarding this subject is completely at odds with your former qualities . . .”

            Because the situation is at odds with previous events in cold fusion, except for Defkalion’s fraud, described in detail here:

            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

            I condemned that just as strongly.

            Rossi has committed blatant fraud, using crude methods such as removing essential instruments, erasing data, and hiding the “customer site” that he himself owns. He may have done legitimate tests in the past, but this 1-year test stinks.

            “I wonder whether you have ever asked yourself if you may have been played by IH? If they may have spoon fed you cherry-picked or even manipulated data . . .”

            There is no chance of that. I have evidence that I know came directly from Rossi. I have confirmed this in various ways, some with no connection to I.H.

            Frankly, I cannot imagine why anyone doubts Rossi is a crock. He as much as bragged about it when he told the world that he blocked the door to his pretend customer site even after the I.H. expert insisted on going in. If that were a real customer, with real equipment, Rossi would be paid $89 million for showing it to the expert. The only possible reason to block the door is to hide the fact that there is nothing in there but a small radiator. That is obvious from Rossi’s own data and configuration. It is also obvious from the $89 million reward for opening the door.

            (You can easily confirm the fake customer is owned by Rossi.)

          • Well said Timar. Well said.

          • Robert Dorr

            Jed you are the one who has repeatedly said you have seen the information. I’m asking you to say what it is. If you have it, tell it. You are the one that has said you’ve seen the information. Have you or haven’t you. If you’ve seen it then I.H. must have violated the NDA for you to have access to it. Also,he didn’t have to let them into the customer’s site per their contractual agreement.

          • Robert Dorr

            Jed, you rehashing the fact that he wouldn’t let their expert into the customers site is disingenuous at best. You know that it doesn’t make a hill of beans what the customer was doing with the heat that the 1MW plant was making as to whether or not Rossi’s plant was functioning properly as long as the appropriate measurements were being made, i.e. temperature, pressure and flow, in and out. And all you will say is that the instruments were improper and they were incorrectly placed. And I say prove it. You say you have seen all the information you need but you won’t say what it is. I say prove it or quit saying it.

          • JedRothwell

            Robert Dorr wrote: “Jed, you rehashing the fact that he wouldn’t let their expert into the customers site is disingenuous at best. You know that it doesn’t make a hill of beans what the customer was doing with the heat that the 1MW plant was making as to whether or not Rossi’s plant was functioning properly as long as the appropriate measurements were being made, i.e. temperature, pressure and flow, in and out.”

            Obviously, yes. The problem is, the appropriate measurements were not made. That is why the I.H. expert insisted on seeing the customer site.

            “And all you will say is that the instruments were improper and they were incorrectly placed. And I say prove it.”

            I say Rossi should prove it. Why have you not asked him for this information? Why are you asking me for the technical details about his work?

            How, exactly, could I prove it? Even if I were free to give you all the details, you would accuse me of inventing them.

            You will only accept information from Rossi. Therefore, you must ask him.

            “You say you have seen all the information you need but you won’t say what it is. I say prove it or quit saying it.”

            I say Rossi should prove what he says, or quit saying it.

          • Ged

            -“Obviously, yes. The problem is, the appropriate measurements were not
            made. That is why the I.H. expert insisted on seeing the customer site.”

            Obviously the customer side is irrelevant to testing of the plant itself. There is no reason to see it, only the inlet and outlet of the plant. Robert is correct to call out that absurdity.

            -“I say Rossi should prove it. Why have you not asked him for this
            information? Why are you asking me for the technical details about his
            work?

            How, exactly, could I prove it? Even if I were free to give you all the details, you would accuse me of inventing them.

            You will any accept information from Rossi. Therefore, you must ask him.”

            Yes, Rossi must prove it to continue sales and the like. If he can’t, he’s finished.

            But he’s not the one making claims about other people, saying he’s got insider information, but not backing it up. You could prove it by releasing information (e.g. actual document with redactions), no one would accuse you of inventing it, and it’s wrong to tell Robert how he will react or think. It’s an easy way to dodge having to back oneself up, however.

            “I say Rossi should prove what he says, or quit saying it.”

            If you agree that Rossi should prove the things he says, then you should have no problem with others asking you prove the things you say. That is equitable and fair, and true for everyone.

          • JedRothwell

            Ged wrote: “Obviously the customer side is irrelevant to testing of the plant itself. There is no reason to see it, only the inlet and outlet of the plant. Robert is correct to call out that absurdity.”

            The I.H. expert disagreed, for reasons I am not free to describe. I also disagreed. I suggest you withhold judgement on this issue until you have had a chance to review the data and configuration.

          • Ged

            -“The I.H. expert disagreed, for reasons I am not free to describe. I also
            disagreed. I suggest you withhold judgement on this issue until you
            have had a chance to review the data and configuration.”

            Based on what logical reasoning? You know well enough that only the in and out matters, there is no excuse and I know you can see that too, no matter what someone else has tried to make you believe. If you present the data and configuration, we can all review it, as Robert has asked.

            Edit: The same goes for this new report. A picture that it exists would go a long way, but best yet would be letting everyone get a chance to review it.

          • JedRothwell

            Ged wrote: “Based on what logical reasoning? You know well enough that only the in and out matters . . .”

            As I said, the in and out were not measured correctly. That was the opinion of the I.H. expert, and it is my opinion too.

            Have you done calorimetry? Either on the laboratory scale or the industrial scale? I have done both, and I have made many mistakes. Most recently yesterday. I have managed to measure both the input and the output wrong. Rossi often screwed his previous tests, because he is sloppy and careless. This test was set up incorrectly, making it necessary to examine the customer site if there was to be any hope of finding excess heat.

          • Ged

            “This test was set up incorrectly, making it necessary to examine the
            customer site if there was to be any hope of finding excess heat.”

            Or, more reasonably, the IH expert could just have measured the input and output correctly to his/her desire at the plant itself–quite a simple solution. There is nothing on the customer side that can allow a better determination than simply measuring at the plant itself; and with IH techs working on the plant there’s no reason for the IH expert not to do his/her duty at the plant. Worst yet, if input and output were mis-measured, then measuring the customer side would not help as the input would still be wrong; so it still makes no sense to use that argument.

            It sounds like you’ve been fed misdirection.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “It sounds like you’ve been fed misdirection.”

            If you read Rossi’s blog then you have been fed so much misinformation you are likely to explode.

          • Ged

            “If you read Rossi’s blog then you have been fed so much misinformation you are likely to explode.”

            Good thing I don’t read his blog, as I’m only interested in data.

            But what snippets I have seen posted here over the years just seem to keep coming true, while I’m still waiting for your and/or IH’s data.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Well at least you admit to not being an engineer, who normally have set procedures to do certain types of measurements, so to avoid getting measurements wrong.

            What I don’t understand is why you keep throwing back to the past, when Rossi did not do any of the measurements for the 1 year test. The ERV provided the preagreed instruments, placed them as preagreed and engaged the measurements and data logging as preagreed. When the test was completed, the ERV sent the now removed instruments back to their manufacturers to recheck their certification.

            Is any of this not correct?

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “What I don’t understand is why you keep throwing back to the past, when Rossi did not do any of the measurements for the 1 year test.”

            I believe he did do the measurements. It looks like his handiwork to me, with the same kind of careless & inexplicable mistakes he made in previous tests. Either he made the measurements, or Penon did, and by coincidence he is as sloppy as Rossi.

            “The ERV provided the preagreed instruments, placed them as preagreed and engaged the measurements and data logging as preagreed.”

            Pre-agreed by who? I.H.? I don’t think so! I have no knowledge of their business arrangements, but I know that they and their experts disagreed with the methods and conclusions. They made that clear in the March 10 announcement, the response to the lawsuit, and the motion to dismiss. I mean the March 10 announcement here:

            http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741

          • Ged

            -“Pre-agreed by who? I.H.? I don’t think so!”

            Yes, they did. It’s in the License Agreement/Amendments they signed and court docket. Give it a read.

            -“I have no knowledge of their business arrangements”

            Read the court docket, all the arrangements are posted there under oath, so you can have full knowledge if you wish.

            “[B]ut I know that they and their experts disagreed with the methods and
            conclusions. They made that clear in the March 10 announcement, the
            response to the lawsuit, and the motion to dismiss.”

            Supposition. The March 10th announcement says nothing about them disagreeing with the methods/conclusions. The MTD puts unsupported objections in a footnote, and there is no substantiation to them.

            Edit: And they had a whole year to do something about anything they didn’t like–and obviously they didn’t do anything. So what does that say about them?

          • JedRothwell

            Ged wrote: “The MTD puts unsupported objections in a footnote, and there is no substantiation to them.”

            There is no substantiation to Rossi’s claims either. After all these years, you cannot point to a single clear cut test.

            Anyway, I have seen the data from Rossi that I.H. based their conclusion on. I say it is well substantiated. You have not seen it, so you are in no position to contradict me. You will have to wait to see it before forming any opinion, for or against Rossi. You should never try to judge a technical dispute when you have heard only one side of the debate.

          • Ged

            -“There is no substantiation to Rossi’s claims either. After all these years, you cannot point to a single clear cut test.”

            In your opinion, which is fine. But realize something important: there -are- tests, there -is- data. Rossi has given data to backup his claims, even if you disagree with its veracity.

            IH has given -no- data, even though it sure could if it wanted. Why hasn’t IH released the ERV report if it’s so supportive of their position? Why won’t they show it to you in full? Haven’t you asked these questions? IH is unsubstantiated, though they did build the Lugano reactor and fuel so you could chalk up that data as theirs.

            -“Anyway, I have seen the data from Rossi that I.H. based their conclusion
            on. I say it is well substantiated. You have not seen it, so you are in
            no position to contradict me. You will have to wait to see it before
            forming any opinion, for or against Rossi. You should never try to judge
            a technical dispute when you have heard only one side of the debate.”

            I have only your word. You present no information, IH presents no information (though they have every opportunity and right to). How can anyone hear the otherside of the debate when it will not be shared despite all the claims it’s so good and so substantiated. It’s smoke and mirrors, it’s FUD. Until such time it is released, there is nothing but your word, and that is not substantiation of the claims you have made which are clearly contradicted by logic (no one ever has a reason to measure the customer side when they have access to the plant itself), others (Mats and the court documents that give you all the business information you have claimed to not know), and yourself (you say it doesn’t work but here we are on a thread about some mysterious 10 page report you supposedly have that says otherwise; among other contradictions of yourself you make like I quoted elsewhere).

            How can I trust you when you’ve given me no reason to do so–no facts, no data, no information, no proof, no support from anyone else of your statements, nothing? You’ve put me in an impossible situation, there is no other side until you support it or ask IH to do so (and they have every reason to and have had plenty of time to do so). It sounds like you’ve been duped.

            But if you can produce actual proof and evidence, I will gladly dive into it and I do, actually sincerely want to see you vindicated. But you keep digging a hole that just gets deeper so far.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “I have only your word. You present no information, IH presents no information . . .”

            And Rossi presents no information. That’s what happens in a lawsuit. It may take years before the information appears, and it may never appear.

          • Ged

            “And Rossi presents no information. That’s what happens in a lawsuit. It
            may take years before the information appears, and it may never appear.”

            You are sadly flat wrong there. Rossi has given more information than any other party, including yourself: a whole, delicious court docket full of it and all those tests up to this point. If you wish to measure him with such a stick, you are inadvertently measuring yourself and IH, and both parties are far behind Rossi when it comes to information sharing, and for no good reason. You could change that, why don’t you? IH could change that, -why doesn’t it-? Haven’t you wondered?

          • JedRothwell

            Ged wrote: “You are sadly flat wrong there. Rossi has given more information than any other party, including yourself: a whole, delicious court docket full of it and all those tests up to this point.”

            I read that stuff. There is nothing in there about the calorimetry.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed, who write:
            “I believe he did do the measurements. It looks like his handiwork to me, with the same kind of careless & inexplicable mistakes he made in previous tests. Either he made the measurements, or Penon did, and by coincidence he is as sloppy as Rossi.”

            The above is just wish guessing, of which I assume you have no proof as otherwise you would have posted it.

            I have read of the preagreement between IH, Rossi and the ERV on the details of the tests. Will find it and post.

            Jed you will find that when I say something, I can back it up.

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “I have read of the preagreement between IH, Rossi and the ERV on the details of the tests. Will find it and post.”

            Please don’t go to the trouble. I will take your word for it. Evidently the experts at I.H. changed their minds and re-evaluated. Either that or Rossi and the ERV changed the procedures. I do not know what happened, and I am not going to guess. What I know is that the final version of the test was a travesty that no expert would agree is valid. Plus I know for sure that I.H. did not agree with the conclusions.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed, who wrote:
            “What I know is that the final version of the test was a travesty that no expert would agree is valid”

            With respect that is not yet proven and is your opinion.

            Nothing I have yet seen nor read supports your opinion but that is like you, just my opinion.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Nothing I have yet seen nor read supports your opinion but that is like you, just my opinion.”

            The Motion to Dismiss from I.H. supports my opinion. So does Rossi’s statement that he did not allow the I.H. expert to see the customer site even though the expert insisted.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed, who wrote:
            “Evidently the experts at I.H. changed their minds and re-evaluated. Either that or Rossi and the ERV changed the procedures. I do not know what happened, and I am not going to guess. ”

            Jed you just made 2 guesses in the above statement. Both of which are in violation of the License Agreement.

            All parties are under contract to act in good faith to see the various tests completed to the best result via the best efforts of ALL parties.

            IH experts can’t change their minds at the last moment. When did they notify the ERV that IH no longer approved of his instruments, placement and protocol?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            This says the IH experts preagreed with the ERV’s measurement instruments, placement and test protocol.

            This is contained in the 1st License Agreement amendment which replaced the Validation clause in the original License Agreement so it was binding on the 1st 24 hour test and the following 1 year test.

            Bit hard to claim after the test was completed that the IH experts did not agree to what the ERV submitted to them, for their approval, BEFORE the test started.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/812cb9fc3378483963b831f24aee989d10e3512a6369021349c285e3c321bc96.png

          • Ged

            Considering too they had their personnel there and a whole year to make sure the test protocol was being followed. After all, the customer was paying them, so they had the obligation to make sure the plant was being run to spec.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed, who wrote:
            “This test was set up incorrectly”,

            Now did the ERV set up the test incorrectly as he was required to follow the preagreed test setup or he would be in breach of his contract?

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “Now did the ERV set up the test incorrectly as he was required to follow the preagreed test setup or he would be in breach of his contract?”

            I have no knowledge of per-agreed setups or contracts. However, I am sure that I.H. does not agree with conclusions reached by the ERV. They made that clear in their press releases and legal papers.

            If they did agree, they would pay $89 million. The discovery would be worth far more than that if it worked. Unfortunately, it does not work.

          • Bruce__H

            Ged:
            “Obviously the customer side is irrelevant to testing of the plant itself. There is no reason to see it, only the inlet and outlet of the plant.”

            Well for instance what if heat were being injected from the customer side into the plant outlet near the sensor. Wouldn’t that be relevant?

          • Bruce__H

            Hi Ged,

            Do you think that if heat were generated on the customer side and then injected into the E-CAT outlet that this would create the appearance of anomalous heat generation by the ECAT? Do you think this is physically possible?

            If it is possible then I would think that this, among other scenarios, would be a good reason for a prudent person to want to see what is on the customer side. Don’t you agree?

          • Ged

            No, just read the inlet right before the reactor as that loops back from the customer; ridiculously easy. Anything else is downright silly and less accurate. And you can’t inject heat in the outlet, it is flowing -away-. Mass has to go somewhere, and it carries all heat with it; you would see any injected heat no matter where it happened Only at the inlet. Heat does not flow backwards nor do rocks flow uphill–this is basic science and elementary school thermal dynamics.

            There is absolutely nothing the customer side has to do with input/output measurements at the reactor itself.

          • Bruce__H

            Would it not be physically possible to dissipate the injected heat on the customer side before the water was sent back to the ECAT side?

            I understand your remarks about mass transfer of heat. But I’m not exactly sure where the temperature sensor was place on the ECAT outlet. Would it be physically possible to snake a small heat-carrying element backwards from the customer side up the outlet hose and upstream of the sensorÉ

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            And the energy source for that 1MWt of 24/7/350 injected heat was?
            Remember there are utility accounts.

          • Bruce__H

            Aside from the issue of the accounts, is it physically possible?

          • Ged

            Actually, Bruce_h, let me give you a second reply to destroy any lingering silliness. You are smart, so I know you were either parroting someone else’s line, or were just over thinking things and got lost in the mind, as can happen to us all.

            You didn’t flunk elementary school, so I know you know that all heat flows from high to low, and with a mass flow like water or steam the heat flows with the mass as the heat is carried by that mass. So you know that heat can never be injected elsewhere and forced against all flows up the outlet, that it would appear in the direction of flow at the -inlet-.

            But, let us say that some wizard has indeed reversed the heat equation (Ut = kUxx, solving that would let you know the answer to your question too), and that a greater than 1 MW (line losses afterall mean the magic must be greater than 1 MW to equal that much once it reaches the plant outlet, ignoring all flow ’cause it is magic of course) heat is magically flowing into outlet confusing all readings but not following the water to the inlet. Would you need to see the customer side to know this wizard is there or to measure roughly how much heat is coming in? Nope! Again all you need is the plant itself.

            Now, if you are confused, that’s ok, just think back on the answer to your question earlier and it should become clear. How would you figure this out just with what’s on the plant side… Oh, by measure the -thermal gradient of the pipe- of course! Measure it in three or more places would tell you exactly which way the heat is flowing and where the larger heat source is (and roughly how big it is based on distance to customer side). Amazing how easy, you don’t even have to look at the water itself, just the temperature gradient along the pipe with whatever thermometer you have that reads high temps with percision. Do this at the inlet and you’ll know which way that is flowing too.

            And bingo! The wizard is caught and you never even had to leave your shipping container. Isn’t thermal dynamics grand :)?

          • Bruce__H

            Thermal dynamics is grand! My argument, though, is that some of the boundary conditions for the problem may have been (intentionally) controlled so as to produce the appearance of things that aren’t true. I agree that measuring in a sufficient number of spots (imaging would be even better) would reveal the chicanery. But that wasn’t done so it is not an argument that the chicanery didn’t take place.

            Overall, I am just trying to point out to people that if we are dealing with a fraud here then you can’t use the usual logic of engineering/physics to figure things out because that usually involved making assumptions about the system. In particular that the boundary conditions are known and are not controlled by someone trying to fool you.

            Einstein said that Nature is subtle but not malicious. Scientists and engineers proceed accordingly. They don’t expect malicious finagling and so end up being patsies when they encounter it. I think that is actually sort of endearing but you can’t power the world with it.

          • Ged

            Respectfully, I think you have seriously over-complicated it on accident and to fill an obvious preconceived bias, which happens to us all if we aren’t careful. You have presented no factual or even hypothetical evidence for your case at all, though.

            And any IH personnel and the “IH expert” could have measured all this noninvasively with ease -at the plant-. So there is No excuse.

            The customer side is utterly and totally irrelevant, and feigning imagined and non described boundary conditions (as I see you don’t give a description of them, since no such things exist to fill your idea there) does not help the argument or make any case for it (create a condition by chilling a section of pipe with some ice or upside down compressed air can to measure the temp response there and on either side and bam, you know the flow direction and rough magnitude with complete certainty in moments). Everything you could want is with the plant alone, and no amount of unsupported hand waving changes that.

          • Bruce__H

            I completely agree with you that one can figure out ways to detect any tomfoolery going on. But such measurements weren’t taken and I think this leaves open possibilities such as I have suggested. For instance I think that during the 1 MW test one could have snaked a heat source up the ECAT outlet pipe (from the customer side) and locally heated the pipe region near the thermocouple that was measuring the ECAT outlet temperature. I think that could produce a false impression of anomalous heat. This seems physically possible to me. Are you denying that it is? If it is possible then it makes looking on the customer side relevant.

          • Ged

            It is actually easy to deny. Sticking such an obstruction up a steam pipe would destroy the plant; but let’s dissect the argument more.

            Worst for your idea, consider too how big a heat source it would have to be to heat up that flowing water (as in your scenario it will not have been turned into steam before than by the reactors) into steam. To do so would take 1 MW of power to rise the flowing water to the pressure and temperature being directly measured at these flow rates, as we already know from basic math.

            Are you seriously suggesting you could stick a 1 MW heater into a small steam pipe (and it would have to be very flexible to move through the pipe’s turns; also pray tell what is that size that can deliver that power for a year in -water-) to heat a small area? That such a point heat (all that heat in a small part of pipe instead of the entire mass of the plant’s reactors) would not be detected as such (someone would still notice the upstream pipes were cold since the plant isn’t making steam in your scenario), and that they would fool the power bill which we know already shows 1 MW electricity was not used, all while not impeding flow and damaging the pipe due to mass obstruction?

            Remember too that flow is being measured (and pressure by the pumps) and that the turbulance of such a mass would be highly audible, made far worst by the water turning to steam at that point (101-103 C means all water is steam at that point, and no amount of trying to distract with were the heat comes from changes that phase change fact, so your heater must account for that).

            Yeah, no. If you invent such a device and show it off, please let us know as you would make a very large amount of money. But right now that idea (flexible, small 1 MW heater that doesn’t directly use 1 MW, transparent to the flow of steam and water, capable of working in flowing steam/water for a year in a pipe) is the most outlandish yet. Also, there is no basis to claim no one checked the pipes, as one cannot know that, especially one who wasn’t there. But anyone -could- do so at the plant and find out this information, and that once again disproves your idea the customer side holds any necessary info.

            So yes, I directly refute that claim with the contradictory evidence we already know. Furthermore, do not mistake my humoring unsupported thoughts by bringing up measuring pipe temp at spots as a control (which, by the way, would Also still catch your idea above too) as a letting you off the hook about how heat flows -with mass flow-, so you cannot heat up the outlet pipe in the opposite direction. That is still a basic science issue you have not addressed and sneaking something up the flow of a pipe does not address it (anything up stream like the reactors themselves would be cold).

            So still, the customer side is irrelevant and every last detail you could want you can only get best at the plant. You have not shown a single detail about plant performance that is not possible to get at the plant proper, and easily at that, which any number of IH people or their vaunted expert could well have done; they built the thing and know all its details after all.

            For a humoring you bonus, we know there is a stethoscope at the plant, so just give a pipe a ping and listen, and you would immediately know if there is an obstruction (ignoring flow and pressure and thermal gradients again). And once more you would catch the wizard all from the comfort of your container :).

          • Bruce__H

            Some responses.

            – Why does it take 1 MW of heat a patch of pipe around a thermocouple?

            – The upstream pipes aren’t cold. The inlet water is 60C isn’t it? This is already uncomfortable to the touch. It is then further heated by the power used as input from external sources to the ECAT. I calculate that it takes roughly on the order of 50 kW to heat 30 m^3 (the total flow per day) of water from 60C to the region of 100C (please check me on this). I think this roughly matches what is being supplied.

            In my scenario the water in the outlet pipe isn’t at 101C-103C. It is the thermocouple that is at this temperature and I am picturing the thermocouple as being heated surreptitiously. The pipe doesn’t undergo a phase change. There is only a couple of degrees degrees heating needed

            – I don’t really know about the noise issue. But from what you say I’m not sure you have a handle on it either. What was the outer diameter of the outlet pipe? Do you know?

            It seems to me that my scenario is still in play. I am not claiming I am right. i am claiming that there are physically realistic scenarios that could produce the appearance of 1 MW of anomalous heat without actually being so. This disallows a lot of the reasoning I encounter on this forum which claims that there is no possibility that anyone has been fooled here. People simply aren’t thinking in the mindset of a scammer and so they are oblivious to a lot of possibilities.

          • Ged

            “Why does it take 1 MW of heat a patch of pipe around a thermocouple?”

            Because water does not change temp while phase changing. The temperatures are above 100 C so the water must be steam to read that, and worst, the water is flowing and carrying away all heat–it is a coolant in that scenario. It does not work that way, admist all the other flaws in this idea.

            Again, just to belabor the point: The thermocouple is reading the water temp and it cannot be heated to above 100 C without it all being in steam phase–water absorbs -all- the extra heat, that is how phase changing works. So unfortunately the thermal dynamics disagrees, and once again the reasoning fails anyways as nothing on the customer side can alert you to this, just doing your own basic tests on the plant side.

            Close, but you calculated calories rather than joules, which is an easy mistake. The calculation should be 30,000,000 g/day * 4.182 J/gram C * 40 C = 5,018,400,000 J/day / 86,400 sec/day = 58.083 kW, but the plant can only accept 20 kW, and the power bill agrees. I work with temps in this region and there is no mistaking 60 C and 101 C, even just being close to it. 60 C is cold for our purposes (I can touch 65C for prolonged periods, though you are right that it is quite uncomfortable). And again, nothing unique only to the customer side has anything to do with this.

            Now, since the argument has now changed: on the other topic, no, it is not physically possible to do what you say I’m afraid. You cannot stuff that much in a flowing pipe without impeding flow as to deliver 1 MW to phase change the flow to steam which is -required- to rise the temp above 100 C. You cannot hide the sound of water being boiled in a pipe that should be unimpeded steam flow. You cannot hide the lack of heating in the upstream regions. Even heating to 100 C from 60 C is beyond the power input we have seen from the electric bill and plant specs. There is no way and no evidence to do what you suggest. It is a fine supposition and a cool idea, but fits no facts at the moment and is easily discernable from the plant side.

            Edit: in conclusion, it is more reasonable to claim the numbers were intentionally fabricated in a conspiracy–though the IH techs and expert would have to be grossly incompetent to miss it. It seems the IH defense keeps leaning towards that, and they would be in the know, and it is not a possibility we can rule out given our present data.

          • Bruce__H

            I think we both had the same results in our calculations. 50 kW to increase 30 m^3 of water by 40C. I didn’t know that the power bill was for 20kW per day This is a problem for my scenario

            However there is no large scale phase change in my scenario. Here is what I am suggesting. Some device is snaked up the outlet and rests in direct physical contact with the piece of pipe that the temperature sensor is attached to. The device is heating the pipe directly. I don’t see why this wouldn’t be capable of heating that piece of pipe, and therefore the temperature sensor probe, by 2-3 degrees with only a modest amount of energy. Once again, it is not the water that is 103C, it is the temperature probe and the metal nearby it. The water is certainly a coolant but only across a 3 degree gradient so I would assume not all that efficient even if it is flowing. If you can produce a calculation that would cover this scenario (idealized as the heating of a piece of metal sitting in a flow of water) then I can follow it. .

          • Bruce__H

            I’ve been thinking about the scenario I proposed. The only really telling objection to it, one that would prevent it from being a genuine possibility, is that it would take about 50kW of power per day to raise the water temperature in the ECAT from an inlet temperature of 60C to an outlet temperature of just under 100C. This is more than is apparently available since it looks like 20kW per day is a pretty solid figure for how much power is being drawn from the city supply in the Florida plant.

            But I have thought of a way around this difficulty. It has occurred to me that if a heating device can be snaked up the ECAT outlet to surreptitiously heat the temperature sensor there, then another one can be snaked up the ECAT inlet to surreptitiously cool its temperature probe. The net result is that although it looks as though the ECAT is taking 60C inlet water and heating it to 103C, in reality it is taking let’s say 80C inlet water and heating it to 99.5C. This entirely conventional heating would take about 20kW which is what we see.

            Please remember that my goal in all of this is not to claim I have uncovered some real secret of the 1 MW test. Instead what I am trying to do is demonstrate to everyone that there are physically possible scenarios which a scammer might use to falsely produce the appearance of anomalous energy. I’m sure there are other possibilities too — Jed Rothwell thinks that the true flow through the ECAT was much smaller that the claimed 30 m^3 per day and this would also falsely produce the appearance of anomalous energy.

            Everyone here must take into account the possibility of a scam. That means that you can’t just go by appearances and must consider alternative scenarios such as the one I have outlined. The only way around this, as always, is to see independent replication of the results Rossi claims. And we don’t have that.

          • Bruce__H

            I’ve just taken my 1/2″ o.d. garden hose and turned it fully on. It supplies something like 1 litre every 3 seconds which is 30 thousand litres per day … just like the 1MW ECAT test. I then took a 1/8″ piece of welding metal which is just under 1 metre long and snaked it up the hose. Result, very little increase in noise. Of course the noise in a hose is dominated by the turbulence at the orifice but still, I had a hard time hearing any difference even with my ear up against hose. Hardly the highly audible effect you thought it might be.

          • Ged

            You weren’t boiling the water in the hose, nor can you deliver that much heat with a 1/8th anything, it would have to be a much larger coil. And as you say, it is flawed as you cannot hear over the noise of the water splattering out the front. Also, a hose is flex able and does not resonate and transmit sound in any way like a metal pipe. I’m afraid the test is too flawed.

            In no way does this support the idea the customer side has any details about the plant you can’t get from the plant. But, I applaud you actually trying to get some data. Now, use a larger obstruction, boil the , and water in the pipe, and compare that to normal steam flow ;).

          • Bruce__H

            Why does the water in the hose need to boil? In my scenario it is just under 100C and whatever is injecting the heat only needs to heat the patch of pipe near the thermocouple by 2-3 degrees. Why do you need a large apparatus to do that?

            Note: I’m assuming the temperature sensor is glued to the outside of the pipe because it is a simple assumption and I don’t know otherwise. If it projects into the pipe then heating it up is even easier.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            Any where did the energy come from to generate 1MW of superheated steam inside the outlet pipe?

            Assuming the flow was 1, 500kg/hr of water into the boiler (36, 000 kg/day) here is how much energy was needed to heat that much water to the boiling point in 1 hour.

            To heat 1, 500kg of 25C water to boiling:

            E = 4.186 kJ/kgC x 1, 500 kg x 75C = 470, 925 kJ = 130.8 kW-hr or an electrical power input of 130.8kWs for 1 hour, yet the reported electricity bill showed an averaged electrical power usage of only 22kWh per hour which should only have resulted in warm water exiting the reactor outlet if the COP was 1.

            Please note the 130.8 kWs of electrical power would have just started to boil the water. It does not include the extra energy to create 1, 500kg of wet steam nor the massively larger amount of energy needed to turn the 1, 500kg of steam dry.

            So sorry but you can’t feed heat into the outlet pipe to turn warm water flowing out the outlet into superheated steam.

          • Bruce__H

            I thought that the inlet temperature to the ECAT in the 1 MW test was supposed to be 60C. Am I wrong?

          • Bruce__H

            Hi Engineer,

            The water doesn’t need to be heated beyond 99C, just the temperature sensor.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Jed wrote: “The problem is, the appropriate measurements were not made”.

            So what was not appropriate:

            1) inlet water flow was measured wrong?

            2) inlet water temperature was measured wrong?

            3) outlet steam pressure was measured wrong?

            4) outlet steam temperature was measured wrong?

            5) inlet kJ/kg calculation was wrong?

            6) outlet kJ/kg calculation was wrong?

            7) plant thermal gain calculation was wrong?

            8) plant electrical consumption was measured wrong?

            9) overall COP calculation was wrong?

            BTW Rossi has stated under oath that the ERV reported the 1 year long term COP was significantly greater than 50.

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “So what was not appropriate:

            1) inlet water flow was measured wrong?

            2) inlet water temperature was measured wrong? . . .”

            I wish I could say, but I agreed not to say anything not already released by Rossi or I.H. As far as I know, they have not revealed such specific details. (I might have missed something.)

            Sorry.

            “BTW Rossi has stated under oath that the ERV reported the 1 year long term COP was significantly greater than 50.”

            Did he really? My goodness.

            You should ask him for the ERV report. I have heard it is a laff riot.

          • Ged

            “You should ask him for the ERV report. I have heard it is a laff riot.”

            Please ask IH for the ERV report. Between the two of them, maybe we can get one of them to actually release it before the court forces it. After all, if it’s such a laff riot in IH’s favor, I am sure they will be more than glad to actually show you and us all the full thing.

            And if you aren’t under NDA, there’s no legal reason for you to hold back. I guess that’s the problem one faces with harping strongly about a matter they can’t actually talk about.

          • Engineer48
          • JedRothwell

            I don’t know anything about that or any other agreements, legal or business matters. This document looks like it has to do with a test in Italy. I know nothing about that. My data is from Florida.

            All of my assertions are based on my own technical evaluation of Rossi’s data and schematic. (Or perhaps it was Penon’s.) If I am wrong, it is because I made technical errors. I am not analyzing legal documents or agreements. Only calorimetry. I have no interest in legal issues, and no knowledge of the law.

            The only expert opinion from I.H. that I have studied pertains to calorimetry. I skipped over everything else in the legal filings.

            I am 100% sure my data came from Rossi. Sources outside of I.H. confirmed that. Rossi himself confirmed it, somewhat inadvertently.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            The document I attached is part of the 1st amendment to the License Agreement. It replaces the Validation clause in the original agreement and as such was binding on the 1st and 2nd 1MW reactor tests.

            Point is for both tests IH needed to approve the ERV’s instruments used, where they were placed and the measurements protocol BEFORE the test started.

            Jed this is real, IH knew and approved what the ERV did. That they told you something else should be a serious concern to you as you have gone out on a thin branch based on what may not be correct statements by IH.

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “Jed this is real, IH knew and approved what the ERV did.”

            I doubt that, but I wouldn’t know. Here is what I for sure:

            I.H. did not agree with the ERV’s conclusion. They made that abundantly clear in their press releases and legal papers. To be specific, they accused Rossi of “departing from the purported test plan, ignoring inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices.” I know nothing about these “purported test plans,” but I am sure about the rest: the inoperable reactor, * flawed measurements and unsuitable measuring devices.

            No one I know with knowledge of calorimetry would agree with the ERV’s conclusion. The test was a travesty. A hot mess. As bad as the worst of Rossi’s previous tests. Beyond the pale.

            Perhaps “purported test plan” refers to something they did approve of at some point. I wouldn’t know. But I am sure that no one in his right mind would approve of this test!

            * The reactor I know about is inoperable. Apparently there are others. It says “reactors” (plural). I have not heard a thing about them. I was not aware they existed until I read this. My knowledge of this Rossi affair is extremely narrow. It pertains to calorimetry only. I have not discussed business affairs, contracts, purported test plans, or legal matters with anyone. Frankly I don’t know or care about such things. If you want to know whether I think this is a valid business agreement, you are asking the wrong person. I have no clue.

            I must say, people here seem to ask many unanswerable questions. Mats Lewan wants to know why his experts disagree with the I.H. experts, and with me (not such an expert). How can I possibly say? I can’t even address the question until I review their analyses. I haven’t the slightest idea why anyone would think these results are valid.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Reading and sometime negotiating contracts is part of my world. Projects are largely defined my their contracts. I can’t see how it is possible to seperate the real time actions of all the parties from the contract as that is which defines their roles, responsibilities and limitations.

            The License Agreement makes it very clear the ERV needed IH and only IH approval on every instrument he used, on where he placed every instrument and on the measurement protocol he enacted.

            If the measurement system is as rubbish as you claim it is, the legally responsible party is IH, not the ERV and not Rossi. That is assuming the instruments used are those specified, they are placed as specified and the measurement protocol enacted was as specified.

            This is why, it something goes wrong, a very good understanding of the contract helps to understand the difference between what should have happened, what did in fact happen and who had what responsibilities.

            As we have no facts on what happened, all we can do is to look to the contract to see what should have happened and who had what obligations and responsibilities.

            And the contract says IH had total control of what the ERV was legally required to do.

            Which is why we seek information on what the ERV did in actually do. We need real data and not opinions.

            As you can’t supply any real data, there is not a lot to discuss as your opinions are well known.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “As you can’t supply any real data, there is not a lot to discuss as your opinions are well known.”

            Rossi supplied you with real data already. It is the same data he gave me. He claimed that the flow rate was exactly 36,000 kg per day, which is ridiculous, and he claimed there was no need for the I.H. expert to see the customer site. Under the circumstances, that is tantamount to him telling you “I am a fraud.”

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            What Rossi said to Mats on the flow rate was:
            “The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.”
            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/16/mat-lewan-meets-rossi-in-sweden-rossi-bidding-on-factory-for-quarkx-production/

            As for the “IH expert” having access to the customers site, IH had agreed that no IH people would go there. Please explain why access to the customer’s site was necessary when all the reactor inlet and outlet data was being collected. Why does seeing the thermal load matter? Sure I can understand curiosity but IH had agreed no IH prople would go there. Why would IH violate an agreement they had entered into? Point being Jed, the IH expert has no right to go into the customer’s area. Do you wish him to be charged with trespass and maybe break & enter?

            So Rossi did not claim the flow rate was exactly 36,000 kg/day and the IH expert has no legal right to an unwelcome entry into the property of the customer.

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “Please explain why access to the customer’s site was necessary when all the reactor inlet and outlet data was being collected.”

            I already explained this. Please do not ask me to repeat myself. You can review my previous comments here. As I said, the data was not collected correctly, so the only way to confirm the excess heat would be to examine the equipment in the customer site.

            “So Rossi did not claim the flow rate was exactly 36,000 kg/day.”

            He most certainly did!

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Please provide your link where Rossi claimed the flow rate was exactly 36,000 kg/day?

            As for your claim the data was not collected correctly, without proof, that is just your opinion. What we do know as fact is that the ERV was required to obtain IH approval of his instruments, their install locations & his data collection protocol. If the ERV modified the approved system without IH’s further approval, then there maybe an issue IH needs to take up with the ERV.

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “Please provide your link where Rossi claimed the flow rate was exactly 36,000 kg/day?”

            This is in his interview with Lewan and in the data he sent me. Interview:

            https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/

            “As for your claim the data was not collected correctly, without proof, that is just your opinion.”

            It is also the opinion of the I.H. experts, who are better at calorimetry than I am, probably better at it than you are, and way better at it than Rossi is. This is not mere opinion. They (and I) have copious data to back up the assertions. That is why they made those assertions in the Motion to Dismiss. It is not a good idea to put mere opinion in a technical assertion made in a court filing. You should be ready to back it up with data.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Did you read the link? If not please do.

            It says:
            “The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.”

            You do accept that the ERV was required to get IH approval for each of his instruments, were they were placed and his test protocol, prior to the start of the 1 year test? As this was approved by IH experts, why did it fail, as you claim, to properly collect the expected data?

            Jed I really try to not make assumptions and that is why I have spent some time reading the License Agreement and the 2 amendments, which define who has what obligation to do what and at whose direction.

            Please note this comment, which supports the above:
            “All the instruments for measurements were installed, under observation of IH and Rossi, by the ERV (Expert Responsible for Validation) Fabio Penon, who had been communicating also with Darden, receiving technical suggestions from him on this matter. All communications with the ERV were made with both Darden and Rossi in copy.”

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “It says:
            ‘The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.'”

            Yeah, well, the data shows exactly 36,000 kg.

            “You do accept that the ERV was required to get IH approval for each of his instruments, were they were placed and his test protocol, prior to the start of the 1 year test?”

            As I.H. pointed out in their Motion to Dismiss, that may have been the plan, but Rossi “departed from the purported test plan.” No one in his right mind would approve the test as it ended up being done.

            “Jed I really try to not make assumptions and that is why I have spent some time reading the License Agreement and the 2 amendments . . .”

            That’s a bunch of meaningless legal-beagle-ese. I suggest you ignore it. I don’t care about that sort of thing. I am only interested in actual test results. If and when you get a chance to see the data in the ERV report and other reports, you will see the test was preposterous. It was a travesty. Rossi does not even make the effort to cover up his fraud these days.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            It says AVERAGE and not EXACTLY. There is a very big difference.

            BTW here is the data sheet for the 24 pumps a used on the 1MW central island ECat reactor:
            http://prominent.us/promx/pdf/gamma_l_lr.pdf

            These are computer controlled pumps, so I would expect to see highly similar flows day after day.

            The model used in the plant has bottom intake, central discharge and top degas outlet. Rightmost image.

            You can see the degass outlets rising from the top of the pumps to the 4 return headers.

            Water is fed into the bottom of the pumps from the bottom white manifolds.

            Nice setup. Quality pumps.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/521ccba765a5b1c8cb504fe4c1b35fe53e3154723349b111616c7a914d9443ea.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/19431f40e712d52c35790002d4a0c299917aa8a3789929f795508282433425a1.png

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “It says AVERAGE and not EXACTLY. There is a very big difference.”

            I have the data in front of me. A sample from the final report. It says 36,000 kg every day for several days. If you don’t believe me, that’s fine, but stop with the know-it-all kibitzing.

            There is lots of other impossible bullshit in this data. I hope you get a chance to see it someday.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            So you do have the ERV report. Interesting.

            And outside those several days, what was the flow?

            I gave you the link to the pumps used on the reactors. They are highly accurate computer controlled constant flow pumps from which I would not expect to see much day to day variation in pumped volume.

            From what I know, the ECat controls reactor thermal gain by control of the duty cycle of the heaters and is designed to have constant flow, which is what those pumps provide.

            As this image shows, the pumps run to deliver a set flow rate and the control micro modulates power on and off to maintain constant output temperature.

            Taking into consideration the type of pump and a reactor cpu that controls output temp by varying heater on/off time, I would expect to see highly regular flows.

            As you have the ERV data there what was the max and min daily flow rates over 2 months in the middle of the test? I bet they are different and not every days flow was the same as yesterday and tomorrow. Close but not the same.

            No fair cherry picking data or saying “exact” when the data says “average”.

          • Engineer48

            Jed,

            I’m not a know-it-all but I do know engineering very well. I don’t alter peoples words and try to always provide checkable links for what I share.

            Here is what I do know from statements made by you and Weaver.

            I would expect the daily flows to be highly repeatable as variable flow control is not how the ECat reactors maintain constant temp output and the 24 pumps are high quality computer controlled constant flow pumps.

            0.0 barG steam pressure at 100.1C steam temperature is dry superheated steam.

            If the control system is working properly, I would expect the outlet steam temp should maintain just above min superheat temperature at the outlet pressure, so don’t expect to see large temp changes.

            As the customer’s load changes, expect to see temp changes in the returned water temp but that may be damped by the temp and volume of the water in the condenser.
            .

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “0.0 barG steam pressure at 100.1C steam temperature is dry superheated steam.”

            Well, oddly enough the instruments do not show 0.0 barG, and they are not designed to. And that is not what the data showed in the early reports. For some mysterious reason the numbers were changed to zero. I can’t imagine why. I just donno . . . But you know what? I know how to look up pressure and temperatures to see whether you have steam or hot water. I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.

            The thing you have to understand is that Rossi does not practice subtle, carefully hidden fraud, or clever sleight of hand. He does “tests” that any knowledgeable person can tell at glance are preposterous. He blocks the door to an imaginary company that he and his lawyer own. He refuses all reasonable requests; he rips out instruments; and he puts in other instruments of the wrong kind, installed the wrong way. Not just in this test, but in all previous tests. You have never had a chance to look closely at his work. I didn’t either, but now I have. It is utter bollocks, as they say in the U.K.

            I know you do not believe me, but I strongly advise you to at least wait and see for yourself. Read his data first, before you reach any conclusions. Do not champion Rossi or take his side until you get a chance to evaluate his own data. Do not stick your neck for him. He is using you and others for fools, to assist him in his next fraud. His data betrays him. It proves he is a fraud, more clearly than anything his worst enemies could say.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            I await the day I can review the full plant schematic, full photos of the plant, heat exchanger, conderser, etc, instruments used & model numbers, where and how installed plus the recorded data.

            It will not take long to know the truth and I’ll have no issue spreading it far and wide, no matter what it says.

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “I await the day I can review the full plant schematic, full photos of the plant, heat exchanger, conderser, etc, instruments used & model numbers, where and how installed plus the recorded data.”

            Excellent! That’s the right approach! Don’t try to guess or speculate. Wait until you see that stuff.

            “It will not take long to know the truth.”

            Five minutes, tops. You will throw up in your own mouth. I guarantee it.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            I’m careful Jed. I would say at least a few hours to properly characterise the data, even if the instruments & location seem to be wrong. Data, even highly noisy or out of normal range data, always tells it’s story. Would need several months of FULL data.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “I’m careful Jed. I would say at least a few hours to properly characterise the data, even if the instruments & location seems wrong.”

            I was kidding. I worked on it for two weeks. Mostly kidding, because within five minutes I saw things things that were Extremely Fishy if not Downright Fraudulent, such as the way that pipe left the room for destinations unknown. Soyooonara!

          • Jed wrote:

            – “If and when you get a chance to see the data in the EVR report and other reports, you will see the test was preposterous. It was a travesty. Rossi does not even make the effort to cover up his fraud these days.”

            – “Rossi does not practice subtle, carefully hidden fraud, or clever sleight of hand. He does “tests” that any knowledgeable person can tell at glance are preposterous.”

            – “he rips out instruments; and he puts in other instruments of the wrong kind, installed the wrong way. Not just in this test, but in all previous tests.”

            – “His data betrays him. It proves he is a fraud, more clearly than anything his worst enemies could say.”

            These are very strong statements Jed.

            You do realize that these statements either: 1) have to be dead wrong or..

            2) they strongly condemn Darden and Vaughn as completely inept businessmen.

            There is no way around this because, as E48 pointed out, IH was in complete control over verifying/approving all of the means/protocols for data collection -where the instruments would be placed, what instruments would be used, what data was to be collected and how and so on.

            It was THEIR responsibility that ALL of this was done correctly.

            IF Rossi was conducting an obvious and blatant fraud (as you contend) during the year long test, then IH is now completely exposed as highly inept at least – or worse, complicit in the fraud themselves.

          • E84 wrote:

            “You do accept that the ERV was required to get IH approval for each of his instruments, were they were placed and his test protocol, prior to the start of the 1 year test? As this was approved by IH experts, whydid it fail, as you claim, to properly collect the expected data?

            Jed I really try to not make assumptions and that is why I have spent some time reading the License Agreement and the 2 amendments, which define who has what obligation to do what and at whose direction.

            Please note this comment, which supports the above:
            “All the instruments for measurements were installed, under observation of IH and Rossi, by the ERV (Expert Responsible for Validation) Fabio Penon, who had been communicating also with Darden, receiving technical suggestions from him on this matter. All communications with the ERV were made with both Darden and Rossi in copy.”

            The above paragraphs are definitely worth repeating.

            I’m actually starting to feel sorry for Jed. Jed fest has been a total ball breaker… for Jed, imo.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Point being Jed, the IH expert has no right to go into the customer’s area. Do you wish him to be charged with trespass and maybe break & enter?”

            This “point” makes no practical sense. The customer is a dummy company owned by Rossi and his lawyer. It conducts no business, and has no employees. There is no noise coming from the room, or heat. Rossi is the only person who has been seen entering or leaving it. The question arises: Why would he refuse to allow people into the facility?

            Suppose there is equipment in there consuming 1 MW of process heat. That would be easy for the I.H. expert to confirm. If he confirmed it, Rossi would be paid $89 million. So it would be in Rossi interest to welcome the expert into the facility. Very much in his interest! And it is his company, so he can decide to allow this anytime. Even though the expert found no evidence for excess heat production in Rossi’s own room, finding 1 MW of heat in the next room would be proof.

            On the other hand, suppose the expert found nothing in the room but a 10 kW radiator. That would prove there is no heat. It would also prove that Rossi is a fraud. That would explain why he did not want anyone to go in there.

            For various reasons I think it is 99.9999% certain that there is nothing in that room but a radiator.

          • Another post worth repeating until Jed starts reciting it in his sleep:

            “The License Agreement makes it very clear the ERV needed IH and only IH approval on every instrument he used, on where he placed every instrument and on the measurement protocol he enacted.

            If the measurement system is as rubbish as you claim it is, the legally responsible party is IH, not the ERV and not Rossi.”

          • Robert Dorr

            I say you should prove it because you are the one that comes in this group, and others, and states that Rossi’s plant makes no heat. You are the one making the accusation with no proof other than your word and I say that is not good enough. I’m not asking Rossi, I’m asking you. for proof of what you say. If you can’t provide proof, you should not expect anyone to believe a word you say.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “I say you should prove it because you are the one that comes in this group, and others, and states that Rossi’s plant makes no heat.”

            Not me. I.H. made that claim. I concur.

          • Zack Iszard

            Jed is on the side of the burden of proof. Rossi made extraordinary claims, and by either deliberate or accidental inaccuracy failed to verify his claims about the 1 MW test. That constitutes a breach of contract from IH’s point of view, regardless of whether his claims are verifiable. I would also sue for that in their position.

            And now my 2 cents of Rossi psychoanalysis!

            1. If Rossi is right, then publicly publishing a detailed summary of he calorimetric data he acquired will improve the power of his case. It should be quite achievable for him to redact any sensitive IP from such a basic report, which would only cost him a few hours. If he wants to keep imperfect information private (which I would understand as a scientist), then he ought to be writing the most serious experiment report he’s ever produced! He will need it in court.

            2. If Rossi is lying or has no good data, then it clearly behooves him to keep his mouth shut as long as possible, and pursue other means – besides IH – of attaining some kind of tangible proof about his claims. If he acquires better, more convincing evidence, then he can force a settlement with IH in his favor. He broke contract by not substantiating the 1 MW test, but his claims were shown elsewhere to be valid.

            3. To address Rossi’s strange behavior: If Rossi feels that something as silly as a cluster test of smaller, older cores isn’t worth his time (while he tinkers away on something better), then he would only place measurement tools where he feels he would learn something: sparse and useless for validation. He might show some hostility to other things he deems a waste of his time – which he probably over-values from a self-perception of grandeur – like meeting with people and doing more work for the validation. Any other behavior which seems strange or reclusive could easily be attributed to the value he puts on his own time, depending on the magnitude of the strange behavior. To an “obsessed genius” type, “getting it all out of your head for the betterment of humankind” is all-important, distractions are pure evil, and even very large sums of money would be irrelevant – because the impact of the work and your own mortality are always first in mind.

            Let’s keep in mind the sort of intense niche celebrity the internet – including this site – has made him. Imagine if you woke up with delusions of grandeur – internet celebrity of new energy fame with an industrial backer paying your way to completely change how we deal with energy – except they aren’t delusions! Imagine how that would make you feel and think. (now go apply that thinking cap for all celebrity behavior – really eye-opening!)

            The question burning in us all is this: is Rossi’s claim of excess heat verifiable or a delusion? Only Rossi, with *solid* science, can answer that question.

          • Timar

            “That constitutes a breach of contract from IH’s point of view, regardless of whether his claims are verifiable. I would also sue for that in their position.”

            Except that it is exactly the other way around: Rossi sued IH for breach of contract.

            How about getting the basic facts straight before writing a lengthy analysis? 😉

          • Engineer48

            Hi Zack,

            The only performance claims Rossi has made about the 1year test are based on the ERV report.

            Please note that before the ERV started his work, he had to submit to IH, for their approval, his selected instruments, installation locations and measurement protocol.

            None of this has to do with Rossi. It was approved by IH and implemented by the ERV. IH people observed the ERV installation & I assume reported to IH that the ERV instruments, location & measurement protocol enacted were as per the IH approved ERV plan.

            Rossi has to prove nothing. IH approved the ERV plan and agreed his COP report was the only data that determined the amount of money due to Rossi.

            It is IH that needs to prove to a jury that the ERV reported COP > 50 was incorrect and that the real COP was 2.6 or less so they owe Rossi nothing & are not in breach of clause 3.2c.

          • sam

            Jed
            Even with the mistakes in testing
            could the E Cat still have passed
            and is what A.R. says it is.
            Would another EVR by someone
            else be useful or a waste of time.
            Thanks

          • JedRothwell

            Sam wrote: “Even with the mistakes in testing could the E Cat still have passed and is what A.R. says it is.”

            Is that a question?

            Assuming it is a question, in the opinion of the I.H. experts, the mistakes in testing mean the measurements were wrong, and there was no anomalous heat. They conclude device was “inoperative” (as they put it in the Motion to Dismiss).

            Those experts have much more information than I do. However, based on what I have seen, I concur. I do not think the device produced excess heat. It is difficult to judge because the test was poorly done.

            When you put the wrong instruments in the wrong places, the answer is not positive or negative. It is meaningless. You cannot tell what happened. The Three Mile Island disaster was history’s most dramatic example of calorimetry gone bad. The instruments at times gave the operators bogus information, and at times no information at all. One of the key sensors of reactor temperature (which was only installed for a test — not permanently) overflowed and read “????” Scaling up to a megawatt or a gigawatt does not mean you get the right answer.

          • CWatters

            Why did IH’s expert allow “mistakes in testing” to go on for a year? And why weren’t the tests designed and carried out by their expert? It certainly doesn’t sound like this was an independent third party test by any stretch of the imagination. What were IH thinking!

          • JedRothwell

            CWaters asks: “Why did IH’s expert allow ‘mistakes in testing’ to go on for a year? And why weren’t the tests designed and carried out by their expert?”

            If you are asking me, I haven’t the slightest idea.

          • sam

            Yes it was a? Jed.
            I thought after I forgot?
            But was driving.
            Thanks for reply.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Thanks for the reply. Understand your non disclosure issues. Not the best but they are a fact of doing business and sharing information.

            Do you believe a configuration where inlet water mass flow rate and temperature were measured & recorded, plus outlet steam pressure and temperature were measured & recorded is an acceptable configuration?

            Then the kJ/kg for the inlet and outlet flow can be calculated and the plant thermal gain calculated as

            thermal gain in kW = (outlet kJ/kg – inlet kJ/kg) * kg/sec flow rate

            If not what do you feel is incorrect?

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Do you believe a configuration where inlet water mass flow rate and temperature were measured & recorded, plus outlet steam pressure and temperature were measured & recorded is an acceptable configuration?”

            Sure. The ASME describes how to measure boiler efficiency in various publications, for various types. See:

            https://www.asme.org/about-asme/standards/performance-test-codes

            These recommended methods are incorporated into the test codes of Florida and every other state. A trained HVAC engineer will use them, and produce a result you can bet your life on. You do, literally, bet your life on these methods, because an unsafe boiler can explode and cause massive damage.

            An HVAC engineer who does not follow these procedures will have his license revoked.

            The entire suite of boiler test inspection procedures includes things such as looking at the chimney, the emergency on/off switches, pressure relief valves and so on. A lot of it is over my head. It also involves measuring boiler efficiency, which is to say, calorimetry. That, I understand. It is more or less the same as a laboratory experiment, only there are no blank runs, no calibration, and precision is only about 10%, I think. This document describes the main procedures, look up tables and so on:

            http://www.cleaver-brooks.com/reference-center/insights/boiler-efficiency-guide.aspx

            I recommend that.

            Anyway, if Rossi had done procedures such the ASME recommends, and the state of Florida mandates, he would have produced a clear result, either positive or negative. Unfortunately, he did not. Not in my opinion.

            In other words, yes, “thermal gain in kW = (outlet kJ/kg – inlet kJ/kg) * kg/sec flow rate” but there are lot of ways you can screw up those measurements, or operate the thing wrong. That is why boilers sometime explode. This video shows what happens when you make a mistake on the megawatt scale:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCej2OQSKnY

            This is why it is a good idea to test prototype devices on a much smaller scale, say 10 W or 100 W.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Glad to see we agree:

            You wrote: “Do you believe a configuration where inlet water mass flow rate and temperature were measured & recorded, plus outlet steam pressure and temperature were measured & recorded is an acceptable configuration?”

            Sure.

            So I must then consider that the configuration I outlined above and you agreed was viable, did not happen in the 1MW test reactor instrument configuration?

            What was missing or misplaced?

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “So I must then consider that the configuration I outlined above and you agreed was viable, did not happen in the 1MW test reactor instrument configuration?

            What was missing or misplaced?”

            I wish I could say, but I cannot reveal any details that have not already been revealed by Rossi or I.H., in press releases and legal papers. Sorry.

            If it were not for the lawsuit I think the details would have been made public by now. Unfortunately, the lawsuit may drag on for years. I know nothing about lawsuits, but lawyers tell me the ERV report and other data may never be published because of the lawsuit.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Fully understand.

            I would expect, if this goes to a jury trial, the ERV final COP report will at least surface as IH did agree to it being the decider and they will need to prove the real COP was 2.6 or less.

          • Ged

            There have been plenty of smaller scale tests over many years. We can argue for or against them, but -they exist-, so one can’t be disingenuous about that. You even supposedly have another 10 page report of yet another test on your desk.

            All we have is your word that you actually know any accurate info, and so far your word sounds disingenuous. Where are the facts? A model number, a position? Anything verifiable at all?

          • CWatters

            $100 million at stake and IH let Rossi choose what to measure and how, then complain about it later?

          • Engineer48

            Hi CW,

            As I understand it IH, Rossi and the ERV jointly decided on how to do the measurements required for the 1 year trial before it started.

  • wizkid

    Perhaps it was the sale to the US Military in 2011 that was shipped overseas to the US. They didn’t complain that I heard of, and they have enough funds to purchase a complete system for testing. A couple million is cheap for that type of test. Now there is a presentation to the US Government scheduled in the near future, and this is part of the reason?

  • wizkid

    Perhaps it was the sale to the US Military in 2011 that was shipped overseas to the US. They didn’t complain that I heard of, and they have enough funds to purchase a complete system for testing. A couple million is cheap for that type of test. Now there is a presentation to the US Government scheduled in the near future, and this is part of the reason?

  • MasterBlaster7

    You know…all I want to hear right now is “yes…we have stacked a brick…mortared it…and stacked another brick on top of it….building the e-cat factory.”

  • MasterBlaster7

    You know…all I want to hear right now is “yes…we have stacked a brick…mortared it…and stacked another brick on top of it….building the e-cat factory.”

    • roseland67

      Blaster,
      all I want to hear is all I ever wanted to hear,
      Someone buys an Ecat and replicates:

      1. Energy out > Energy in
      2. Safe
      3. Repeatable
      4. Cost effective
      5. Reliable
      6. Repairable

      But, alas, nothing.

  • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

    With this new info I think this.

    IH never intended to perform the 1 Year test (as they didnt make any effort to find a customer)
    They had a test in wich COP 6 was reached and it was enough for them. In fact if they expected to share that technology with one of their companies they would have gotten a bargain.
    The patent filled at europe shows clear signs that they wanted to appropiate Rossis IP.

    Then Rossi appeared with a customer and they had no excuse to do not perform the test.
    At this moment they probably expected to be able to claim on the results and reduce the final COP to an average 2-4 and only pay a little bit more to Rossi.
    That could have happened with a COP of 6 in the ERV report.

    But then, Rossi updated the reactor and then with the improvement they started to see a COP of around 50. Too difficult to dismiss or argue agains it.
    Now a little bit of speculation as there is no proof about the next statement – Then they offered Rossi to early finish the test and pay a lower amount of money and keep the IP to wich Rossi refused.

    That was the point where Rossi probably became suspicious against IH.
    And that leaves us at the point where we are right now.

    I have no direct proof of my suspicions but there are a lot of hints wich are true.
    – IH got funds from investors showing the 1MW plant.
    – IH early public messages didnt show any sign of problems and on the contrary they were more than pleased.
    – We know that the report shows a COP of 50
    – The more that Weaver and others on IH side show us more data, the more that we can be sure that the measurements are right.

    Now we have this. Too much for “unsubstantiate” claims.
    This is no more Rossi says. We have a lot of public facts.
    IH behavior is too suspicious for a single “unsubstantiate” wich would be really easy to prove with concrete date they have never shown to us.

    • LookMoo

      Do the people behind IH believe that eCat is working.. you bet.

      Not only did they make the reactor used in the Lugano test,.. they sold the invention to investors with that as a sales point.. Arranged visits on the Florida test sites.

      What they tried was to walk away with the LENR business.

      If you reads the history of the people behind IH you see that they are used to that practise. Accepts Government contracts and then walk away with tax payers money (please note that I do not call them thieves, scammers, crooks or otherwise implicate them into being dishonest people).

      • cashmemorz

        IH wants to walk away from Leonardo/Rossi with as much detailed tech about the E-Cat as they can to give to Brillouin. Then IH will have the possibility of a Hot tube at Brillouin that has a COP between what Brillouin had ~6 and closer to 50 because of E-Cat tech. Add to this the working theory of Brillouin’s LENR and IH has a better LENR unit than Rossi/Leonardo to sell re investors or end users.

  • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

    With this new info I think this.

    IH never intended to perform the 1 Year test (as they didnt make any effort to find a customer)
    They had a test in wich COP 6 was reached and it was enough for them. In fact if they expected to share that technology with one of their companies they would have gotten a bargain.
    The patent filled at europe shows clear signs that they wanted to appropiate Rossis IP.

    Then Rossi appeared with a customer and they had no excuse to do not perform the test.
    At this moment they probably expected to be able to claim on the results and reduce the final COP to an average 2-4 and only pay a little bit more to Rossi.
    That could have happened with a COP of 6 in the ERV report.

    But then, Rossi updated the reactor and then with the improvement they started to see a COP of around 50. Too difficult to dismiss or argue agains it.
    Now a little bit of speculation as there is no proof about the next statement – Then they offered Rossi to early finish the test and pay a lower amount of money and keep the IP to wich Rossi refused.

    That was the point where Rossi probably became suspicious against IH.
    And that leaves us at the point where we are right now.

    I have no direct proof of my suspicions but there are a lot of hints wich are true.
    – IH got funds from investors showing the 1MW plant.
    – IH early public messages didnt show any sign of problems and on the contrary they were more than pleased.
    – We know that the report shows a COP of 50
    – The more that Weaver and others on IH side show us more data, the more that we can be sure that the measurements are right.

    Now we have this. Too much for “unsubstantiate” claims.
    This is no more Rossi says. We have a lot of public facts.
    IH behavior is too suspicious for a single “unsubstantiate” wich would be really easy to prove with concrete data wich they have never shown to us.

    • LookMoo

      Do the people behind IH believe that eCat is working.. you bet.

      Not only did they make the reactor used in the Lugano test,.. they sold the invention to investors with that as a sales point.. Arranged visits on the Florida test sites.

      What they tried was to walk away with the LENR business.

      If you reads the history of the people behind IH you see that they are used to that practise. Accepts Government contracts and then walk away with tax payers money (please note that I do not call them thieves, scammers, crooks or otherwise implicate them into being dishonest people).

      • cashmemorz

        IH wants to walk away from Leonardo/Rossi with as much detailed tech about the E-Cat as they can to give to Brillouin. Then IH will have the possibility of a Hot tube at Brillouin that has a COP between what Brillouin had ~6 and closer to 50 because of E-Cat tech. Add to this the working theory of Brillouin’s LENR and IH has a better LENR unit than Rossi/Leonardo to sell re investors or end users.

        • LookMoo

          That is why Rossi is rushing this to production. The first LENR on the market will be the “original” and all other “copies”. Rossi have said that his first LENR device will be the “T-Ford” of LENR..

  • bfast

    I am still pretty convinced that IH knows right well that it works. I am convinced that they loved the one year test because it kicked the can a year down the road.

    I am convinced that IH hates working with Rossi. I think that they think that he wants too much of the pie. I think that their entire strategy has been to get into this game, and get spun up while Rossi beats away on their one year test. Now I think that they want this court thing to hold stuff up for a couple more years.

    This is the only scenario that makes sense in light of the fact that IH is continuing to apply for patents with Rossi and others’ names attached. This is the only scenario that makes sense in light of IH dragging other players down to congress to show off their wares.

    • I think that’s becoming something of a consensus view, although personally I’m uncertain whether Darden planned things this way from the outset, or changed course at some point. Either way it looks pretty sure that Rossi was to be cut out of the loop and left to play with his ten mill.

      • Omega Z

        The history of VC’s would say Darden planned on assassinating the inventor from the beginning.

        Just saying…

    • Hi all

      Rossi can manufacture and sell while the court case goes on, and with more advanced technology he can outstrip IH and win the court case if that is what is happening.

      As I have said elsewhere on several occasions I still think we may be looking at an October Surprise.

      Kind Regards walker

    • cashmemorz

      To your thoughts I see that IH would rather go with Brillouin as it seems that IH has given Brillouin aspects of the E-Cat to integrate into their Hot tube. Then add to that the claim that Brillouin has a working theory of how their version of LENR works and you have a more appealing investment portfolio as compared against Leonardo, that does not have a working theory but what can be called a speculative theory and large COP. In the long term investors will see in the Brillouin mix a possibility of improved COP with design improvements using E-Cat tech and a working theory.

  • BTW, I was told by another E-Cat test, outside of the US, made without Rossi’s knowing or participating, on a real E-Cat, that apparently was positive.

    • Bob Greenyer

      by or about Mats?

      • About. Now corrected.

        • Bob Greenyer

          thanks

    • Engineer48

      Hi Mats,

      Any details available?

      • No, unfortunately not. Fairly vague I’m afraid, and year or two back in time.

        • Ged

          Would definitely be interesting if that could be tracked down and confirmed.

  • BTW, I was told about another E-Cat test, outside of the US, made without Rossi’s knowing or participating, on a real E-Cat, that apparently was positive.

    • Bob Greenyer

      by or about Mats?

      • About. Now corrected.

        • Bob Greenyer

          thanks

    • Engineer48

      Hi Mats,

      Any details available?

      • No, unfortunately not. Fairly vague I’m afraid, and year or two back in time.

        • Ged

          Would definitely be interesting if that could be tracked down and confirmed.

  • Engineer48

    Andrea just emailed me back on my request to purchase 3 x 10kWt QuarkX reactors to prototype my Remote Area / Disaster Relief AC/DC power, heat, warm water and clean water system as attached.

    Very good.
    When we will be ready for what you ask, I will surely contact you.
    Cheers,
    Andrea

    Please note this design closes the loop and charges the prime battery from the direct AC output. Andrea had no issue with this design.

    • Bob Greenyer

      To be fair Engineer48, his answer means nothing definite. I could say, When I am ready to run a 4 minute mile, I will surely contact you … and you would be more definite about the likelihood of me contacting you.

      • Ged

        Well, they don’t call you Bob “The Thunderbolt” Greenyer for nothing, right ;)?

        • Bob Greenyer

          😉

      • Engineer48

        Hi Bob,

        Maybe you don’t know but I have disclosed that I’m working with a potential client to purchase 10 x 1MW low temp ECat reactors.

        During that process Andrea never operated in any way other that what and supplier of a large and expensive piece of kit would operate.

        Once a MOU was in place, which is basically a conditional contract to purchase, my potential client’s steam eating thermal power plant engineers and myself would be invited to visit a working 1MW reactor and conduct our due diligence checks which included doing performance tests on the working reactor.

        Hard to see where the scam is here, especially as Andrea knows I have disclosed non proprietary information about this process on this forum.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I am reading what you say Engineer48 and I am trying to see if I am missing something that points to anything other than business procedural compliance. Forgive me if I can’t see that as scientific proof of extraordinary claims.

          I am not saying Rossi does not have what he claims, certainly the MFMP has published live data that upon analysis supported some of his historical statements about observed phenomena – However, in the absence of hard testable data from Rossi, one can’t easily project from procedural compliance to any reasonable confidence in the overall scale of the claims made.

          Need more *meaningful* input

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bob,

            I trust my engineer’s gut feeling, that has evolved after way too many screwups and contract fights. After some time, the gut starts to tell you something smells not quite right.

            In my discussions with Andrea, that never happened. He knows my potential client is a large publicly traded company that ownes and operates a lot of thermal power plants and is full of very hard nosed, conservative engineers. Definitely not a company to piss around with. Burn them and Rossi can forget selling QuarkX boiler replacements to the entire thermal power plant industry.

            As for more “meaningful” input, I share what I can share.

          • Bob Greenyer

            No one became successful by being unconvincing in rhetoric and bad at business procedurals. I would be very happy if Rossi can deliver and deliver fast either easily testable full patent disclosure or product in the market. I wish him well and all the success that would come from a deliverable.

            If he has what he claims he needs to hurry up, otherwise it is only a matter of time before it is delivered by a third party. I don’t care who does it frankly, the planet is bleeding and its organisms suffering needlessly without a product roll out in action rather than in perpetual planning/improvement iteration.

            If Apple had taken the same approach with smart phones, we’d all still be using Nokia feature phones whilst they showed us blurry pictures of a secret phone they claimed was 0.1mm thick, had a giga pixel screen, a battery life of 20 years and you could use it as a bullet proof vest.

            Apple chose to package old technology in a compelling solution that meaningfully improved consumers experiences and became one of the biggest and most cash rich companies ever in history for doing so.

          • Omega Z

            Apple: Cash Rich, Debt poor. You can included all the mega corps and Nations in this category. It would be nice to have working LENR devices to rebuild after the world wide great depression on the horizon hits…

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes Omega Z

          • Or preferably, before.

          • Gerald

            Trying to read this on my new microsoft phone, formaly known as nokia lumia makes me smile. Indeed Apples Iphone wasn’t technical such a great breakthrough, but they were like magicians and gave the people a great experience and told them that they “needed” it. Personaly I’m not a fan of apple i’m impressed how far they wend with giving the customers the best possible way of using their product. Trully great visionairs back then.

            In the end with a Lern device will it be the same, the customers has the final say if the want it, this era more then ever.

          • sam

            He might not have to forget
            about selling them if a
            Genera Norman Schwarzkopf
            type asked A.R for an order.
            Those Company types would
            change there tune in a hurry.
            Sometimes I wish the military
            said A.R. and T.D. Get your
            uniforms on you have been
            drafted.

    • DrD

      Hi Enginner48
      One thing we mustn’t forget is that he doesn’t rely only on patents. His plan is to mass distribute at low cost. This will obviouly give him a head start but I think it means he won’t want to risk competitors reverse engineering them before he’s ready. Of course he may be willing to work with trusted individual like your self with a suitable proviso.

    • Hi E38. Your diagram shows ‘warmed water’ out of the HE but ideally this should probably be hot water in order to kill the microorgansms that pass the initial filter, in order to make the water safely potable.

      The ‘HTST’ process for milk pasteurisation is 72C for 15 seconds, but this should be regarded as a minimum standard. From my experience in a microbiology lab, taking the temp. to as near boiling point as possible is necessary to kill some of the tougher ‘bugs’, especially spore-forming bacteria. This might be achieved by controlling the HE fan via a proportional thermostat placed at the water outlet.

    • Steve Savage

      I really like this idea … https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-biggest-solar-powered-computer-in-the-world#/

      I am sure that this type of technology could be adapted for e-cat(type?) technology.

      Why reinvent the wheel ?

    • Engineer48
  • Engineer48

    Andrea just emailed me back on my request to purchase 3 x 10kWt QuarkX reactors to prototype my Remote Area / Disaster Relief AC/DC power, heated air, warm water and clean water system as attached.

    Very good.
    When we will be ready for what you ask, I will surely contact you.
    Cheers,
    Andrea

    Please note this design closes the loop and charges the prime battery from the direct AC output energy. Andrea had no issue with this design.

    BTW just noticed there needs to be a fan on the condenser as well as the heat exchanger.

    There is now a dedicated topic for these discussions:
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/22/remote-area-disaster-relief-acdc-power-heated-air-warm-water-and-clean-water-e-cat-quarkx-system-concept-engineer48/
    .

    • Bob Greenyer

      To be fair Engineer48, his answer means nothing definite. I could say, When I am ready to run a 4 minute mile, I will surely contact you … and you would be more definite about the likelihood of me contacting you.

      • Ged

        Well, they don’t call you Bob “The Thunderbolt” Greenyer for nothing, right ;)?

        • Bob Greenyer

          😉

      • Engineer48

        Hi Bob,

        Maybe you don’t know but I have disclosed that I’m working with a potential client to purchase 10 x 1MW low temp ECat reactors.

        During that process Andrea never operated in any way other that what any supplier of a large and expensive piece of kit would operate.

        Once a MOU was in place, which is basically a conditional contract to purchase, my potential client’s steam eating thermal power plant engineers and myself would be invited to visit a working 1MW reactor and conduct our due diligence checks which included doing performance tests on the working reactor.

        Once the due diligences were complete, the Sales Contract inked and the money placed in escrow, the expected time to manuf, deliver, install and commission the 10 plants was 6 months.

        Of course no funds would change hands until the 10 plants passed the mutually agreed performance requirements.

        Hard to see where the scam is here, especially as Andrea knows I have disclosed non proprietary information about this process on this forum.

        All of which give my old engineer’s gut a warm feeling that Andrea will deliver on both the 1MWt ECat plants and on my 3 x 10kWt QuarkX reactors.

        BTW Bob great work the MFMP team are doing. Enjoyed your videos.

        Did you ever consider operating your Dog Bone reactors inside a very flat black sealed cylinder? The thermal emissions should be dead simple to do as the special high temp flat black paint is very close to a perfect black body radiator, plus the internal flat black coating will radiate longer IR waves inward than your reactor, heater and Alumina coating will send outward.

        http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf

        If I was going to replicate, I would sure follow the above build and load the reactor with the various fuel combinations.
        .

        • Bob Greenyer

          I am reading what you say Engineer48 and I am trying to see if I am missing something that points to anything other than business procedural compliance. Forgive me if I can’t see that as scientific proof of extraordinary claims.

          I am not saying Rossi does not have what he claims, certainly the MFMP has published live data that upon analysis supported some of his historical statements about observed phenomena – However, in the absence of hard testable data from Rossi, one can’t easily project from procedural compliance to any reasonable confidence in the overall scale of the claims made.

          Need more *meaningful* input

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bob,

            I trust my engineer’s gut feeling, that has evolved after way too many screwups and contract fights. After some time, the gut starts to tell you something smells not quite right.

            In my discussions with Andrea, that has never happened. He knows my potential client is a large publicly traded company that ownes and operates a lot of thermal power plants and is full of very hard nosed, conservative engineers that eat steam for breakfast. Definitely not a company to piss around with. Burn them and Rossi can forget selling QuarkX boiler replacements to the entire thermal power plant industry.

            As for more “meaningful” input, I share what I can share.

          • Bob Greenyer

            No one became successful by being unconvincing in rhetoric and bad at business procedurals. I would be very happy if Rossi can deliver and deliver fast either easily testable full patent disclosure or product in the market. I wish him well and all the success that would come from a deliverable.

            If he has what he claims he needs to hurry up, otherwise it is only a matter of time before it is delivered by a third party. I don’t care who does it frankly, the planet is bleeding and its organisms suffering needlessly without a product roll out in action rather than in perpetual planning/improvement iteration.

            If Apple had taken the same approach with smart phones, we’d all still be using Nokia feature phones whilst they showed us blurry pictures of a secret phone they claimed was 0.1mm thick, had a giga pixel screen, a battery life of 20 years and you could use it as a bullet proof vest.

            Apple chose to package old technology in a compelling solution that meaningfully improved consumers experiences and became one of the biggest and most cash rich companies ever in history for doing so.

          • Omega Z

            Apple: Cash Rich, Debt poor. You can included all the mega corps and Nations in this category. It would be nice to have working LENR devices to rebuild after the world wide great depression on the horizon hits…

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes Omega Z

          • Or preferably, before, in order to deflect it.

          • Gerald

            Trying to read this on my new microsoft phone, formaly known as nokia lumia makes me smile. Indeed Apples Iphone wasn’t technical such a great breakthrough, but they were like magicians and gave the people a great experience and told them that they “needed” it. Personaly I’m not a fan of apple i’m impressed how far they wend with giving the customers the best possible way of using their product. Trully great visionairs back then.

            In the end with a Lern device will it be the same, the customers has the final say if the want it, this era more then ever.

          • sam

            He might not have to forget
            about selling them if a
            Genera Norman Schwarzkopf
            type asked A.R for an order.
            Those Company types would
            change there tune in a hurry.
            Sometimes I wish the military
            said A.R. and T.D. Get your
            uniforms on you have been
            drafted.

          • Bruce__H

            A solid, open-minded reply.

        • Cuthbert Allgood

          Definitely it sounds exciting to have someone who seems willing to share what the hell he actually sees and tests, apparently tied to “a large publicly traded company” that you mentioned in another post. But while I’d love to see something happen, based on past experience, all that ever seems to come out is words. So I maintain a healthy skepticism.

          As for what the scam exactly is, it’s entirely possible that this whole thing is not a scam in the sense of taking people’s money, but just an inventor who thinks he has something, but doesn’t. Or has something, but can’t control it well enough to make it into a viable product (if LENR exists, the latter is why I think Rossi has been dodgy so far). As you say, it doesn’t seem to be following the normal way scams-for-money go, so I suspect Rossi is at least sincere in his beliefs.

          But does he actually have a working product? Therein lies the rub that I hope you (or *someone*) will be able to answer in an unambiguous way. Definitely a battery powered, closed system would go a long way to answering a few questions.

      • Andy Kumar

        Bob,
        LOL. After all these years trying to replicate so many rumored LENR devices, you, more than anyone else, know that it is easier said than done. We appreciate your open science approach and honesty in never hyping your results unlike most others in the field.

    • frank

      Interesting workflow diagram…any engineer in town who may shed some light on the very challenging design of the “box” with the reactor? It is hard to imagine how to “run” a 1mm diameter and 30 mm long piece with 3-phase 240V (how to and where to connect?), connect it to a heat exchanger (via what?) and also feed out some additional AC or DC to generate power for the mains and the reactor itself (by charging a battery)…This is really a genious piece of engine, if it really will work….

      • Engineer48

        Hi Frank,

        Have the same questions!

        Waiting for Andrea to provide more information so the diagram can be moved forward.

        At this stage it is a concept drawing.

        There is now a dedicated topic for this discussion:
        http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/22/remote-area-disaster-relief-acdc-power-heated-air-warm-water-and-clean-water-e-cat-quarkx-system-concept-engineer48/

      • Rene

        Because all three phases are not going into one quark. It is one phase per quark which is why Rossi said he was testing with three quarks initially, following along the same designs for his previous experiments. Have to say this naming of the e-catx a quark is a wonderful pun of the nature of quarks and how they combine in threes.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Rene,

          Correct.

          Each QuarkX reactor and probably the control system needs 50Hz or 60Hz power at 120vac 1 phase or 208 2 phase or 240vac 1 phase or 416vac 2 phase.

          As I’m Aussie, I designed in a 50Hz, 240vac 3 phase inverter to be safe.

      • roseland67

        Frank,

        48’s design will work in theory,
        Most engineers capable and competent in heat transfer and controls design could pull it off, it would actually be an interesting study to see how different they would all look.
        The obvious problem is that no one on the planet knows if the Ecat works as stated so everyone’s solution would have a big gaping hole where the Ecat is supposed to go.

    • GiveADogABone

      Nothing like an engineering drawing to start the thought processes. I see four outputs: electricity, heated air, warmed water and clean water.

      1: Is there a priority order and can you produce just one of the four outputs at any given time?
      2: What are the design conditions for the water and heated air? Perhaps 60C?
      3: Is the dirty to clean water sub-system a sterilizer that needs to get to 100C and then cool?
      4: What control system will cope with demand variations on all four outputs?
      5: If producing just electricity, then how do you dump the unwanted heat?

      These questions lead my thoughts towards air cooling for the QuarkX. Natural convection air cooling for the QuarkX would be the most reliable and always available when just exporting electricity. Heated air would be tapped off the convection tower with no heat exchanger. That just leaves the location of the air2water heat exchangers. The clean water would be cooled by the inflow air to the convection tower.

      It seems to me that the key feature of this plant, apart from the QuarkX core, will be the heat dump system. Get that right and the rest will fall into place.

      • Engineer48

        Hi GiveA,

        Yes the thermal management issues are the biggies.

        Thought is to be able to use all off the shelf major components, with an onboard control system to control which output subsystems are active and which are idle.

        Also expect at least 20% direct electrical energy output by the time I get the 1st QuarkX reactors.

    • DrD

      Hi Enginner48
      One thing we mustn’t forget is that he doesn’t rely only on patents. His plan is to mass distribute at low cost. This will obviouly give him a head start but I think it means he won’t want to risk competitors reverse engineering them before he’s ready. Of course he may be willing to work with trusted individual like your self with a suitable proviso.

    • Steve Savage

      I really like this idea … https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-biggest-solar-powered-computer-in-the-world#/

      I am sure that this type of technology could be adapted for e-cat(type?) technology.

      Why reinvent the wheel ?

    • Engineer48
  • f sedei

    The only thing positive for me out of this recent discussion is something I knew from the beginning: Never underestimate the intelligence and integrity of the genius Andre Rossi. He will advance the clear winner of this fiasco, as he should.

    • sam

      Divorces still leave a bitter taste
      no matter who is the so called winner.

  • f sedei

    The only thing positive for me out of this recent discussion is something I knew from the beginning: Never underestimate the intelligence and integrity of the genius Andre Rossi. He will advance the clear winner of this fiasco, as he should.

    • sam

      Divorces still leave a bitter taste
      no matter who is the so called winner.

      • help_lenr

        Better divorce than continue a fictive marriage.

        Rossi have no gain from busyness with sombody who does not behave like loyal partner. He looked sombody who will distribute his devices and IH had no intention to do that.

        • sam

          In a divorce sometimes you do not know which sob story to believe.
          But you know they are both sob
          stories.

  • JedRothwell

    CWaters asks: “Why did IH’s expert allow ‘mistakes in testing’ to go on for a year? And why weren’t the tests designed and carried out by their expert?”

    If you are asking me, I haven’t the slightest idea.

  • Beatrix Kiddo

    So… more secret customers that, for unknown reasons, want to stay anonymous at all costs, more secret tests, more secret results… more chatter.

    Will this ever end?

    • Omega Z

      Yes, Just not on our time line.

    • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

      We have a perfect example with Engineer48 client wich with the last developments prefers to remain hidden.

      All the mud that is now in the air makes the customers to do not want to be known that they are trying this technology. Too much advantage for being hidden. Too much inconvenience to be known by public domain.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Beatrix,

      I’m the customer and there will be no secret tests.

      You will be able to follow my progress, on ECW, in building the 1st QuarkX powered Remote Area Services Generator (RASG).

  • JedRothwell

    Robert Dorr wrote: “Jed, you rehashing the fact that he wouldn’t let their expert into the customers site is disingenuous at best. You know that it doesn’t make a hill of beans what the customer was doing with the heat that the 1MW plant was making as to whether or not Rossi’s plant was functioning properly as long as the appropriate measurements were being made, i.e. temperature, pressure and flow, in and out.”

    Obviously, yes. The problem is, the appropriate measurements were not made. That is why the I.H. expert insisted on seeing the customer site.

    “And all you will say is that the instruments were improper and they were incorrectly placed. And I say prove it.”

    I say Rossi should prove it. Why have you not asked him for this information? Why are you asking me for the technical details about his work?

    How, exactly, could I prove it? Even if I were free to give you all the details, you would accuse me of inventing them.

    You will only accept information from Rossi. Therefore, you must ask him.

    “You say you have seen all the information you need but you won’t say what it is. I say prove it or quit saying it.”

    I say Rossi should prove what he says, or quit saying it.

    • Ged

      -“Obviously, yes. The problem is, the appropriate measurements were not
      made. That is why the I.H. expert insisted on seeing the customer site.”

      Obviously the customer side is irrelevant to testing of the plant itself. There is no reason to see it, only the inlet and outlet of the plant. Robert is correct to call out that absurdity.

      -“I say Rossi should prove it. Why have you not asked him for this
      information? Why are you asking me for the technical details about his
      work?

      How, exactly, could I prove it? Even if I were free to give you all the details, you would accuse me of inventing them.

      You will any accept information from Rossi. Therefore, you must ask him.”

      Yes, Rossi must prove it to continue sales and the like. If he can’t, he’s finished.

      But he’s not the one making claims about other people, saying he’s got insider information, but not backing it up. You could prove it by releasing information (e.g. actual document with redactions), no one would accuse you of inventing it, and it’s wrong to tell Robert how he will react or think. It’s an easy way to dodge having to back oneself up, however.

      “I say Rossi should prove what he says, or quit saying it.”

      If you agree that Rossi should prove the things he says, then you should have no problem with others asking you prove the things you say. That is equitable and fair, and true for everyone.

      • JedRothwell

        Ged wrote: “Obviously the customer side is irrelevant to testing of the plant itself. There is no reason to see it, only the inlet and outlet of the plant. Robert is correct to call out that absurdity.”

        The I.H. expert disagreed, for reasons I am not free to describe. I also disagreed. I suggest you withhold judgement on this issue until you have had a chance to review the data and configuration.

        • Ged

          -“The I.H. expert disagreed, for reasons I am not free to describe. I also
          disagreed. I suggest you withhold judgement on this issue until you
          have had a chance to review the data and configuration.”

          Based on what logical reasoning? You know well enough that only the in and out matters, there is no excuse and I know you can see that too, no matter what someone else has tried to make you believe. If you present the data and configuration, we can all review it, as Robert has asked.

          • JedRothwell

            Ged wrote: “Based on what logical reasoning? You know well enough that only the in and out matters . . .”

            As I said, the in and out were not measured correctly. That was the opinion of the I.H. expert, and it is my opinion too.

            Have you done calorimetry? Either on the laboratory scale or the industrial scale? I have done both, and I have made many mistakes. Most recently yesterday. I have managed to measure both the input and the output wrong. Rossi often screwed his previous tests, because he is sloppy and careless. This test was set up incorrectly, making it necessary to examine the customer site if there was to be any hope of finding excess heat.

          • Ged

            “This test was set up incorrectly, making it necessary to examine the
            customer site if there was to be any hope of finding excess heat.”

            Or, more reasonably, the IH expert could just have measured the input and output correctly to his/her desire at the plant itself–quite a simple solution. There is nothing on the customer side that can allow a better determination than simply measuring at the plant itself; and with IH techs working on the plant there’s no reason for the IH expert not to do his/her duty at the plant. Worst yet, if input and output were mis-measured, then measuring the customer side would not help as the input would still be wrong; so it still makes no sense to use that argument.

            It sounds like you’ve been fed misdirection.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “It sounds like you’ve been fed misdirection.”

            If you read Rossi’s blog then you have been fed so much misinformation you are likely to explode.

          • Ged

            “If you read Rossi’s blog then you have been fed so much misinformation you are likely to explode.”

            Good thing I don’t read his blog, as I’m only interested in data.

            But what snippets I have seen posted here over the years just seem to keep coming true, while I’m still waiting for your and/or IH’s data.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Well at least you admit to not being an engineer, who normally have set procedures to do certain types of measurements, so to avoid getting measurements wrong.

            What I don’t understand is why you keep throwing back to the past, when Rossi did not do any of the measurements for the 1 year test. The ERV provided the preagreed instruments, placed them as preagreed and engaged the measurements and data logging as preagreed. When the test was completed, the ERV sent the now removed instruments back to their manufacturers to recheck their certification.

            Is any of this not correct?

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “What I don’t understand is why you keep throwing back to the past, when Rossi did not do any of the measurements for the 1 year test.”

            I believe he did do the measurements. It looks like his handiwork to me, with the same kind of careless & inexplicable mistakes he made in previous tests. Either he made the measurements, or Penon did, and by coincidence he is as sloppy as Rossi.

            “The ERV provided the preagreed instruments, placed them as preagreed and engaged the measurements and data logging as preagreed.”

            Pre-agreed by who? I.H.? I don’t think so! I have no knowledge of their business arrangements, but I know that they and their experts disagreed with the methods and conclusions. They made that clear in the March 10 announcement, the response to the lawsuit, and the motion to dismiss. I mean the March 10 announcement here:

            http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741

          • Ged

            -“Pre-agreed by who? I.H.? I don’t think so!”

            Yes, they did. It’s in the License Agreement/Amendments they signed and court docket. Give it a read.

            -“I have no knowledge of their business arrangements”

            Read the court docket, all the arrangements are posted there under oath, so you can have full knowledge if you wish.

            “[B]ut I know that they and their experts disagreed with the methods and
            conclusions. They made that clear in the March 10 announcement, the
            response to the lawsuit, and the motion to dismiss.”

            Supposition. The March 10th announcement says nothing about them disagreeing with the methods/conclusions. The MTD puts unsupported objections in a footnote, and there is no substantiation to them.

            Edit: And they had a whole year to do something about anything they didn’t like–and obviously they didn’t do anything. So what does that say about them?

          • JedRothwell

            Ged wrote: “The MTD puts unsupported objections in a footnote, and there is no substantiation to them.”

            There is no substantiation to Rossi’s claims either. After all these years, you cannot point to a single clear cut test.

            Anyway, I have seen the data from Rossi that I.H. based their conclusion on. I say it is well substantiated. You have not seen it, so you are in no position to contradict me. You will have to wait to see it before forming any opinion, for or against Rossi. You should never try to judge a technical dispute when you have heard only one side of the debate.

          • Ged

            -“There is no substantiation to Rossi’s claims either. After all these years, you cannot point to a single clear cut test.”

            In your opinion, which is fine. But realize something important: there -are- tests, there -is- data. Rossi has given data to backup his claims, even if you disagree with its veracity.

            IH has given -no- data, even though it sure could if it wanted. Why hasn’t IH released the ERV report if it’s so supportive of their position? Why won’t they show it to you in full? Haven’t you asked these questions? IH is unsubstantiated, though they did build the Lugano reactor and fuel so you could chalk up that data as theirs.

            -“Anyway, I have seen the data from Rossi that I.H. based their conclusion
            on. I say it is well substantiated. You have not seen it, so you are in
            no position to contradict me. You will have to wait to see it before
            forming any opinion, for or against Rossi. You should never try to judge
            a technical dispute when you have heard only one side of the debate.”

            I have only your word. You present no information, IH presents no information (though they have every opportunity and right to). How can anyone hear the otherside of the debate when it will not be shared despite all the claims it’s so good and so substantiated. It’s smoke and mirrors, it’s FUD. Until such time it is released, there is nothing but your word, and that is not substantiation of the claims you have made which are clearly contradicted by logic (no one ever has a reason to measure the customer side when they have access to the plant itself), others (Mats and the court documents that give you all the business information you have claimed to not know), and yourself (you say it doesn’t work but here we are on a thread about some mysterious 10 page report you supposedly have that says otherwise; among other con traditions of yourself you make).

            How can I trust you when you’ve given me no reason to do so–no facts, no data, no information, no proof, no support from anyone else of your statements, nothing? You’ve put me in an impossible situation, there is no other side until you support it or ask IH to do so (and they have every reason to and have had plenty of time to do so). It sounds like you’ve been duped.

            But if you can produce actual proof and evidence, I will gladly dive into it and I do, actually sincerely want to see you vindicated. But you keep digging a hole that just gets deeper so far.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “I have only your word. You present no information, IH presents no information . . .”

            And Rossi presents no information. That’s what happens in a lawsuit. It may take years before the information appears, and it may never appear.

          • Ged

            “And Rossi presents no information. That’s what happens in a lawsuit. It
            may take years before the information appears, and it may never appear.”

            You are sadly flat wrong there. Rossi has given more information than any other party, including yourself: a whole, delicious court docket full of it and all those tests up to this point. If you wish to measure him with such a stick, you are inadvertently measuring yourself and IH, and both parties are far behind Rossi when it comes to information sharing, and for no good reason. You could change that, why don’t you? IH could change that, -why doesn’t it-? Haven’t you wondered?

          • JedRothwell

            Ged wrote: “You are sadly flat wrong there. Rossi has given more information than any other party, including yourself: a whole, delicious court docket full of it and all those tests up to this point.”

            I read that stuff. There is nothing in there about the calorimetry.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed, who write:
            “I believe he did do the measurements. It looks like his handiwork to me, with the same kind of careless & inexplicable mistakes he made in previous tests. Either he made the measurements, or Penon did, and by coincidence he is as sloppy as Rossi.”

            The above is just wish guessing, of which I assume you have no proof as otherwise you would have posted it.

            I have read of the preagreement between IH, Rossi and the ERV on the details of the tests. Will find it and post.

            Jed you will find that when I say something, I can back it up.

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “I have read of the preagreement between IH, Rossi and the ERV on the details of the tests. Will find it and post.”

            Please don’t go to the trouble. I will take your word for it. Evidently the experts at I.H. changed their minds and re-evaluated. Either that or Rossi and the ERV changed the procedures. I do not know what happened, and I am not going to guess. What I know is that the final version of the test was a travesty that no expert would agree is valid. Plus I know for sure that I.H. did not agree with the conclusions.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed, who wrote:
            “What I know is that the final version of the test was a travesty that no expert would agree is valid”

            With respect that is not yet proven and is your opinion.

            Nothing I have yet seen nor read supports your opinion but that is like you, just my opinion.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Nothing I have yet seen nor read supports your opinion but that is like you, just my opinion.”

            The Motion to Dismiss from I.H. supports my opinion. So does Rossi’s statement that he did not allow the I.H. expert to see the customer site even though the expert insisted.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed, who wrote:
            “Evidently the experts at I.H. changed their minds and re-evaluated. Either that or Rossi and the ERV changed the procedures. I do not know what happened, and I am not going to guess. ”

            Jed you just made 2 guesses in the above statement. Both of which are in violation of the License Agreement.

            All parties are under contract to act in good faith to see the various tests completed to the best result via the best efforts of ALL parties.

            IH experts can’t change their minds at the last moment. When did they notify the ERV that IH no longer approved of his instruments, placement and protocol?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            This says the IH experts preagreed with the ERV’s measurement instruments, placement and test protocol.

            This is contained in the 1st License Agreement amendment.

            Bit hard to claim after the test was completed they did not agree.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/812cb9fc3378483963b831f24aee989d10e3512a6369021349c285e3c321bc96.png

          • Ged

            Considering too they had their personnel there and a whole year to make sure the test protocol was being followed. After all, the customer was paying them, so they had the obligation to make sure the plant was being run to spec.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed, who wrote:
            “This test was set up incorrectly”,

            Now did the ERV set up the test incorrectly as he was required to follow the preagreed test setup or he would be in breach of his contract?

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “Now did the ERV set up the test incorrectly as he was required to follow the preagreed test setup or he would be in breach of his contract?”

            I have no knowledge of per-agreed setups or contracts. However, I am sure that I.H. does not agree with conclusions reached by the ERV. They made that clear in their press releases and legal papers.

            If they did agree, they would pay $89 million. The discovery would be worth far more than that if it worked. Unfortunately, it does not work.

      • Ted-X

        One can produce electricity from available heat energy even below 100 deg. C. Geothermal installations can sometimes use a mixture of ammonia and water. Freons could also be used for that purpose.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Jed,

      Jed wrote: “The problem is, the appropriate measurements were not made”.

      So what was not appropriate:

      1) inlet water flow was measured wrong?

      2) inlet water temperature was measured wrong?

      3) outlet steam pressure was measured wrong?

      4) outlet steam temperature was measured wrong?

      5) inlet kJ/kg calculation was wrong?

      6) outlet kJ/kg calculation was wrong?

      7) plant thermal gain calculation was wrong?

      8) plant electrical consumption was measured wrong?

      9) overall COP calculation was wrong?

      • JedRothwell

        Engineer48 wrote: “So what was not appropriate:

        1) inlet water flow was measured wrong?

        2) inlet water temperature was measured wrong? . . .”

        I wish I could say, but I agreed not to say anything not already released by Rossi or I.H. As far as I know, they have not revealed such specific details. (I might have missed something.)

        Sorry.

        “BTW Rossi has stated under oath that the ERV reported the 1 year long term COP was significantly greater than 50.”

        Did he really? My goodness.

        You should ask him for the ERV report. I have heard it is a laff riot.

        • Ged

          “You should ask him for the ERV report. I have heard it is a laff riot.”

          Please ask IH for the ERV report. Between the two of them, maybe we can get one of them to actually release it before the court forces it. After all, if it’s such a laff riot in IH’s favor, I am sure they will be more than glad to actually show you and us all the full thing.

          And if you aren’t under NDA, there’s no legal reason for you to hold back. I guess that’s the problem one faces with harping strongly about a matter they can’t actually talk about.

        • Engineer48
          • JedRothwell

            I don’t know anything about that or any other agreements, legal or business matters. This document looks like it has to do with a test in Italy. I know nothing about that. My data is from Florida.

            All of my assertions are based on my own technical evaluation of Rossi’s data and schematic. (Or perhaps it was Penon’s.) If I am wrong, it is because I made technical errors. I am not analyzing legal documents or agreements. Only calorimetry. I have no interest in legal issues, and no knowledge of the law.

            The only expert opinion from I.H. that I have studied pertains to calorimetry. I skipped over everything else in the legal filings.

            I am 100% sure my data came from Rossi. Sources outside of I.H. confirmed that. Rossi himself confirmed it, somewhat inadvertently.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            The document I attached is part of the 1st amendment to the License Agreement. It replaces the Validation clause in the original agreement and as such was binding on the 1st and 2nd 1MW reactor tests.

            Point is for both tests IH needed to approve the ERV’s instruments used, where they were placed and the measurements protocol BEFORE the test started.

            Jed this is real, IH knew and approved what the ERV did. That they told you something else should be a serious concern to you as you have gone out on a thin branch based on what may not be correct statements by IH.

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “Jed this is real, IH knew and approved what the ERV did.”

            I doubt that, but I wouldn’t know. Here is what I for sure:

            I.H. did not agree with the ERV’s conclusion. They made that abundantly clear in their press releases and legal papers. To be specific, they accused Rossi of “departing from the purported test plan, ignoring inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices.” I know nothing about these “purported test plans,” but I am sure about the rest: the inoperable reactor, * flawed measurements and unsuitable measuring devices.

            No one I know with knowledge of calorimetry would agree with the ERV’s conclusion. The test was a travesty. A hot mess. As bad as the worst of Rossi’s previous tests. Beyond the pale.

            Perhaps “purported test plan” refers to something they did approve of at some point. I wouldn’t know. But I am sure that no one in his right mind would approve of this test!

            * The reactor I know about is inoperable. Apparently there are others. It says “reactors” (plural). I have not heard a thing about them. I was not aware they existed until I read this. My knowledge of this Rossi affair is extremely narrow. It pertains to calorimetry only. I have not discussed business affairs, contracts, purported test plans, or legal matters with anyone. Frankly I don’t know or care about such things. If you want to know whether I think this is a valid business agreement, you are asking the wrong person. I have no clue.

            I must say, people here seem to ask many unanswerable questions. Mats Lewan wants to know why his experts disagree with the I.H. experts, and with me (not such an expert). How can I possibly say? I can’t even address the question until I review their analyses. I haven’t the slightest idea why anyone would think these results are valid.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Reading and sometime negotiating contracts is part of my world. Projects are largely defined my their contracts. I can’t see how it is possible to seperate the real time actions of all the parties from the contract as that is which defines their roles, responsibilities and limitations.

            The License Agreement makes it very clear the ERV needed IH and only IH approval on every instrument he used, on where he placed every instrument and on the measurement protocol he enacted.

            If the measurement system is as rubbish as you claim it is, the legally responsible party is IH, not the ERV and not Rossi. That is assuming the instruments used are those specified, they are placed as specified and the measurement protocol enacted was as specified.

            This is why, it something goes wrong, a very good understanding of the contract helps to understand the difference between what should have happened, what did in fact happen and who had what responsibilities.

            As we have no facts on what happened, all we can do is to look to the contract to see what should have happened and who had what obligations and responsibilities.

            And the contract says IH had total control of what the ERV was legally required to do.

            Which is why we seek information on what the ERV did in actually do. We need real data and not opinions.

            As you can’t supply any real data, there is not a lot to discuss as your opinions are well known.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “As you can’t supply any real data, there is not a lot to discuss as your opinions are well known.”

            Rossi supplied you with real data already. It is the same data he gave me. He claimed that the flow rate was exactly 36,000 kg per day, which is ridiculous, and he claimed there was no need for the I.H. expert to see the customer site. Under the circumstances, that is tantamount to him telling you “I am a fraud.”

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            What Rossi said to Mats on the flow rate was:
            “The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.”
            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/16/mat-lewan-meets-rossi-in-sweden-rossi-bidding-on-factory-for-quarkx-production/

            As for the “IH expert” having access to the customers site, IH had agreed that no IH people would go there. Please explain why access to the customer’s site was necessary when all the reactor inlet and outlet data was being collected. Why does seeing the thermal load matter? Sure I can understand curiosity but IH had agreed no IH prople would go there. Why would IH violate an agreement they had entered into? Point being Jed, the IH expert has no right to go into the customer’s area. Do you wish him to be charged with trespass and maybe break & enter?

            So Rossi did not claim the flow rate was exactly 36,000 kg/day and the IH expert has no legal right to an unwelcome entry into the property of the customer.

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “Please explain why access to the customer’s site was necessary when all the reactor inlet and outlet data was being collected.”

            I already explained this. Please do not ask me to repeat myself. You can review my previous comments here. As I said, the data was not collected correctly, so the only way to confirm the excess heat would be to examine the equipment in the customer site.

            “So Rossi did not claim the flow rate was exactly 36,000 kg/day.”

            He most certainly did!

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Please provide your link where Rossi claimed the flow rate was exactly 36,000 kg/day?

            As for your claim the data was not collected correctly, without proof, that is just your opinion. What we do know as fact is that the ERV was required to obtain IH approval of his instruments, their install locations & his data collection protocol. If the ERV modified the approved system without IH’s further approval, then there maybe an issue IH needs to take up with the ERV.

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “Please provide your link where Rossi claimed the flow rate was exactly 36,000 kg/day?”

            This is in his interview with Lewan and in the data he sent me. Interview:

            https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/

            “As for your claim the data was not collected correctly, without proof, that is just your opinion.”

            It is also the opinion of the I.H. experts, who are better at calorimetry than I am, probably better at it than you are, and way better at it than Rossi is. This is not mere opinion. They (and I) have copious data to back up the assertions. That is why they made those assertions in the Motion to Dismiss. It is not a good idea to put mere opinion in a technical assertion made in a court filing. You should be ready to back it up with data.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Did you read the link? If not please do.

            It says:
            “The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.”

            You do accept that the ERV was required to get IH approval for each of his instruments, were they were placed and his test protocol, prior to the start of the 1 year test? As this was approved by IH experts, why did it fail, as you claim, to properly collect the expected data?

            Jed I really try to not make assumptions and that is why I have spent some time reading the License Agreement and the 2 amendments, which define who has what obligation to do what and at whose direction.

            Please note this comment, which supports the above:
            “All the instruments for measurements were installed, under observation of IH and Rossi, by the ERV (Expert Responsible for Validation) Fabio Penon, who had been communicating also with Darden, receiving technical suggestions from him on this matter. All communications with the ERV were made with both Darden and Rossi in copy.”

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “It says:
            ‘The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.'”

            Yeah, well, the data shows exactly 36,000 kg.

            “You do accept that the ERV was required to get IH approval for each of his instruments, were they were placed and his test protocol, prior to the start of the 1 year test?”

            As I.H. pointed out in their Motion to Dismiss, that may have been the plan, but Rossi “departed from the purported test plan.” No one in his right mind would approve the test as it ended up being done.

            “Jed I really try to not make assumptions and that is why I have spent some time reading the License Agreement and the 2 amendments . . .”

            That’s a bunch of meaningless legal-beagle-ese. I suggest you ignore it. I don’t care about that sort of thing. I am only interested in actual test results. If and when you get a chance to see the data in the EVR report and other reports, you will see the test was preposterous. It was a travesty. Rossi does not even make the effort to cover up his fraud these days.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            It says AVERAGE and not EXACTLY. There is a very big difference.

            BTW here is the data sheet for the 24 pumps a used on the 1MW central island ECat reactor:
            http://prominent.us/promx/pdf/gamma_l_lr.pdf

            These are computer controlled pumps, so I would expect to see highly similar flows day after day.

            The model used in the plant has bottom intake, central discharge and top degas outlet. Rightmost image.

            You can see the degass outlets rising from the top of the pumps to the 4 return headers.

            Water is fed into the bottom of the pumps from the bottom white manifolds.

            Nice setup. Quality pumps.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/521ccba765a5b1c8cb504fe4c1b35fe53e3154723349b111616c7a914d9443ea.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/19431f40e712d52c35790002d4a0c299917aa8a3789929f795508282433425a1.png

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “It says AVERAGE and not EXACTLY. There is a very big difference.”

            I have the data in front of me. A sample from the final report. It says 36,000 kg every day for several days. If you don’t believe me, that’s fine, but stop with the know-it-all kibitzing.

            There is lots of other impossible bullshit in this data. I hope you get a chance to see it someday.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            So you do have the ERV report. Interesting.

            And outside those several days, what was the flow?

            I gave you the link to the pumps used on the reactors. They are highly accurate computer controlled constant flow pumps from which I would not expect to see much day to day variation in pumped volume.

            From what I know, the ECat controls reactor thermal gain by control of the duty cycle of the heaters and is designed to have constant flow, which is what those pumps provide.

            As this image shows, the pumps run to deliver a set flow rate and the control micro modulates power on and off to maintain constant output temperature.

            Taking into consideration the type of pump and a reactor cpu that controls output temp by varying heater on/off time, I would expect to see highly regular flows.

            As you have the ERV data there what was the max and min daily flow rates over 2 months in the middle of the test? I bet they are different and not every days flow was the same as yesterday and tomorrow. Close but not the same.

            No fair cherry picking data or saying “exact” when the data says “average”.

          • Engineer48

            Jed,

            I’m not a know-it-all but I do know engineering very well. I don’t alter peoples words and try to always provide checkable links for what I share.

            Here is what I do know from statements made by you and Weaver.

            I would expect the daily flows to be highly repeatable as variable flow control is not how the ECat reactors maintain constant temp output and the 24 pumps are high quality computer controlled constant flow pumps.

            0.0 barG steam pressure at 100.1C steam temperature is dry superheated steam.

            If the control system is working properly, I would expect the outlet steam temp should maintain just above min superheat temperature at the outlet pressure, so don’t expect to see large temp changes.

            As the customer’s load changes, expect to see temp changes in the returned water temp but that may be damped by the temp and volume of the water in the condenser.
            .

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “0.0 barG steam pressure at 100.1C steam temperature is dry superheated steam.”

            Well, oddly enough the instruments do not show 0.0 barG, and they are not designed to. And that is not what the data showed in the early reports. For some mysterious reason the numbers were changed to zero. I can’t imagine why. I just donno . . . But you know what? I know how to look up pressure and temperatures to see whether you have steam or hot water. I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.

            The thing you have to understand is that Rossi does not practice subtle, carefully hidden fraud, or clever sleight of hand. He does “tests” that any knowledgeable person can tell at glance are preposterous. He blocks the door to an imaginary company that he and his lawyer own. He refuses all reasonable requests; he rips out instruments; and he puts in other instruments of the wrong kind, installed the wrong way. Not just in this test, but in all previous tests. You have never had a chance to look closely at his work. I didn’t either, but now I have. It is utter bollocks, as they say in the U.K.

            I know you do not believe me, but I strongly advise you to at least wait and see for yourself. Read his data first, before you reach any conclusions. Do not champion Rossi or take his side until you get a chance to evaluate his own data. Do not stick your neck for him. He is using you and others for fools, to assist him in his next fraud. His data betrays him. It proves he is a fraud, more clearly than anything his worst enemies could say.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            I await the day I can review the full plant schematic, full photos of the plant, heat exchanger, conderser, etc, instruments used & model numbers, where and how installed plus the recorded data.

            It will not take long to know the truth and I’ll have no issue spreading it far and wide, no matter what it says.

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “I await the day I can review the full plant schematic, full photos of the plant, heat exchanger, conderser, etc, instruments used & model numbers, where and how installed plus the recorded data.”

            Excellent! That’s the right approach! Don’t try to guess or speculate. Wait until you see that stuff.

            “It will not take long to know the truth.”

            Five minutes, tops. You would throw up in your own mouth. I guarantee it.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            I’m careful Jed. I would say at least a few hours to properly characterise the data, even if the instruments & location serms wrong. Data, even highly noisy or out of normal range data, always tells it’s story. Would need several months of FULL data.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “I’m careful Jed. I would say at least a few hours to properly characterise the data, even if the instruments & location seems wrong.”

            I was kidding. I worked on it for two weeks. Mostly kidding, because within five minutes I saw things things that were Extremely Fishy if not Downright Fraudulent, such as the way that pipe left the room for destinations unknown. Soyooonara!

          • Engineer48

            Hi Chapman,

            Be nice.

            Jed has fought a long battle to get LENR accepted and created the best LENR library I know of.

            http://www.lenr-canr.org

            I expect he came to a fork in the road and the dark side gave him comfort. No one likes to admit they were wrong or worst stil
            that they got conned.

            I expect his recent time on ECW was not pleasant as he had no supporters to take his back and play tag team, as he has on LENR-forum.

            What surprised me was that he had no idea that IH had to approve every ERV instrument, where and how they were placed and the ERV’s measurenent protocol. When I informed himmof that fact, it did not serm to alter his belief that Rossi was at fault, when in fact IH had total control over what the ERV did.

            I hope Jed went away with a few things to question IH about and maybe reevaluate his beliefs.
            .

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “What surprised me was that he had no idea that IH had to approve every ERV instrument, where and how they were placed and the ERV’s measurenent protocol. When I informed him of that fact, it did not serm to alter his belief that Rossi was at fault, when in fact IH had total control over what the ERV did.”

            You are surprised that I looked at the actual data and ignored the contract. That’s how I roll.

            Here is what I know for sure, from the data, and from conversations with people at I.H., and with people outside of I.H.:

            The original configuration may have been agreed upon. It may have been adequate. But as I.H. clearly stated in the Motion to Dismiss, Rossi “departed” from the “purported test plan.” They mean he removed essential instruments and erased data. So your statements about the ERV instruments and prior agreements and test protocols are not applicable. They do not mean anything. No sane person would agree to the final test configuration. It was a preposterous, crude, transparent fake test, as bad as some of Rossi’s earlier tests.

            Is that clear? You seem to be having trouble understanding me here.

            We are talking about two completely different subjects. You describe contracts and prior understandings and approvals. You seem hung up on these things. Rossi ran roughshod over all of that. He ignored his promises, he met no understandings. So what you describe is imaginary. I am talking about actual facts, equipment installed at the test site, and data provided by Rossi. I am talking about the nonsensical claims that he and Penon reached — conclusions that fly in the face of elementary physics, engineering and common sense, and that his own data prove are wrong.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            When anyone makes bold statement and is unwilling or unable to back up those bold statement, well why should anybody give them any credibility?

            I once had a very trusted partner, who had become a family friend, tell me straight to my face bold lies that cost me lots of money.

            I’m sure you have experienced such events.

            What I don’t understand Jed, is why you expect people to believe what you say without any right to ask question and ask for proof?

            You seem to act as if it is a personal insult for anyone to question what you say, which makes it very difficult to engage with you and lowers your credibility with many people.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “When anyone makes bold statement and is unwilling or unable to back up those bold statement, well why should anybody give them any credibility?”

            I assume you are talking about Rossi. Yes, he has made bold statements, and yes over many years he has been unwilling and unable to back up those statements. So you should not believe him.

            “I had a very trusted partners, who had become a family friend, tell me straight to my face bold lies that cost me lots of money.

            I’m sure you have experienced such events.

            What I don’t understand Jed, is why you expect people to believe what you say without any right to ask question and ask for proof?”

            You are talking about Rossi again! He has cost people millions of dollars. If you listen to me you will save millions, and avoid his next round of fraud.

            Note carefully: I am NOT ASKING for money. Rossi IS ASKING NEW INVESTORS for money. Do you see the difference? Can you tell which of us might be committing fraud? See: one of us cannot be committing fraud, because we are not asking for money.

            Oh, and about that proof you demand. These are Rossi’s claim. My data comes from Rossi. So if you want proof, you should ask him. Even if I were free to give it to you, and even if I posted it right here, you would only say I made it up. You would claim I invented it. You probably think I invented the absurd flow rate of 36,000 kg/day and the pressure of 0.0 bar.

            You will not believe any claim made by Rossi unless it comes directly from him. So ask him! Ask him for the ERV report. As I said, I have heard it is a laff riot. I am confident it will prove that he is a liar and fraud, even worse than I have described here.

            If he will not give you his own data, or even a summary of it, don’t blame me. I am not responsible for what he does. It is not my data to hand out. I can tell a little about it — information already revealed. Take it or leave it. If you don’t want to believe me, you are free to ignore my messages.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            We are talking about your bold statement, so why to divert to Rossi.

            As a friendly word of advise, I suggest you investigate what Libel is as attached.

            You are a smart guy who should know how to express yourself without exposing yourself to potential libel actions, cause just maybe you are working from bad data. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5aa6d661edae244139e63b51b07f3feaf2a97d4da7e474b613cd38d9db6c5518.png

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “We are talking about your bold statement, so why to divert to Rossi.”

            I am not diverting from him! I have nothing to do with this. He is the one making these claims, not me. He is the one who says 36,000 kg and 0.0 bar, and a COP of 50. Rossi’s own data proves that is impossible.

            “As a friendly word of advise, I suggest you investigate what Libel is as attached.”

            Rossi is libeling himself! Every thing I say is directly from his data. HIS DATA. His claims.

            If I am challenged by Rossi in court for libel, I will publish his data and my analysis. That’s the last thing he wants!

            At worst, I am guilty of making a mistake in my analysis.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            When did Rossi mention 0.0 bar? The only person I know who mentioned that was Weaver, who seems did not understand 0.0 bar is not real. It must be either 0.0 barG or 0.0 barA.

            BTW what is the 3psi about? Weaver mentioned the reactor case failed at 2psi, which by itself means nothing. Can you explain?

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “When did Rossi mention 0.0 bar?”

            In the data he sent me, as I said.

            “BTW what is the 3psi about?”

            That’s just from the second column of the table I referenced. At 3 psi water boils at 221 deg F (105 deg C):

            https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf

            I just meant it does not take a lot of pressure in a pipe to keep water from boiling. A kitchen pressure cooker pot is not strong.

            I guess 3 psi means 1.2 atm.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Might suggest to say 3 psiG or 0.0 barG to avoid confusion as 3 psi or 0.0 bar suggests that is a absolute value and there is a partial vacuum inside the reactor.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Might suggest to say 3 psiG or 0.0 barG to avoid confusion as 3 psi or 0.0 bar suggests that is a absolute value and there is a partial vacuum inside the reactor.”

            Is that your reading of the DuraTherm table I referenced? Do you think they mean a vacuum? I doubt that is what they mean. See:

            https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf

          • Engineer48

            Writing 3psi and meaning 3psi + 1 atmosphere is an error. You know that as I do.

            This site does it right:
            http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/superheated-steam-table.html

            These are the ways pressure is properly referred to:

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Writing 3psi and meaning 3psi + 1 atmosphere is an error. You know that as I do.”

            Okay, so you know better than the people at DuraTherm. They are a big company in the heat transfer engineering and supply business, but they don’t know the first thing about heat and pressure. They even get the units wrong. So do all mechanics, automobile manuals, and automobile and bicycle tires ratings (on the tire wall).

            You are so smart, they should make you the CEO!

            https://durathermfluids.com/aboutus/

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed.

            Will you please indicate when Rossi sent you the data you refer to as his and for what test was it reference too?

            I wil then email Andrea to confirm or deny and if cobfirmed, will ask Andrea for the same data so we can compare notes.

          • JedRothwell

            Rossi will not confirm I have it. He is mad as hell that I do. He will say I am making this up. Tell him from me that I do not believe his flow rate or the pressure. Ask him to send you some sample data and the schematic. Three or 4 days should be enough.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed.

            If Rossi is mad you have the data, how did you get it, if not from him?
            What test is this data from?

            Email has been sent.

          • JedRothwell

            “If Rossi is mad you have it, how did you get it, if not from him?”

            Let’s let him figure that out.

            “What test is your data from?”

            Oh, several tests. Enough to see a pattern in his flow rate and pressure.

            You should ask him for some sample data. As I said of ERV, it is a laff riot! You’ll love it.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            So Rossi did not give you this data and as such you have no way to know it is genuine.

            Plus you claim it is from several tests but will not share which tests.

            This is all very strange, especially making statements about the 1 year test. Very strange.

          • JedRothwell

            “So Rossi did not give you this data and as such you have no way to know it is genuine.”

            Oh, he gave it to me all right. Inadvertently, you might say. He gave it to Lewan as well, and Lewan quoted the numbers in his interview. They are the same.

            I am 100% certain is it genuine for other reasons. I have unimpeachable eyewitness reports by people who saw it being collected and who confirmed the numbers. That is to say, they read Rossi’s instruments directly. These are old fashioned instruments with face plates and numbers displayed. Not your modern invisible electronic gadgets. Rossi is old school. The people include some I have known for a long time, from outside of I.H.

            “Plus you claim it is from several tests but will not share which tests.”

            I will not share any information not already revealed by Rossi or I.H. That’s my policy. If you don’t like it, ask Rossi for the data. Or I.H.

            You should ask him for the data! You will have fun with it. Unless you are a Rossi supporter, in which case you will throw up in your own mouth, and wonder how you were conned by such a ridiculous fake put-up job.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            The instruments used in the 1 year tesr were those the ERV supplied and were IH approved. They were not Rossi’s instruments.

            Are you also stating that all the data collected during the 1 year test was MANUALLY collected and there was no automatic collection of data? Remenber the instruments the ERV used, where they were placed and how the data was collected was approved by IH.

            So you are asking me to accept the IH experts agreed to manually recording data taken from the face plate dials during a 1 year test?????

          • Kevmo

            So you admit you’re ignoring the contract and that’s how you roll.

          • Ged

            You weren’t boiling the water in the hose, nor can you deliver that much heat with a 1/8th anything, it would have to be a much larger coil. And as you say, it is flawed as you cannot hear over the noise of the water splattering out the front. Also, a hose is flex able and does not resonate and transmit sound in any way like a metal pipe. I’m afraid the test is too flawed.

            In no way does this support the idea the customer side has any details about the plant you can’t get from the plant. But, I applaud you actually trying to get some data. Now, use a larger obstruction, boil the , and water in the pipe, and compare that to normal steam flow ;).

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Point being Jed, the IH expert has no right to go into the customer’s area. Do you wish him to be charged with trespass and maybe break & enter?”

            This “point” makes no practical sense. The customer is a dummy company owned by Rossi and his lawyer. It conducts no business, and has no employees. There is no noise coming from the room, or heat. Rossi is the only person who has been seen entering or leaving it. The question arises: Why would he refuse to allow people into the facility?

            Suppose there is equipment in there consuming 1 MW of process heat. That would be easy for the I.H. expert to confirm. If he confirmed it, Rossi would be paid $89 million. So it would be in Rossi interest to welcome the expert into the facility. Very much in his interest! And it is his company, so he can decide to allow this this anytime. Even though the expert found no evidence for excess heat production in Rossi’s own room, finding 1 MW of heat in the next room would be proof.

            On the other hand, suppose the expert found nothing in the room but a 10 kW radiator. That would prove there is no heat. It would also prove that Rossi is a fraud. That would explain why did not want anyone to go in there.

            For various reasons I think it is 99.9999% certain that there is nothing in that room but a radiator.

    • Zack Iszard

      Jed is on the side of the burden of proof. Rossi made extraordinary claims, and by either deliberate or accidental inaccuracy failed to verify his claims about the 1 MW test. That constitutes a breach of contract from IH’s point of view, regardless of whether his claims are verifiable. I would also sue for that in their position.

      And now my 2 cents of Rossi psychoanalysis!

      1. If Rossi is right, then publicly publishing a detailed summary of he calorimetric data he acquired will improve the power of his case. It should be quite achievable for him to redact any sensitive IP from such a basic report, which would only cost him a few hours. If he wants to keep imperfect information private (which I would understand as a scientist), then he ought to be writing the most serious experiment report he’s ever produced! He will need it in court.

      2. If Rossi is lying or has no good data, then it clearly behooves him to keep his mouth shut as long as possible, and pursue other means – besides IH – of attaining some kind of tangible proof about his claims. If he acquires better, more convincing evidence, then he can force a settlement with IH in his favor. He broke contract by not substantiating the 1 MW test, but his claims were shown elsewhere to be valid.

      3. To address Rossi’s strange behavior: If Rossi feels that something as silly as a cluster test of smaller, older cores isn’t worth his time (while he tinkers away on something better), then he would only place measurement tools where he feels he would learn something: sparse and useless for validation. He might show some hostility to other things he deems a waste of his time – which he probably over-values from a self-perception of grandeur – like meeting with people and doing more work for the validation. Any other behavior which seems strange or reclusive could easily be attributed to the value he puts on his own time, depending on the magnitude of the strange behavior. To an “obsessed genius” type, “getting it all out of your head for the betterment of humankind” is all-important, distractions are pure evil, and even very large sums of money would be irrelevant – because the impact of the work and your own mortality are always first in mind.

      Let’s keep in mind the sort of intense niche celebrity the internet – including this site – has made him. Imagine if you woke up with delusions of grandeur – internet celebrity of new energy fame with an industrial backer paying your way to completely change how we deal with energy – except they aren’t delusions! Imagine how that would make you feel and think. (now go apply that thinking cap for all celebrity behavior – really eye-opening!)

      The question burning in us all is this: is Rossi’s claim of excess heat verifiable or a delusion? Only Rossi, with *solid* science, can answer that question.

      • Timar

        “That constitutes a breach of contract from IH’s point of view, regardless of whether his claims are verifiable. I would also sue for that in their position.”

        Except that it is exactly the other way around: Rossi sued IH for breach of contract.

        How about getting the basic facts straight before writing a lengthy analysis? 😉

      • Engineer48

        Hi Zack,

        The only performance claims Rossi has made about the 1year test are based on the ERV report.

        Please note that before the ERV started his work, he had to submit to IH, for their approval, his selected instruments, installation locations and measurement protocol.

        None of this has to do with Rossi. It was approved by IH and implemented by the ERV. IH people observed the ERV installation & I assume reported to IH that the ERV instruments, location & measurement protocol enacted were as per the IH approved ERV plan.

        Rossi has to prove nothing. IH approved the ERV plan and agreed his COP report was the only data that determined the amount of money due to Rossi.

        It is IH that needs to prove to a jury that the ERV reported COP > 50 was incorrect and that the real COP was 2.6 or less so they owe Rossi nothing & are not in breach of clause 3.2c.

  • Omega Z

    Yes, Just not on our time line.

  • georgehants

    It would be very helpful if certain people on page stopped using the Fact that they have customers ready to purchase devices from Mr. Rossi, as if that is some kind of proof that Mr. Rossi is genuine.
    Only when these customers receive a working unit is it of any relevance.
    A million people ordered the original e-cat nearly five years ago and not one of them have received even a unit like that delivered by the Orbo people.
    One does not need to look for customers for a working device of the kind described by Mr. Rossi, at the correct price the whole World contains 7 billion willing customers.

    • Engineer48

      Hi George,

      Sorry to be inconvient but what I state is a fact.

      Frank has seen some of the emails.

      BTW I’ve taken on a new project to build what you want and Andrea has agreed to help me as soon as possible. There are certifications that need to be done as nothing can ship until that is in hand.

      I have sent the attached to Andrea and he says is is “Very Good”. Please note it “Closes The Loop” and is totally battery powered.

      George you are not the only person who cares about others on our planet.

      • georgehants

        Engineer48, many thanks for reply, hopefully everybody on page cares for the planet.
        You have not addressed my point that until your customers receives a working unit that they can confirm gives excess energy in line with Mr. Rossi’s claims, it has no bearing on the veracity of his claims.
        All information on page is interesting in this saga for conversational purposes only, until an open repeatable conformation is available confirming the claims from any source in the Cold Fusion Research World, then it is nothing but conversation.
        MFMP are as open-minded and open as it is possible to be and using every bit of information freely available on Cold Fusion they have so far failed to show a reliable, recordable, excess energy of note.
        We still wait in great anticipation and hope for a general conformation of usable Cold Fusion from anywhere.

        • Engineer48

          Hi George,

          Maybe if a replicator followed the Leonardo Black HotCat design they may get what they seek.

          http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf

          This design uses an almost perfect black body radiator, which just about eliminates any issues with surface emissivities.

          Were I to do a HotCat replication, this is the only design I would replicate.

          BTW George I may get my hands on a QuarkX reactor before my potential client does.

          • georgehants

            Engineer48, so agree that a conformation of any of the versions of Mr. Rossi or others would be Wonderful.
            If you do get a QuarkX or any device from Mr. Rossi, we will all be here following every post you put up regarding your testing progress.
            Good Luck with your efforts.

          • Engineer48

            Hi George,

            And how many Remote Area systems will you be ordering?

          • georgehants

            Engineer48, I can make no sense of your reply.
            Why would I individually need to order a
            Remote Area system?
            If Mr. Rossi is genuine then he would need to be well and fairly rewarded by society.
            After that the only important people are those improving manufacturing, delivering, fitting and servicing enough units to supply the 7 billion people in need of that energy.
            No profits needed, no sales organizations, no finance, no advertising etc. etc. just factories Worldwide.
            The demand is self fulfilling as it is with every other need or sensible desire, limited only by sensible manufacturing or production limits.
            Thousands of worthless jobs saved, so that people may work fewer hours for fewer years.

          • cashmemorz

            Therein liesthe reason for backlash from the top 1%. They see in this less people wanting to work for THEM even as there will be more people dong less work. This scare the pants off of them and will retaliate by engaging the governments via lobbying to keep the proverbial 5% unemployment rate ongoing to keep the current system going. Conservatism is the old school and old ways will die hard.

          • Omega Z

            The proverbial 4% to 5% unemployment rate is what Governments hope to be able to achieve. That you think they actually control that number indicates you don’t understand economics. Which incidentally puts you in the same category as the Government. They also don’t understand economics.

            Note: What Governments do control is the definition of unemployment. If you don’t meet their criteria, then your voluntarily out of work and are not counted.

          • georgehants

            Omega Z, are you suggesting economists understand any form of economics?
            ————
            Bloomberg
            While we can’t predict everything that 2016 has in store, we can at least hope that economists will do a better job in the future than they have in the recent past. That will only happen if universities change the way they prepare students, both for jobs in the private sector and for academic research. Only then will economics truly redeem itself
            https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-01-14/five-ways-to-make-economists-trusted-again
            ————
            ww.usdebtclock.org/current-rates.html

      • Rene

        Once again:

        • Engineer48

          Hi Rene,

          Yup for sure.
          Need a lot more info to design this system. As it is it is a schematic, with assumed internal operations of each box.

          Please consider moving your future comments to the dedicated topic Frank created:
          http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/22/remote-area-disaster-relief-acdc-power-heated-air-warm-water-and-clean-water-e-cat-quarkx-system-concept-engineer48/

          • Rene

            I originally placed it there. I placed it here because this design is being used as some meme that the quark is a proven tech. It is not yet there.

          • Robert Dorr

            If someone thinks it’s more than speculative at this point in time, they haven’t been paying attention.

          • kdk

            Or they may have seen and tested it for themselves.

          • Steve Swatman

            Dont these two statements contradict each other,

            Based on that, I suppose he realizes the report makes him look back. (i assume you mean bad)

            No, I think he filed suit to get 3 times damages for $89 million. ($267 million.)

            If the report look bad, Rossi loses and cannot get 3x damages, because
            you know, the court are going to look at the ERV report, Rossi’s data
            and IH’s data.

            He could not legally give Mr Lewan a copy of the report as he had already decided to go court and was already prepared, because he was sure IH would renege.

            whish makes me wonder how IH have given you copies of Mr Rossi’s data and their own data, as that would endanger their court case, wouldnt it.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Rene,

            As it should be. Fixed on the latest image.

  • georgehants

    It would be very helpful if certain people on page stopped using the Fact that they have customers ready to purchase devices from Mr. Rossi, as if that is some kind of proof that Mr. Rossi is genuine.
    Only when these customers receive a working unit is it of any relevance.
    A million people ordered the original e-cat nearly five years ago and not one of them have received even a unit like that delivered by the Orbo people.
    One does not need to look for customers for a working device of the kind described by Mr. Rossi, at the correct price the whole World contains 7 billion willing customers.

    • Engineer48

      Hi George,

      Sorry to be inconvient but what I state is a fact.

      Frank has seen some of the emails.

      BTW I’ve taken on a new project to build what you want and Andrea has agreed to help me as soon as possible. There are certifications that need to be done as nothing can ship until that is in hand.

      I have sent the attached to Andrea and he says is is “Very Good”. Please note it “Closes The Loop” and is totally battery powered.

      George you are not the only person who cares about others on our planet.

      Instead of just talking and expecting others to do the work, I’ve decided to engage the work, get my hands dirty, put my money at risk and get this done.

      BTW George, when I’m ready to ship, how many units will you be needing?

      • georgehants

        Engineer48, many thanks for reply, hopefully everybody on page cares for the planet.
        You have not addressed my point that until your customers receives a working unit that they can confirm gives excess energy in line with Mr. Rossi’s claims, it has no bearing on the veracity of his claims.
        All information on page is interesting in this saga for conversational purposes only, until an open repeatable conformation is available confirming the claims from any source in the Cold Fusion Research World, then it is nothing but conversation.
        MFMP are as open-minded and open as it is possible to be and using every bit of information freely available on Cold Fusion they have so far failed to show a reliable, recordable, excess energy of note.
        We still wait in great anticipation and hope for a general conformation of usable Cold Fusion from anywhere.

        • Engineer48

          Hi George,

          Maybe if a replicator followed the Leonardo Black HotCat design they may get what they seek.

          http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf

          This design uses an almost perfect black body radiator, which just about eliminates any issues with surface emissivities.

          Were I to do a HotCat replication, this is the only design I would replicate.

          BTW George I may get my hands on a QuarkX reactor before my potential client does.

          • georgehants

            Engineer48, so agree that a conformation of any of the versions of Mr. Rossi or others would be Wonderful.
            If you do get a QuarkX or any device from Mr. Rossi, we will all be here following every post you put up regarding your testing progress.
            Good Luck with your efforts.

          • Engineer48

            Hi George,

            And how many Remote Area systems will you be ordering?

          • georgehants

            Engineer48, I can make no sense of your reply.
            Why would I individually need to order a
            Remote Area system?
            If Mr. Rossi is genuine then he would need to be well and fairly rewarded by society, no ridiculous court cases necessary.
            After that the only important people are those improving manufacturing, delivering, fitting and servicing enough units to supply the 7 billion people in need of that energy.
            No profits needed, no sales organizations, no finance, no advertising etc. etc. just factories Worldwide.
            The demand is self fulfilling as it is with every other need or sensible desire, limited only by sensible manufacturing or production limits.
            Millions of worthless jobs removed, so that people may work fewer hours for fewer years.

          • cashmemorz

            Therein lies the reason for backlash from the top 1%. They see in this less people wanting to work for THEM even as there will be more people doing less work. This scare the pants off of them and will retaliate by engaging the governments via lobbying to keep the proverbial 5% unemployment rate ongoing to keep the current system going. Conservatism is the old school and old ways will die hard.

          • Omega Z

            The proverbial 4% to 5% unemployment rate is what Governments hope to be able to achieve. That you think they actually control that number indicates you don’t understand economics. Which incidentally puts you in the same category as the Government. They also don’t understand economics.

            Note: What Governments do control is the definition of unemployment. If you don’t meet their criteria, then your voluntarily out of work and are not counted.

          • georgehants

            Omega Z, are you suggesting economists understand any form of economics?
            ————
            Bloomberg
            While we can’t predict everything that 2016 has in store, we can at least hope that economists will do a better job in the future than they have in the recent past. That will only happen if universities change the way they prepare students, both for jobs in the private sector and for academic research. Only then will economics truly redeem itself
            https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-01-14/five-ways-to-make-economists-trusted-again
            ————
            ww.usdebtclock.org/current-rates.html

          • Chapman

            George, you are aptly named – as you seem “Haunted” by the ghost of Lenin past, the ghost of Lenin present, and the ghost of Lenin yet to come.

            So riddle me this, George: “Who is John Galt?”

          • Bruce__H

            Georgehants is correct.

            I tremendously admire your let’s get-it-done attitude. But your attitude and skill is not, in itself, a demonstration of the reality of the QuarkX or any of its siblings. Bob Greenyer makes the same argument.

            You have left the appearance in your last few posts that you are deliberately ignoring the argument. The more you do that the less hard-nosed you seem.

      • Rene

        Once again:

        • Engineer48

          Hi Rene,

          Yup for sure.
          Need a lot more info to design this system. As it is it is a schematic, with assumed internal operations of each box.

          Please consider moving your future comments to the dedicated topic Frank created:
          http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/22/remote-area-disaster-relief-acdc-power-heated-air-warm-water-and-clean-water-e-cat-quarkx-system-concept-engineer48/

          • Rene

            I originally placed it there. I placed it here because this design is being used as some meme that the quark is a proven tech. It is not yet there.

          • Robert Dorr

            If someone thinks it’s more than speculative at this point in time, they haven’t been paying attention.

          • kdk

            Or they may have seen and tested it for themselves.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Rene,

            As it should be. Fixed on the latest image.

          • HHiram

            Do we know whether the QuarkX produces enough capturable electricity as a % of power output to provide the necessary input electrical power for operation?

            Last I saw, Rossi said up to 10% output power as electricity. Assume minimum 50% loss looping that power back to the input channel, that is at the very best 5% of total power output. That’s COP 80 needed. Then add a 4X margin for safety, peak/spike demand, etc, etc. That’s COP 80. And that’s in the best case of 10% energy output as electricity.

            So I’m a bit skeptical. Might make more sense, energetically, to produce electricity from the steam (if it is 600+ C, as claimed).

          • Ted-X

            One can produce electricity from available heat energy even below 100 deg. C. Geothermal installations can sometimes use a mixture of ammonia and water. Freons could also be used for that purpose.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Beatrix,

    I’m the customer and there will be no secret tests.

    You will be able to follow my progress, on ECW, in building the 1st QuarkX powered Remote Area Services Generator (RASG).

  • Engineer48

    Hi GiveA,

    Yes the thermal management issues are the biggies.

    Thought is to be able to use all off the shelf major components, with an onboard control system to control which output subsystems are active and which are idle.

    Also expect at least 20% direct electrical energy output by the time I get the 1st QuarkX reactors.

  • sam

    In a divorce sometimes you do not know which sob story to believe.
    But you know they are both sob
    stories.

  • JedRothwell

    You wrote: “I say you should prove it because you are the one that comes in this group, and others, and states that Rossi’s plant makes no heat.”

    Not me. I.H. made that claim. I concur.

  • Rene

    Because all three phases are not going into one quark. It is one phase per quark which is why Rossi said he was testing with three quarks initially, following along the same designs for his previous experiments. Have to say this naming of the e-catx a quark is a wonderful pun of the nature of quarks and how they combine in threes.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Rene,

      Correct.

      Each QuarkX reactor and probably the control system needs 50Hz or 60Hz power at 120vac 1 phase or 208 2 phase or 240vac 1 phase or 416vac 2 phase.

      As I’m Aussie, I designed in a 50Hz, 240vac 3 phase inverter to be safe.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Bruce,

        And the energy source for that 1MWt of 24/7/350 injected heat was?
        Remember there are utility accounts.

  • sam

    I.H. and A.R. should have Jed Rothwell
    and Engineer 48 pick an EVR and all
    three check out the Ecat and give a report.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Sam,

      I would be delighted to sign a NDA to get all the ERV data and be able to produce 3 reports that would be released by Frank on ECW and by Mats on his blog.

      1) were each of the instruments selected approperate or not.

      2) were each of the instruments locations and orientations approperate or not.

      3) calc and report the month by month COP.

      • sam

        I was thinking more about having the Ecat in operation and you and Jed and EVR guy testing.
        Would it not be important to have
        the feel for it in operation.
        But who am I to say when just four
        months ago I was asking people
        on this blog what an EVR is.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Sam,

          Excellent progress.

          For me, having the full ERV data plus instruments plus location and installation orientation plus full plant schematic is all I would need.

          I believe I have a fairly good understanding of how the reactor works and is controlled.

      • roseland67

        48,

        Delighted?
        So would NASA, Fermi, Argonne, CERN etc, but that won’t happen

        • Engineer48

          Hi Roselands,

          Yes I know.

          My reply was about how an independent skilled person could prepare a report that cleared up issues raised by other, without giving away the ERV report.

    • Winebuff67

      I think we are back to where we started 5 years ago. I am putting my eggs in other baskets. Rossi and blacklight power have more simillarities on the proof of concept. Hoping me356 can give mfmp a working setup and we can see it tested online live. Will that happen in the near future? Could u address the possibillity of this Bob?

  • sam

    I.H. and A.R. should have Jed Rothwell
    and Engineer 48 pick an EVR and all
    three check out the Ecat and give a report.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Sam,

      I would be delighted to sign a NDA to get all the ERV data and be able to produce 3 reports that would be released by Frank on ECW and by Mats on his blog.

      1) were each of the instruments selected approperate or not.

      2) were each of the instruments locations and orientations approperate or not.

      3) calc and report the month by month COP.

      • sam

        I was thinking more about having the Ecat in operation and you and Jed and EVR guy testing.
        Would it not be important to have
        the feel for it in operation.
        But who am I to say when just four
        months ago I was asking people
        on this blog what an EVR is.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Sam,

          Excellent progress.

          For me, having the full ERV data plus instruments plus location and installation orientation plus full plant schematic is all I would need.

          I believe I have a fairly good understanding of how the reactor works and is controlled.

          • Chapman

            I have no doubt you could get to the bottom of this entire issue without any delay, but it has been suggested you might benefit from having the input of Jed to assist you in your analysis.

            He could be of great help, with observations such as:

            “Try turning that gizmo the other way and see what happens!”
            “What does this thing do?”
            “What’s that blinky light thing?”
            “When’s lunch, science is boring.”
            “You got any scotch around here?”
            “Hey Dude, you ever been to Taiwan?”
            “What are you doin’ with that hammer? OUCH!!!”
            .
            .
            “What happened? I must have blacked out!”

          • Engineer48

            Hi Chapman,

            Be nice.

            Jed has fought a long battle to get LENR accepted and created the best LENR library I know of.

            http://www.lenr-canr.org

            I expect he came to a fork in the road and the dark side gave him comfort. No one likes to admit they were wrong or worst stil
            that they got conned.

            I expect his recent time on ECW was not pleasant as he had no supporters to take his back and play tag team, as he has on LENR-forum.

            What surprised me was that he had no idea that IH had to approve every ERV instrument, where and how they were placed and the ERV’s measurenent protocol. When I informed himmof that fact, it did not serm to alter his belief that Rossi was at fault, when in fact IH had total control over what the ERV did.

            I hope Jed went away with a few things to question IH about and maybe reevaluate his beliefs.
            .

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “What surprised me was that he had no idea that IH had to approve every ERV instrument, where and how they were placed and the ERV’s measurenent protocol. When I informed him of that fact, it did not serm to alter his belief that Rossi was at fault, when in fact IH had total control over what the ERV did.”

            You are surprised that I looked at the actual data and ignored the contract. That’s how I roll.

            Here is what I know for sure, from the data, and from conversations with people at I.H., and with people outside of I.H.:

            The original configuration may have been agreed upon. It may have been adequate. But as I.H. clearly stated in the Motion to Dismiss, Rossi “departed” from the “purported test plan.” They mean he removed essential instruments and erased data. So your statements about the ERV instruments and prior agreements and test protocols are not applicable. They do not mean anything. No sane person would agree to the final test configuration. It was a preposterous, crude, transparent fake test, as bad as some of Rossi’s earlier tests.

            Is that clear? You seem to be having trouble understanding me here.

            We are talking about two completely different subjects. You describe contracts and prior understandings and approvals. You seem hung up on these things. Rossi ran roughshod over all of that. He ignored his promises, he met no understandings. So what you describe is imaginary. I am talking about actual facts, equipment installed at the test site, and data provided by Rossi. I am talking about the nonsensical claims that he and Penon reached — conclusions that fly in the face of elementary physics, engineering and common sense, and that his own data prove are wrong.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            When anyone makes bold statement and is unwilling or unable to back up those bold statement, well why should anybody give them any credibility?

            I once had a very trusted partner, who had become a family friend, tell me straight to my face bold lies that cost me lots of money.

            I’m sure you have experienced such events.

            What I don’t understand Jed, is why you expect people to believe what you say without any right to ask question and ask for proof?

            You seem to act as if it is a personal insult for anyone to question what you say, which makes it very difficult to engage with you and lowers your credibility with many people.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “When anyone makes bold statement and is unwilling or unable to back up those bold statement, well why should anybody give them any credibility?”

            I assume you are talking about Rossi. Yes, he has made bold statements, and yes over many years he has been unwilling and unable to back up those statements. So you should not believe him.

            “I had a very trusted partners, who had become a family friend, tell me straight to my face bold lies that cost me lots of money.

            I’m sure you have experienced such events.

            What I don’t understand Jed, is why you expect people to believe what you say without any right to ask question and ask for proof?”

            You are talking about Rossi again! He has cost people millions of dollars. If you listen to me you will save millions, and avoid his next round of fraud.

            Note carefully: I am NOT ASKING for money. Rossi IS ASKING NEW INVESTORS for money. Do you see the difference? Can you tell which of us might be committing fraud? See: one of us cannot be committing fraud, because we are not asking for money.

            Oh, and about that proof you demand. These are Rossi’s claim. My data comes from Rossi. So if you want proof, you should ask him. Even if I were free to give it to you, and even if I posted it right here, you would only say I made it up. You would claim I invented it. You probably think I invented the absurd flow rate of 36,000 kg/day and the pressure of 0.0 bar.

            You will not believe any claim made by Rossi unless it comes directly from him. So ask him! Ask him for the ERV report. As I said, I have heard it is a laff riot. I am confident it will prove that he is a liar and fraud, even worse than I have described here.

            If he will not give you his own data, or even a summary of it, don’t blame me. I am not responsible for what he does. It is not my data to hand out. I can tell you a little about it — information already revealed by others. Take it or leave it. If you don’t want to believe me, you are free to ignore my messages.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            We are talking about your bold statement, so why to divert to Rossi.

            As a friendly word of advise, I suggest you investigate what Libel is as attached.

            You are a smart guy who should know how to express yourself without exposing yourself to potential libel actions, cause just maybe you are working from bad data. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5aa6d661edae244139e63b51b07f3feaf2a97d4da7e474b613cd38d9db6c5518.png

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “We are talking about your bold statement, so why to divert to Rossi.”

            I am not diverting from him! I have nothing to do with this. He is the one making these claims, not me. He is the one who says 36,000 kg and 0.0 bar, and a COP of 50. Rossi’s own data proves that is impossible.

            “As a friendly word of advise, I suggest you investigate what Libel is as attached.”

            Rossi is libeling himself! Every thing I say is directly from his data. HIS DATA. His claims.

            If I am challenged by Rossi in court for libel, I will publish his data and my analysis. That’s the last thing he wants!

            At worst, I am guilty of making a mistake in my analysis.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            When did Rossi mention 0.0 bar? The only person I know who mentioned that was Weaver, who seems did not understand 0.0 bar is not real. It must be either 0.0 barG or 0.0 barA.

            BTW what is the 3psi about? Weaver mentioned the reactor case failed at 2psi, which by itself means nothing. Can you explain?

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “When did Rossi mention 0.0 bar?”

            In the data he sent me, as I said.

            “BTW what is the 3psi about?”

            That’s just from the second column of the table I referenced. At 3 psi water boils at 221 deg F (105 deg C):

            https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf

            I just meant it does not take a lot of pressure in a pipe to keep water from boiling. A kitchen pressure cooker pot is not strong.

            I guess 3 psi means 1.2 atm.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Might suggest to say 3 psiG or 0.0 barG to avoid confusion as 3 psi or 0.0 bar suggests that is a absolute value and there is a partial vacuum inside the reactor.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Might suggest to say 3 psiG or 0.0 barG to avoid confusion as 3 psi or 0.0 bar suggests that is a absolute value and there is a partial vacuum inside the reactor.”

            Is that your reading of the DuraTherm table I referenced? Do you think they mean a vacuum? I doubt that is what they mean. See:

            https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf

          • Engineer48

            Writing 3psi and meaning 3psi + 1 atmosphere is an error. You know that as I do.

            This site does it right:
            http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/superheated-steam-table.html

            These are the ways pressure is properly referred to:

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Writing 3psi and meaning 3psi + 1 atmosphere is an error. You know that as I do.”

            Okay, so you know better than the people at DuraTherm. They are a big company in the heat transfer engineering and supply business, but they don’t know the first thing about heat and pressure. They even get the units wrong. So do all mechanics, automobile manuals, and automobile and bicycle tires ratings (on the tire wall).

            You are so smart, they should make you the CEO!

            https://durathermfluids.com/aboutus/

          • “Rossi is libeling himself! Every thing I say is directly from his data. HIS DATA.”

            Do you mean ERV’s data?

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Do you mean ERV’s data?”

            I can’t tell if the author is Rossi or Penon. Anyway, Penon is Rossi’s puppet. Rossi is in charge there. This is his handiwork. It is the same kind of sloppy, half-baked, idiotic test he did previously, such as when he almost blew up Jim Dunn and those nice people from NASA.

            The guy is a loose cannon.

          • “Penon is Rossi’s puppet. Rossi is in charge there.”

            So, in your opinion, Penon is a knowing accomplice in this alleged fraud and helped Rossi change out instruments and otherwise deviate from the data acquisition plan?

            Before you answer that question you do realize that:

            1) IH had control over who the ERV was going to be…

            And 2) Penon was hired by IH for a previous test…

            And 3) Penon was hired again by IH for the year long test (they paid half his salary)…

            And 4) IH had complete control over the design of test set up as per the contract…

            And 5) IH hired a person(s) to monitor the operation on a daily basis…

            And 6) despite your contention they knew the flow rate data was wrong, they let the test go the full year.

            Very odd, no?

          • Penon worked with IH before he worked alongside Rossi.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed.

            Will you please indicate when Rossi sent you the data you refer to as his and for what test was it reference too?

            I will then email Andrea to confirm or deny and if confirmed, will ask Andrea for the same data so we can compare notes.

          • JedRothwell

            Rossi will not confirm I have it. He is mad as hell that I do. He will say I am making this up. Tell him from me that I do not believe his flow rate or the pressure. Ask him to send you some sample data and the schematic. Three or 4 days should be enough.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed.

            If Rossi is mad you have the data, how did you get it, if not from him?
            If you didn’t get this data from Rossi, how do you know it is real?
            What test is this data from?

            Email has been sent.

          • JedRothwell

            “If Rossi is mad you have it, how did you get it, if not from him?”

            Let’s let him figure that out.

            “What test is your data from?”

            Oh, several tests. Enough to see a pattern in his flow rate and pressure.

            You should ask him for some sample data. As I said of ERV, it is a laff riot! You’ll love it.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            So Rossi did not give you this data and as such you have no way to know it is genuine.

            Plus you claim it is from several tests but will not share which tests.

            This is all very strange, especially making statements about the 1 year test. Very strange.

          • JedRothwell

            “So Rossi did not give you this data and as such you have no way to know it is genuine.”

            Oh, he gave it to me all right. Inadvertently, you might say. He gave it to Lewan as well, and Lewan quoted the numbers in his interview. They are the same.

            I am 100% certain is it genuine for other reasons. I have unimpeachable eyewitness reports by people who saw it being collected and who confirmed the numbers. That is to say, they read Rossi’s instruments directly. These are old fashioned instruments with face plates and numbers displayed. Not your modern invisible electronic gadgets. Rossi is old school. The people include some I have known for a long time, from outside of I.H.

            “Plus you claim it is from several tests but will not share which tests.”

            I will not share any information not already revealed by Rossi or I.H. That’s my policy. If you don’t like it, ask Rossi for the data. Or I.H.

            You should ask him for the data! You will have fun with it. Unless you are a Rossi supporter, in which case you will throw up in your own mouth, and wonder how you were conned by such a ridiculous fake put-up job.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            The instruments used in the 1 year tesr were those the ERV supplied and were IH approved. They were not Rossi’s instruments.

            Are you also stating that all the data collected during the 1 year test was MANUALLY collected and there was no automatic collection of data? Remenber the instruments the ERV used, where they were placed and how the data was collected was approved by IH.

            So you are asking me to accept the IH experts agreed to manually recording data taken from the face plate dials during a 1 year test?????

          • “I have unimpeachable eyewitness reports by people who saw it being collected and who confirmed the numbers. That is to say, they read Rossi’s instruments directly. These are old fashioned instruments with face plates and numbers displayed. Not your modern invisible electronic gadgets. Rossi is old school. The people include some I have known for a long time, from outside of I.H.”

            Having not paid attention to the details of the contract you are clearly operating under the impression that Rossi picked the instruments when it was in fact the ERV and IH that did so.

            oops, maybe not so unimpeachable after all.

          • Bruce__H

            Are the deficiencies as obvious as that? Interesting!

          • JedRothwell

            Bruce_H wrote: “Are the deficiencies as obvious as that?”

            In my opinion, yes. I am not an expert or an HVAC engineer, but I have fairly extensive experience doing laboratory scale calorimetry, and I spent about a month working with HVAC engineers on various large scale systems. (Mostly by staying out of their way, and learning how to do air-flow measurements and steam sparging with ~60 kW systems without getting myself killed. One of the reasons I do not think this is a 1 MW reactor is that it seems smaller, less powerful and safer to work with than those 60 kW boilers.)

            Anyway, the deficiencies seemed obvious to me after 10 minutes of evaluation. For example, it was clear why the I.H. expert insisted on seeing the customer site. I do not think you can reliably measure the heat using only the instruments in Rossi’s lab. Rossi refused to let the I.H. expert into the customer site because he said it was not necessary, as he explained in the Lewan interview.

            I believe the I.H. people later fixed this problem.

          • Jed wrote:
            “Rossi refused to let the I.H. expert into the customer site because he said it was not necessary, as he explained in the Lewan interview.

            I believe the I.H. people later fixed this problem.”

            Fixed it how? By breaking through the temporary wall/door separating the two areas?

            What did they find? Did they not see an operation making metal sponges? Did they see a heater and/or other equipment used to spoof the test?

          • Hi Jed,

            “Rossi “departed” from the “purported test plan.””

            at what time do you suppose during the year long test did Rossi make these changes/swap out instruments?

            and when did iH discover this?

          • “The original configuration may have been agreed upon. It may have been adequate. But as I.H. clearly stated in the Motion to Dismiss, Rossi “departed” from the “purported test plan.” They mean he removed essential instruments and erased data. So your statements about the ERV instruments and prior agreements and test protocols are not applicable.

            They do not mean anything. No sane person would agree to the final test configuration. It was a preposterous, crude, transparent fake test, as bad as some of Rossi’s earlier tests.”

            Where was the ERV Penon and IH’s people during all this deviation by Rossi?

            Was this deviation from the plan only caught near the end of the test? If it was discovered earlier, why didn’t IH publicly denounce Rossi when they discovered it?

          • So you admit you’re ignoring the contract and that’s how you roll.

          • Bruce__H

            Engineer

            “No one likes to admit they were wrong or worst still that they got conned.”

            True of everyone I expect.

      • roseland67

        48,

        Delighted?
        So would NASA, Fermi, Argonne, CERN etc, but that won’t happen

        • Engineer48

          Hi Roselands,

          Yes I know.

          My reply was about how an independent skilled person could prepare a report that cleared up issues raised by other, without giving away the ERV report.

    • Winebuff67

      I think we are back to where we started 5 years ago. I am putting my eggs in other baskets. Rossi and blacklight power have more simillarities on the proof of concept. Hoping me356 can give mfmp a working setup and we can see it tested online live. Will that happen in the near future? Could u address the possibillity of this Bob?

  • Ged

    Actually, Bruce_h, let me give you a second reply to destroy any lingering silliness. You are smart, so I know you were either parroting someone else’s line, or were just over thinking things and got lost in the mind, as can happen to us all.

    You didn’t flunk elementary school, so I know you know that all heat flows from high to low, and with a mass flow like water or steam the heat flows with the mass as the heat is carried by that mass. So you know that heat can never be injected elsewhere and forced against all flows up the outlet, that it would appear in the direction of flow at the -inlet-.

    But, let us say that some wizard has indeed reversed the heat equation (Ut = kUxx, solving that would let you know the answer to your question too), and that a greater than 1 MW (line losses afterall mean the magic must be greater than 1 MW to equal that much once it reaches the plant outlet, ignoring all flow ’cause it is magic of course) heat is magically flowing into outlet confusing all readings but not following the water to the inlet. Would you need to see the customer side to know this wizard is there or to measure roughly how much heat is coming in? Nope! Again all you need is the plant itself.

    Now, if you are confused, that’s ok, just think back on the answer to your question earlier and it should become clear. How would you figure this out just with what’s on the plant side… Oh, by measure the -thermal gradient of the pipe- of course! Measure it in three or more places would tell you exactly which way the heat is flowing and where the larger heat source is (and roughly how big it is based on distance to customer side). Amazing how easy, you don’t even have to look at the water itself, just the temperature gradient along the pipe with whatever thermometer you have that reads high temps with percision. Do this at the inlet and you’ll know which way that is flowing too.

    And bingo! The wizard is caught and you never even had to leave your shipping container. Isn’t thermal dynamics grand :)?

  • Kevmo

    The fact that they say they can’t substantiate Rossi’s claims is not the same as denying that it works. Maybe they just feel like they haven’t seen enough evidence to 100 per cent convince them yet, and it does seem so far that they don’t want to give up on the license agreement with Leonardo. Perhaps the test mentioned here is something that gives them reason to not want lose the license.
    ***IH thought they were buying a technology. They arranged and paid for a demo and the ERV report. No whining about any of it. The ERV report was positive, and the demo was done to their specifications in the contract. But then they hit a snag. They couldn’t replicate Rossi’s results without Rossi being there to hold their hands.
    But that was not in the contract. Rossi performed to the contract and wants to get paid per the contract. IH wants the technology and set up the contract in such a way that they perceived they would get it. And they have it, but they can’t replicate the results because they are not Persons Having Ordinary Skill In The Art (PHOSITA).
    Parkhamov replicated Rossi just off the published material alone (NOT including the ERV report which is not public). So Parkhamov is a PHOSITA but IH isn’t, and Rossi is in the clear in terms of delivering what was stipulated in the contract.
    IH will lose this lawsuit but I doubt they’ll pay Rossi his $89M. They’ll piss it all away on lawyers before they pay him. They are trying to control the technology. They know it can work, but they also know they can’t get it to work. Paying for the ACTUAL technology rather than just demos and ERV reports would cost way more than $89Million.

    • JedRothwell

      You wrote: “The fact that they say they can’t substantiate Rossi’s claims is not the same as denying that it works.”

      In the Motion to Dismiss they say the reactors are inoperative, and the instruments “flawed” and “unsuitable.” Elsewhere I.H. clearly says they saw no heat. Everyone I know who has had a chance to review the calorimetry (including me) agrees with I.H. Granted, Lewan says he knows experts who think the reactor worked. I have no idea why. Their conclusions seem outlandish to me, but I have not seen their analyses.

      “Maybe they just feel like they haven’t seen enough evidence to 100 per cent convince them yet . . .”

      The evidence Rossi (or Penon) provided is 100% convincing. The reactor couldn’t have worked. The data leaves no doubt about that, and additional data collected by I.H. reinforces that conclusion.

      • Kevmo

        For your benefit I have edited my post. So now you can see I was quoting a previous poster and responding to it. I did not write “the fact that they say…”, someone else did.

        If IH had such tremendous doubts they should have been forthcoming with them all along. It reminds me of a soil engineer my friend dealt with on a project. There were 5 samples to be drilled and analyzed for $25k total. The soil engineer approved 4 samples readily, no trouble ‘tall. Then on the final one, he ordered $150k worth of tests and refused to approve. It was a scam. IH is acting like that soil engineer.
        If as you say the data leaves no doubt, then why is IH withholding the ERV report? Penon worked for them before Rossi did. They could have started making noise long before, but instead they’re making noise when it’s time to pay up and Rossi has fulfilled the contract. IH’s problem is they’re not PHOSITA. That ain’t Rossi’s problem, he fulfilled the contract.

        • JedRothwell

          You wrote: “If IH had such tremendous doubts they should have been forthcoming with them all along.”

          Why? For what purpose? Right until the end they hoped that Rossi would improve his test and produce a positive result. They wanted to give him every opportunity to make it work. They could not have done that if they had told the public months ago that it was not working.

          Corporations do not usually announce R&D results midway through a program.

          Many months ago, I was aware that I.H. was dissatisfied. But I too sincerely hoped that the situation would change. That is why I signed up for Mat Lewan’s symposium. If I had thought it was hopeless I would not have done that.

          I thought they handled it well.

      • Kevmo

        I did not write that. I responded to someone who wrote it, and it was properly in quotes. This is the 2nd time on this thread you’ve made the same kind of assertion. You are really off your game; you’re triggered; you’re looking for places to misinterpret others. You’re arguing from tainted, silent evidence. You should take a break.

        • JedRothwell

          Oops. Sorry. It is hard to keep track of these threads sometimes.

  • “The fact that they say they can’t substantiate Rossi’s claims is not the same as denying that it works. Maybe they just feel like they haven’t seen enough evidence to 100 per cent convince them yet, and it does seem so far that they don’t want to give up on the license agreement with Leonardo. Perhaps the test mentioned here is something that gives them reason to not want lose the license.”
    ***IH thought they were buying a technology. They arranged and paid for a demo and the ERV report. No whining about any of it. The ERV report was positive, and the demo was done to their specifications in the contract. But then they hit a snag. They couldn’t replicate Rossi’s results without Rossi being there to hold their hands.

    But that was not in the contract. Rossi performed to the contract and wants to get paid per the contract. IH wants the technology and set up the contract in such a way that they perceived they would get it. And they have it, but they can’t replicate the results because they are not Persons Having Ordinary Skill In The Art (PHOSITA).

    Parkhamov replicated Rossi just off the published material alone (NOT including the ERV report which is not public). So Parkhamov is a PHOSITA but IH isn’t, and Rossi is in the clear in terms of delivering what was stipulated in the contract.

    IH will lose this lawsuit but I doubt they’ll pay Rossi his $89M. They’ll piss it all away on lawyers before they pay him. They are trying to control the technology. They know it can work, but they also know they can’t get it to work. Paying for the ACTUAL technology rather than just demos and ERV reports would cost way more than $89Million.

    • JedRothwell

      You wrote: “The fact that they say they can’t substantiate Rossi’s claims is not the same as denying that it works.”

      In the Motion to Dismiss they say the reactors are inoperative, and the instruments “flawed” and “unsuitable.” Elsewhere I.H. clearly says they saw no heat. Everyone I know who has had a chance to review the calorimetry (including me) agrees with I.H. Granted, Lewan says he knows experts who think the reactor worked. I have no idea why. Their conclusions seem outlandish to me, but I have not seen their analyses.

      “Maybe they just feel like they haven’t seen enough evidence to 100 per cent convince them yet . . .”

      The evidence Rossi (or Penon) provided is 100% convincing. The reactor couldn’t have worked. The data leaves no doubt about that, and additional data collected by I.H. reinforces that conclusion.

      • Chapman

        I do not get it Jed.

        You still have not figured out how to use the “defrost” setting on your microwave, but you concider yourself an expert on Nuclear Physics…

        Interesting…

        • JedRothwell

          Chapman wrote: “You still have not figured out how to use the “defrost” setting on your microwave, but you concider yourself an expert on Nuclear Physics…”

          This has nothing to do with nuclear physics. All of the physics described by Rossi and Penon are conventional HVAC-related engineering physics, relating to things such as temperature, pressure, and steam quality. These were well established by the mid-19th century. (Although flow calorimetry in the lab was not used until the early 20th century, I believe.)

          Also, this has little to do with me. The experts at I.H. and elsewhere who have reviewed Rossi’s data concluded that it shows no evidence of excess heat. That is what I.H. said in their motion to dismiss and elsewhere. I agree with their conclusion, but I contributed nothing to it.

          Apparently, Lewan’s experts disagree, but I have no idea why.

          • Chapman

            I’m sorry – all I heard was “Blah Blah Blah, I contribute nothing, Blah Blah Blah”…

            What was your point again?

          • JedRothwell

            My point is that your inane comments make me look good.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Did you ever calculate how much electrical energy is necessary to increase the temperature of 1,500kg of water from 25C to the boiling point in 1 hour?

            You might find the answer to be of interest.

          • JedRothwell

            Engineer48 wrote: “Did you ever calculate how much electrical energy is necessary to increase the temperature of 1,500kg of water from 25C to the boiling point in 1 hour?”

            1,500,000 g * 75 deg C = 112,500,000 calories

            That’s 470,700,000 J / 3600 s = 130,750 W.

            “You might find the answer to be of interest.”

            Why? What’s your point? Are you suggesting that Rossi’s flow rate was actually 1,500 kg per hour, as he claimed? If that is what you think, you have not seen his data, choice of instruments or configuration. That is far too high, for reasons that will be obvious to you the moment you see these things.

            Problems with flow meters will not surprise people experienced in calorimetry. I personally have screwed up measurements with 5 or 6 different kinds of flow meters.

            Flow meters are prone to trouble even when you use them correctly. The one at my house in Atlanta was changed out, and my water bill went from $40 to $200. I did some testing, called a plumber, and determined that the new meter is right, alas.

            If you would like to see an example of how people deliberately measure flow rates wrong in order to commit fraud and steal millions of dollars, see:

            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

            Pay close attention to parts like this, because this is also how Rossi operates:

            “During the setup of the laboratory in Milan various improvements were introduced by the DE technicians and scientists concerning the calorimetry measurement. In particular a method independent of the flow rate measurement has been developed based on the heating of a large amount of water contained in a large tank and circulated through a pump in a closed circuit. This measure is independent of the measurement of the flow through the coil and it would remove any doubt about the heat measurement. DGT did not allow DE to
            use such measurement in any of the tests of their technology. As a further improvement we added a second flowmeter upstream of the water system in order to verify the behavior of the main flowmeter during the measurement of the excess power but also in this case the added flowmeter was readily removed by the DGT technicians forbidding us to make any verification.”

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            No I have not seen the configuration, so I work with what has been reported.

            Your calc is correct 130.8kWh per hour was needed to bring the 1, 500kg/hr of water to the boiling point, yet the reported energy bill averaged out at 22kWh, which would have had 37.6C warm water flowing out the reactor outlet.

            So either the energy bill is incorrect, the flow rate was less than 25kg/hr or the COP was correct.

            Not hard to do the numbers knowing the energy bill showed an average of 22kWh/hr and the reported steam temperature is above min superheat temp.

            It would seem that if the steam temp was 99.9743 or above the steam was superheated. Then knowing the averaged energy usage was 22kWh/hr and a IH declared COP no higher than 1, the flow rate must be no more than 30kg/hr.

            Is a max flow rate of 30kg/hr, the IH figured out flow rate?

            If the flow rate was above 30kg/hr and the steam temp was 99.9743C or above and the average electrical energy usage was 22kWh/hr, then the COP is greater than 1.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “So either the energy bill is incorrect, the flow rate was less than 25kg/hr or the COP was correct.”

            I have no knowledge of the energy bill, but the photos of the machine that have been released and other things I have seen make it seem likely the power consumption was ~20 kW, as claimed.

            The flow rate had to be far less than claimed. As I said, the reasons should be obvious to you if you get a chance to examine the data and instrument specifications.

            While I am confident the flow rate is too high, with the information I have from Rossi, I can only make a very rough estimate of what it might be. I.H. has better information, but I have not seen it. (I don’t want to see it, for now.)

            “It would seem that if the steam temp was 99.9743 or above the steam was superheated.”

            Not if the pressure in the pipe is, say, 3 psi:

            https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf

            I think the fluid probably was under some pressure. Plus I have reason to think the temperature readings may have been a little high.

            “Then knowing the averaged energy usage was 22kWh/hr and a IH declared COP no higher than 1, the flow rate must be no more than 30kg/hr.”

            Exactly. And my guess is . . . that’s what the flow rate is! IF THERE IS STEAM. But I doubt there is . . . If it is hot water going from 60 to 100 deg C, the flow rate should be 429 kg/h. It could be a mixture of steam and hot water.

            “Is a max flow rate of 30kg/hr, the IH figured out flow rate?”

            I am sure they figured out what it is, but as I said, I have no data from them. Except, I said to them: “You did measure X, Y and Z, didn’t you? I hope.” They said, “of course we did!”

            “If the flow rate was above 30kg/hr and the steam temp was 99.9743C or above and the average electrical energy usage was 22kWh/hr, then the COP is greater than 1.”

            Correct-o-mundo.

          • “The flow rate had to be far less than claimed. As I said, the reasons should be obvious to you if you get a chance to examine the data and instrument specifications.”

            Are you saying thet the instrument that was criminally ‘swapped in’ couldn’t handle 36000 kg/day”

            “While I am confident the flow rate is too high, with the information I have from Rossi, ”

            Do you mean Rossi gave you information directly, that he didn’t share elsewhere/publicly? When did you get this info?

            “I can only make a very rough estimate of what it might be. I.H. has better information, but I have not seen it. (I don’t want to see it, for now.)”

            Why don’t you want to see it? How do you know IH has better information?

          • JedRothwell

            EEStorFanFibb wrote: “Are you saying thet the instrument that was criminally ‘swapped in’ couldn’t handle 36000 kg/day”

            I did not say anything about “criminally.” I said the same thing I.H. said in their motion to dismiss: the instruments were unsuitable and the measurements were flawed. I concur.

            “When did you get this info?”

            I will leave that to your imagination.

            “Why don’t you want to see it?”

            So as not to affect my evaluation of Rossi’s data.

            “How do you know IH has better information?”

            Because I know what instruments and procedures they used to acquire it.

          • Jed Wrote:
            “EEStorFanFibb wrote: “Are you saying thet the instrument that was criminally ‘swapped in’ couldn’t handle 36000 kg/day”

            I did not say anything about “criminally.” I said the same thing I.H. said in their motion to dismiss: the instruments were unsuitable and the measurements were flawed. I concur.”

            We are going around in circles here. We know from the contract that the choice of instruments used and data collection protocol was under direct IH control when the test was being set up. We’ve established that it was THEIR responsibility to make sure nothing was wrong with the test set up.

            You seemed to say that AFTER IH approved everything Rossi substituted the instruments and deviated from the approved data acquisition plan. How is that not a criminal act? Business fraud is a crime is it not? Ignore that question. Here’s what you need to answer if you want to be understood:

            Do you have any real evidence of this instrument swap by Rossi and can you show that the swapped in instrument can’t handle 36000 kg/day?

            That is what you seemed to imply in your earlier post. I just want it to be crystal clear as we are talking about a potentially world changing product and a man’s reputation. If you’re going to condemn the tech and the man at least have the decency to be clear about it.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “You seemed to say that AFTER IH approved everything Rossi substituted the instruments and deviated from the approved data acquisition plan.”

            No, I did not “seem” to say that. I said it. Again and again. Clearly. I cannot understand why you insist I did not say what I said. I said it because I know it to be true, and because I.H. revealed it in their motion to dismiss. I would not mention it otherwise.

            “How is that not a criminal act?”

            I do not know enough about criminal law to comment. People doing tests often disagree with one another. As far as I can tell, Rossi was in charge of this test, but I am not familiar with the contracts and business deals.

            “Business fraud is a crime is it not? Ignore that question. Here’s what you need to answer if you want to be understood . . .”

            Other people understand me. You are the only one with reading comprehension problems here.

            “Do you have any real evidence of this instrument swap by Rossi and can you show that the swapped in instrument can’t handle 36000 kg/day?”

            I can’t address those questions. Rossi and I.H. have not revealed that level of detail yet.

          • “I said the same thing I.H. said in their motion to dismiss: the instruments were unsuitable and the measurements were flawed. I concur.”
            ***IH chose the instruments and how the measurements were to be taken by their own independent tester dude, per the contract they signed. If they chose unsuitable instruments and flawed measurements, they’re fracked and will be out $89Million. But I doubt Rossi will see one dime of that money because IH has chosen the high dollar attorney route.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “IH chose the instruments and how the measurements were to be taken by their own independent tester . . .”

            As noted in the I.H. motion to dismiss, Rossi “departed from” the agreed-upon plan. Meaning he did not do what he agreed to do.

          • Then he never should have passed the ERV report and good luck getting a jury to parse the technical side of all that bowlsheet. If he was “departing from” the plan, it was IH’s responsibility to call attention to it WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. Not when it came time to pay and when the ERV report was positive.

            Like in my soil engineer analogy, the time to order 5X value worth of testing and screaming is on the first test, not the last one.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Then he never should have passed the ERV report and good luck getting a jury to parse the technical side of all that bowlsheet.”

            I don’t know what you mean. “Pass” in what sense? Approve of it? Or pass it on to I.H.?

            I am sure Rossi approved of the calorimetry. As I said, it has all the hallmarks of his handiwork: it is sloppy, dangerous, and half-assed; it proves nothing, and it infuriates the observers even while exposing them to the danger of being burned or filled with metal shards. Just as he did in most previous tests, he agreed to do one thing, and then he went and did another instead, as I.H. stated in their motion to dismiss.

            I think he had no choice but to pass it on to I.H.

            I doubt that a jury will need to examine the ERV report. Such things are usually left to expert witnesses. In this case, an expert witness would be an HVAC engineer licensed by the state of Florida. The problem for Rossi is that any HVAC engineer who testifies that this test was valid and conducted according to Florida codes will be committing perjury, and he may lose his license and livelihood. So I doubt Rossi will find anyone willing to do that. Not many people are as stupid as Penon. He is disqualified, since he is not an HVAC engineer, and he is not licensed in Florida.

            “If he was ‘departing from’ the plan, it was IH’s responsibility to call attention to it WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING.”

            Of course they informed him WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. They informed me and several other people WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. Why would they not tell Rossi? That makes no sense.

          • “I don’t know what you mean. “Pass” in what sense? Approve of it? Or pass it on to I.H.?”

            ***By most accounts including yours, the ERV report is positive for Rossi. Penon was the tester proposed by IH and agreed to by Rossi. So when Rossi got a positive ERV report, he met the legal requirements in his contract. His demo got a passing grade on the ERV report.

            I am sure Rossi approved of the calorimetry. As I said, it has all the hallmarks of his handiwork: it is sloppy, dangerous, and half-assed; it proves nothing, and it infuriates the observers even while exposing them to the danger of being burned or filled with metal shards. Just as he did in most previous tests, he agreed to do one thing, and then he went and did another instead, as I.H. stated in their motion to dismiss. I think he had no choice but to pass it on to I.H.

            ***So IH is in a position of denigrating the report generated by the expert they nominated. Rossi has a great legal case.

            I doubt that a jury will need to examine the ERV report.

            ***Of course they do. That’s part of deliberation. Remember how stupid the jury was with DNA evidence at the OJ Simpson trial? That’s about the level you can expect from modern jurors.

             

            Such things are usually left to expert witnesses.

            ***Sure, they’re witnesses, but they ain’t on the jury.

             

            In this case, an expert witness would be an HVAC engineer licensed by the state of Florida. The problem for Rossi is that any HVAC engineer who testifies that this test was valid and conducted according to Florida codes will be committing perjury, and he may lose his license and livelihood.

            ***All he needs is Penon to testify. Jurors will fall asleep with the back & forth bullshit between supposed experts. Advantage Rossi. I don’t recall if the legal documents say that the test was supposed to be conducted according to Florida HVAC codes, but yet again, that would have been IH’s responsibility.

             

            So I doubt Rossi will find anyone willing to do that.

            ***He doesn’t need to.

             

            Not many people are as stupid as Penon. He is disqualified, since he is not an HVAC engineer, and he is not licensed in Florida.

            ***It does not matter. He worked with IH before, was nominated by them to be the tester & ERV report writer, Rossi agreed and they signed a contract over it.

            Kevmo: “If he was ‘departing from’ the plan, it was IH’s responsibility to call attention to it WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING.”

            Jed: Of course they informed him WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. They informed me and several other people WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. Why would they not tell Rossi? That makes no sense.

            ***Well, Jed, I’ve been a fan of yours for several years on Vortex and do not recall you ever calling any attention to IH informing you WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. If their contract was being ignored and they knew it, it was their responsibility to void it WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. Your entire demeanor has changed in the last few weeks to the point that you are looking for ways to misinterpret what people write plainly.

          • JedRothwell

            “***By most accounts including yours, the ERV report is positive for Rossi.”

            Yes, I believe it is. Rossi’s calorimetry shows ~1 MW of heat. However, it is invalid.

            “Penon was the tester proposed by IH and agreed to by Rossi. So when Rossi got a positive ERV report, he met the legal requirements in his contract.”

            That is not how contracts work in the real world. You have to actually perform the work per specification. You can’t just have some guy claim you did, even if that is part of the contract. For example, suppose this was a contract to build a house. After some time, the contractor shows up with a letter from an approved building inspector saying “this house is finished and built according to code.” So you drive to the site and you find . . . a hole in the ground, a large pile of rotting lumber, concrete ruined by rain, rats and debris everywhere.

            That contract is not fulfilled. You don’t have to pay. The part about the third party expert testifying that the job was done right does not overrule the fact that the job itself was done wrong. No court would ever force you to pay.

            “Well, Jed, I’ve been a fan of yours for several years on Vortex and do not recall you ever calling any attention to IH informing you WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING.”

            If you think I would do that, you do not know me. I never, ever reveal information that researchers or companies ask me to keep confidential. I have refrained from uploading several hundred papers, because the authors did not grant permission.

            As I said here, I.H. was hoping that Rossi would clean up his act and do the test properly. They did not want to upset him more than necessary, or have him quit before the agreed upon time. They wanted to give him every opportunity. They asked everyone, including me, to let the test go to the end before making any announcement. I think any corporation would do that. It is the correct, professional thing to do.

            After all, Rossi might have fixed the problems. It was his choice not to. He might have fixed them even in the last month or so. Suppose the gadget actually worked, and he had shown convincing proof in the last several weeks of the test. They would have paid him $89 million, and all would be well.

            I too was hoping he would fix the problems. I was somewhat optimistic even toward the end, which is why I agree to take part in Mats Lewan’s symposium.

            “Your entire demeanor has changed in the last few weeks . . .

            Because I became aware that that Rossi was engaged in massive fraud, and he sucked $11 million away from legitimate cold fusion research. That makes me angry. I felt the same when Defkalion’s fraud was revealed here:

            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

            If you think I am upset, you should talk to the people at I.H.

            “. . . to the point that you are looking for ways to misinterpret what people write plainly.”

            Oh for goodness sake. When I ask you what you mean by “passed” it is because I fail to understand. There is no rhetorical plus to my pretending I misunderstand — I really did fail to understand.

          • Kevmo:***By most accounts including yours, the ERV report is positive for Rossi.”

            Jed: Yes, I believe it is. Rossi’s calorimetry shows ~1 MW of heat. However, it is invalid.

            ***That is your opinion. The ERV report opinion counts much more than yours.

             

            Kevmo: “Penon was the tester proposed by IH and agreed to by Rossi. So when Rossi got a positive ERV report, he met the legal requirements in his contract.”

            Jed: That is not how contracts work in the real world.

            ***That is precisely how contracts work in the real world.

             

            Jed: You have to actually perform the work per specification.

            ***And Rossi performed the work per specification. The ERV report is verification of it.

             

            Jed: You can’t just have some guy claim you did, even if that is part of the contract.

            ***That is precisely how contracts function. If both sides agree on the tester, his word is the deciding factor.

            Jed: For example, suppose this was a contract to build a house. After some time, the contractor shows up with a letter from an approved building inspector saying “this house is finished and built according to code.” So you drive to the site and you find . . . a hole in the ground, a large pile of rotting lumber, concrete ruined by rain, rats and debris everywhere.

            That contract is not fulfilled. You don’t have to pay. The part about the third party expert testifying that the job was done right does not overrule the fact that the job itself was done wrong. No court would ever force you to pay.

            ***If the building inspector was agreed to by both sides of the contract, then the contract is fulfilled and the only real recourse is for the owner to claim fraud on one or both parties. But it is highly suspicious that the owner visited the site several times during the building phase and nodded his head & said nothing negative.

             

             

            Kevmo: “Well, Jed, I’ve been a fan of yours for several years on Vortex and do not recall you ever calling any attention to IH informing you WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING.”

            If you think I would do that, you do not know me. I never, ever reveal information that researchers or companies ask me to keep confidential. I have refrained from uploading several hundred papers, because the authors did not grant permission.

            ***Then you are proceeding from silence of the evidence. IH never said squat to the general public like me, so they hung themselves out to dry.

             

            Jed As I said here, I.H. was hoping that Rossi would clean up his act and do the test properly. They did not want to upset him more than necessary, or have him quit before the agreed upon time. They wanted to give him every opportunity. They asked everyone, including me, to let the test go to the end before making any announcement. I think any corporation would do that. It is the correct, professional thing to do.

            ***Nope. Because they let a fraud get perpetuated and the positive ERV report makes them look like they were trying to steal Rossi’s IP. Professionals steal IP all the time, it is “the professional thing to do.”

             

             

            Jed: After all, Rossi might have fixed the problems. It was his choice not to. He might have fixed them even in the last month or so. Suppose the gadget actually worked, and he had shown convincing proof in the last several weeks of the test. They would have paid him $89 million, and all would be well.

            ***That was Penon’s responsibility to fix the problems, and IH’s responsibility to call foul. IH basically screwed the pooch or were caught red handed trying to appropriate Rossi’s IP. Either way, they are fracked.

             

             

            I too was hoping he would fix the problems. I was somewhat optimistic even toward the end, which is why I agree to take part in Mats Lewan’s symposium.

            ***You’re kinda quiet about IH’s responsibility in this matter. Do you have a paper trail that corroborates what you tell us? If so, you can testify in the trial. If not, it’s just another bunch of hearsay bullshit that’s been circling LENR like vultures for 25 years.

             

             

            Jed: “Your entire demeanor has changed in the last few weeks . . .

            Because I became aware that that Rossi was engaged in massive fraud, and he sucked $11 million away from legitimate cold fusion research. That makes me angry. I felt the same when Defkalion’s fraud was revealed here:

            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/G

            ***Oh, good, you’re calling Rossi a fraud in writing and probably have the paper trail to back up what you say. Otherwise you’re susceptible to a libel lawsuit.

             

            Jed: If you think I am upset, you should talk to the people at I.H.

            ***The people at IH should talk to us LENR afficianados. They’re notably quiet. Why is that? If they lost $11M they should at least have squawking rights.

            Jed quoting Kevmo”. . . to the point that you are looking for ways to misinterpret what people write plainly.”

            Oh for goodness sake. When I ask you what you mean by “passed” it is because I fail to understand. There is no rhetorical plus to my pretending I misunderstand — I really did fail to understand.

            ***Okie dokie, but I wasn’t just commenting on the ‘passed’ stuff. It’s more generalized to your demeanor on Vortex as well as here lately.

          • JedRothwell

            “Jed: Yes, I believe it is. Rossi’s calorimetry shows ~1 MW of heat. However, it is invalid.

            ***That is your opinion. The ERV report opinion counts much more than yours.”

            Well, perhaps if you get a chance to review the report you will agree with my opinion. You will see that the experts at I.H. are right. Until you get a chance to do that, I suggest you refrain from trying to judge this. You need to hear from both sides, and you need to think carefully. This is a technical dispute and you have no technical information.

            “***That is precisely how contracts function. If both sides agree on the tester, his word is the deciding factor.”

            I have been in business for 40 years and I assure you that is not how things work in the real world. Definitely not in the building trades or the computer business. If the computer gets the wrong answer, the contract is void, no matter what your expert claims.

            “***Oh, good, you’re calling Rossi a fraud in writing and probably have the paper trail to back up what you say. Otherwise you’re susceptible to a libel lawsuit.”

            His data proves he is a fraud. Or an idiot. If he sues me, I will publish his data. That’s the last thing he wants.

            At worst, I will be guilty of making an incorrect analysis of his data.

            I expect his plate is full in any case. Lots of people are calling him a fraud. I happen to know why he is, in more detail than most people do. But even you can see he is a fraud. Look at the way he refused to let the I.H. expert into the pretend customer site.

          • Kevmo:***That is your opinion. The ERV report opinion counts much more than yours.”

            Jed: Well, perhaps if you get a chance to review the report you will agree with my opinion.

            ***The ERV report is private, so you’re proceeding from the silence of the evidence. The ERV report is INTENDED to be public, and your comments on this matter were INTENDED to be private. But what we have is the ERV report is private, and your comments are public. The ERV tester is INTENDED to be an independent 3rd party, nominated by IH and agreed to by Rossi, which is what happened. So the ERV report carries much more weight than a software engineer privy to secret information that he was asked not to comment on.

            _____________________________________________________

             

            You will see that the experts at I.H. are right. Until you get a chance to do that, I suggest you refrain from trying to judge this.

            ***You were asked to keep quiet but you choose to open mouth and pass judgement. You’re in no position to ask a fellow vortician to refrain.

             

            You need to hear from both sides, and you need to think carefully.

            ***Both sides are silent, unless one of them is whispering in your ear and we have to decipher bullshit-speak.

             

            This is a technical dispute and you have no technical information.

            ***This is a legal dispute and juries are notoriously nontechnical, far more nontechnical than your average vortician who follows LENR.

             

            _____________________________________________________

             

            Jed quoting Kevmo: “***That is precisely how contracts function. If both sides agree on the tester, his word is the deciding factor.”

            Jed: I have been in business for 40 years and I assure you that is not how things work in the real world.

            ***You have been in the software business for 40 years. You didn’t invent the first computer. If you did, your analogy might stand, but as it is, you’ve been building your edifice on the top of what other programmers wrote ahead of you.

             

            Definitely not in the building trades or the computer business. If the computer gets the wrong answer, the contract is void, no matter what your expert claims.

            ***In the building trades, if your inhouse inspector goes to a yearlong building project 20 times and says nothing for 11 months but then starts squawking at the witching hour, either he didn’t do his job or he’s defrauding you. In this analogy, IH is the in-house inspector. I have a degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering, so I know that when Intel’s chip actually does divide by zero, sometimes they won’t recall your CPU. 99.99% right is still pretty damned right.

            _____________________________________________________

             

             

            Jed quoting Kevmo: “***Oh, good, you’re calling Rossi a fraud in writing and probably have the paper trail to back up what you say. Otherwise you’re susceptible to a libel lawsuit.”

            Jed: His data proves he is a fraud.

            ***Not quite yet. His data is silent because it is not public yet. And the proof is in the jury trial pudding. And juries are notoriously nontechnical . You have really gone down the rabbit hole of confidentiality and are acting like everyone should just trust what you have to say because the right people are whispering in your ears.

             

            Or an idiot. If he sues me, I will publish his data. That’s the last thing he wants.

            ***You’re already subject to libel so you might as well publish his data. If publishing a report that was intended to be public is holding up both sides of a legal battle and it also holds up someone supposedly privy to insider information like you, it’s all just a bunch of bullshit to those of us on the outside. Especially by calling him an idiot, because that means this idiot fooled IH and the ERV tester and Levi and Focardi, and on and on and on. That’s an awful lot of highly technical people this idiot fooled. No, I don’t think the idiot thing sticks. Either he’s a fraud or he’s real.

             

             

            At worst, I will be guilty of making an incorrect analysis of his data.

            ***And subject to getting sued into oblivion by a trillionaire in a few years.

             

            I expect his plate is full in any case.

            ***Then it’s a good time to call out a fraudster.

            Lots of people are calling him a fraud.

            ***Again, then it’s a good time….

             

             

            I happen to know why he is, in more detail than most people do.

            ***Then by withholding the proof, you crap on the heads of the LENR community and call it a hat.

             

            But even you can see he is a fraud. Look at the way he refused to let the I.H. expert into the pretend customer site.

            ***Then he invalidated his contract and it was IH’s responsibility to cut that shit out right away. There’s no real good way for us ‘outsiders’ to “look at the way he refused to let the I.H. expert into the pretend customer site” because it’s all a bunch of HeSaid-SheSaid unverifiable baloney.

          • Bruce__H

            Jed Rothwell said

            ” … I became aware that that Rossi was engaged in massive fraud, and he sucked $11 million away from legitimate cold fusion research. That makes me angry.”

            This is an issue that should be a concern to everyone. Here we have a high-profile person (Rossi) making extravagant claims of success in an area of research that holds out the hope of a better world for everyone. It feels just like the Pons and Fleischmann situation many years ago and if Rossi turns out to be wrong the whole lenr field is going to once again cast into the wilderness. And the more people unreasonably elevate and excuse Rossi, as I see happening on this site, the harder the fall will be if it does come.

          • I will leave that to your imagination.

            ***Confidentiality rabbit hole bullshit.

          • JedRothwell

            Note this correction to my response:

            “Then knowing the averaged energy usage was 22kWh/hr and a IH declared COP no higher than 1, the flow rate must be no more than 30kg/hr.”

            Exactly. And my guess is . . . that’s what the flow rate is! IF THERE IS STEAM. But I doubt there is . . . If it is hot water going from 60 to 100 deg C (as claimed), the flow rate should be 429 kg/h. It could be a mixture of steam and hot water, with a flow rate somewhere in between.

            An error by a factor of 3.5 with a flowmeter would be all in a day’s work for me, since I am an expert in getting the wrong answer from those things. Or for the city of Atlanta. Their error was by a factor of 5.

            I do not know whether there is steam, or what the steam quality is. There is no way to tell, thanks to Rossi’s shenanigans. I am sure I.H. knows.

            Calculation:

            20,000 W = 20,000 J/s = 4,780 cal/s
            Temperature change 60 to 100 deg C; 40 deg C
            4,780 cal/40 deg C = 119.5 g of water/s
            119.5 g * 3600 = 429 kg/hour

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Jed,

            I was able to design and implement a system to test the thermal output of a solar heating panel. The test system was designed to meet the requirements of ASHRAE-93 and was very closely monitored by the Solar Lab personnel at the University of Wisconsin. Their F-Chart software is one of the gold-standards for solar efficiency measurements.

            Key to accurate estimates of heat out of a solar array is to accurately measure (and control) the flow of water into the array and also to accurately measure temperature. We took pains to measure the flow, using a flowmeter tested by Omega and verified in the test device. The meter was $1000. To verify the flow rate, we used the following simple method with the following equipment:

            1). A stopwatch
            2). A series of empty 5 gallon plastic pails.
            3). An accurate scale (recently calibrated) that is used to weigh refrigerant for charging HVAC equipment.

            The procedure:

            1). Weigh and mark the mass of the pails.
            2). Take the outflow of the measured flow rate water and divert it into the pail, starting a stopwatch.
            3). When the pail is full, divert the water into the second pail.
            4). Repeat 3 until you have filled all of the buckets.
            5). Stop the stopwatch.

            The Calculation:

            1). Weigh the filled pails, subtracting the weight of the pails.
            2). Add up the total of the water for all the pails.
            3). Divide by the number of seconds you took.

            Average Flow = mass (in KG) / Time (in Seconds)

            Now you might have had a water meter off by a factor of 4 — they do fail, especially in places where hard water fouls pipes. However if IH failed to verify the flow rate into the device was being measured correctly, then they are complete idiots. As you can see from the above method, it is not rocket science to measure flow.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “1). A stopwatch
            2). A series of empty 5 gallon plastic pails.
            3). An accurate scale (recently calibrated) that is used to weigh refrigerant for charging HVAC equipment. . . .”

            Yes. This is the method recommend by the ASME and the Florida boiler inspection manual.

            “Now you might have had a water meter off by a factor of 4 — they do fail . . .”

            Yup. I confirmed the problem more or less by this method.

            “However if IH failed to verify the flow rate into the device was being measured correctly, . . .”

            I.H. did not fail to verify the flow rate.

          • Jed wrote:
            “I.H. did not fail to verify the flow rate.”

            They must have failed for about a year, or the test would have been stopped early. You can’t possibly believe the test was allowed to continue even one day after IH discovered the problem with the flow rate.

          • He apparently does believe this.

          • I see that. insane.

          • Not insanity, just a loss of perspective from someone who went down a rabbit hole; someone who is normally quite rational.

          • Here you say “I.H. did not fail to verify the flow rate.”
            Below you say “The flow rate had to be far less than claimed. As I said, the reasons should be obvious to you if you get a chance to examine the data and instrument specifications.”

            So which is it? Is the flow rate verified or is it less than claimed?

            In terms of legal contracts, the verification of a piece of data is the responsibility of the signing party, in this case IH, especially when they chose the instruments and the independent tester doing the testing. You’re claiming fraud which is going to be much harder to prove in court.

          • JedRothwell

            Here you say “I.H. did not fail to verify the flow rate.”
            Below you say “The flow rate had to be far less than claimed. As I said, the reasons should be obvious to you if you get a chance to examine the data and instrument specifications.”

            So which is it? Is the flow rate verified or is it less than claimed?”

            Both, obviously! Why would it not be both? It was obvious from the equipment and configuration that it must be wrong, and tests also confirmed it was wrong.

          • If the configuration and testing were wrong, IH needed to speak up AT THE TIME. And the configuration & testing passed the ERV report by the guy THEY appointed.

          • JedRothwell

            They did speak up AT THE TIME! Loud and clear. Who told you they didn’t?

            Ah. Let me guess. Rossi told you that. Rossi is not a reliable source of information.

          • JedRothwell They did speak up AT THE TIME! Loud and clear. Who told you they didn’t?
            ***I’ve been a Vortician for a few years now. I don’t remember any discussion from you nor anyone else about IH speaking up about Rossi munging the tests and breaking their contract. Certainly not with LOUD CAPITAL LETTERS and Exclamation Points! So if it did happen it was not LOUD nor clear. Go ahead and post the link where you brought this subject up and explain why IH didn’t void the contract right then.

            JedRothwell Ah. Let me guess. Rossi told you that. Rossi is not a reliable source of information.
            ***I’ve been distancing myself from Rossi for 5 years. What triggered you into this emotional state? Wife burn the toast again?

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “JedRothwell They did speak up AT THE TIME! Loud and clear. Who told you they didn’t?

            ***I’ve been a Vortician for a few years now. I don’t remember any discussion from you nor anyone else about IH speaking up about Rossi munging the tests and breaking their contract. Certainly not with LOUD CAPITAL LETTERS and Exclamation Points! So if it did happen it was not LOUD nor clear.”

            You totally misunderstand. Of course I.H. did not tell the public. No corporation would do that in the middle of a test.

            I.H. spoke to Rossi. Not to the general public. It would be highly unprofessional to reveal the results to the public before the test is over. I.H. wanted to give Rossi every opportunity to fix the problems. Rossi might have done that, after all. Suppose he had done a convincing, positive test in the last month or two. Suppose he had opened the customer site and revealed equipment consuming 1 MW of process heat. They would have paid him the $89 million. The earlier problems would not matter. Everyone would be thrilled, including me.

            I was aware of I.H.’s dissatisfaction before the test ended, but I would never reveal anything like that without permission. Especially not because it might have prevented a positive outcome. I too was hoping Rossi would fix the problems. I was apprehensive, but I did not know the test had ended badly until they released the March 10 announcement:

            http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741

          • Jed: You totally misunderstand. Of course I.H. did not tell the public. No corporation would do that in the middle of a test.

            ***Sure they would, if they had evidence of “massive fraud” as you say. It was supposed to be a year long test, so if they were 6 months in and the procedure was unacceptable, they would at least need to announce that the results won’t be coming for at least another year. And they were placing themselves squarely on the hook for $89Million by keeping silent. Simple stuff like that make IH’s story not add up.

            I.H. spoke to Rossi. Not to the general public. It would be highly unprofessional to reveal the results to the public before the test is over.

            ***Horse shit. They are on the hook for $89Million, and their contract was for a year long test, not a 6 month test or a 2 month test. Plus they raised investor money on the illusion that the test was going positive, in other words: they were acting fraudulently.

             

            I.H. wanted to give Rossi every opportunity to fix the problems. Rossi might have done that, after all. Suppose he had done a convincing, positive test in the last month or two.

            ***Then it wouldn’t have been a year long test as per contract, would it?

             

            Suppose he had opened the customer site and revealed equipment consuming 1 MW of process heat. They would have paid him the $89 million. The earlier problems would not matter. Everyone would be thrilled, including me.

            ***Then IH simply fracked up. Not too hard to believe. But if they think Rossi is engaged in fraud, why would they fight so hard to keep distribution rights to a fraudulent device? Yet another area where IH’s story does not add up.

            I was aware of I.H.’s dissatisfaction before the test ended, but I would never reveal anything like that without permission.

            ***Then IH didn’t squawk LOUD and CLEAR as you stated before. They whispered.

             

            Especially not because it might have prevented a positive outcome. I too was hoping Rossi would fix the problems.

            ***It was supposed to be a well monitored year long test. If they found issues with it half way through, they at the very least would have had to announce that the test would need to take another year. They didn’t even do that. Instead, they went out looking for other investors when they supposedly suspected ‘fraud’.

             

            I was apprehensive, but I did not know the test had ended badly until they released the March 10 announcement:

            http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress

            ***I remember that report and that was about the time your demeanor changed. Since you were supposedly privy to inside information that you were asked to keep quiet about, your viewpoint is different than ours. But your short temper with those of us who do not have supposedly inside info is not justified. You’ve lost perspective.

          • sam

            Jed said
            Suppose he had opened the customer site and revealed equipment consuming 1 MW of process heat. They would have paid him the $89 million

            Why did I.H. not DEMAND
            they have access to customer
            site before test started is what
            I would like to know.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Why did I.H. not DEMAND they have access to customer site before test started is what I would like to know.”

            I have no idea how that came about. It seems strange.

            The only thing I know is that the I.H. experts insisted on going into the customer site, and Rossi refused. That is what Rossi said in the interview with Lewan.

          • Bruce__H

            What’s a Vortician?

          • A group of science minded individuals who follow edgey science stuff like LENR on vortex-l. Jed is an acknowledged leader in the group because of his active involvement and the effort he has put into building up lenr-canr.org

             

            https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/

          • Bruce__H

            Thanks!

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Jed,
            “I.H. did not fail to verify the flow rate.”

            Then they knew it was in error and still went to the investment community to raise funds. Sounds like fraud on IH’s part to me.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Then they knew it was in error and still went to the investment community to raise funds. Sounds like fraud on IH’s part to me.”

            I doubt that you have any idea when or in what order these events occurred, or what sort of instruments were installed at different times. You were probably not at the meetings, so you have no idea what they told the investment community. So it sounds to me like you are making up stuff and posting it on the internet.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Jed,

            “I doubt that you have any idea when or in what order these events occurred”.

            I also doubt that you have any confirmed documentation about the events as well. Did you make the measurements yourself? If so, publish them. If not, it is just another “IH says”.

            For every test I did, I calibrated the flow before and after. The temperature sensors were also compared against a NIST certified standard. If IH is so “sure”, where is the proof? If they did not check the results that were so surprising, they are in fact foolish, especially when they knew $89Mill was on the line.

            Sorry Jed, but seem look like a smart man, but there are so many holes in your story that I will wait until the proof emerges.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “I also doubt that you have any confirmed documentation about the events as well.”

            Who are you? A fly on the wall? Do you work for the NSA? How the hell do you know what I have, or what I and others have done? I think you are making a lot of unfounded assumptions. Either that or you have better sources of information than I do.

            “Did you make the measurements yourself? If so, publish them.”

            Well, mostly I am using Rossi’s measurements, which I will grant are highly suspect in some ways.

            I suggest you ask Rossi for his data. This is his claim, not mine. If you see a sample of his data, I am confident you will see that he is wrong.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            “Well, mostly I am using Rossi’s measurements, which I will grant are highly suspect in some ways.”

            So you are using a “Rossi says” data set. Hmmm. And since you did not make the measurements yourself and got them second hand through IH, then it still is “IH says”. Did you check the chain of custody of the data sets? Were they “fudged” in any way?

            “Who are you? A fly on the wall? Do you work for the NSA?”

            No, I am just an interested observer. However my 47 years as a practicing electrical engineer, some of which were spent on devices that have heat transfer embodied in them taught me to trust no one without verification. “Rossi Says” is backed up with pictures and what seems to me like a continuing evolution of a product. “IH says” seems like a load of bull promulgated by investment bankers to plug holes in a leaking ship.

            I will no longer respond to your crap. Have a good life.

          • JedRothwell

            “Did you check the chain of custody of the data sets?”

            Yup. With eyewitnesses who are not part of I.H., who saw the instrument readings directly several times, and with data directly from Rossi. For example, he gave the same numbers to Lewan in the interview.

            “Were they ‘fudged’ in any way?”

            I think Rossi fudged some of them, for example by making the flow rate exactly 36,000 kg. But other people did not fudge them.

            “. . . taught me to trust no one without verification . . .”

            Then why do you trust Rossi?

            “‘IH says’ seems like a load of bull . . .”

            Since I do not cite IH or use any of their numbers, you should have no problem with my analysis in that case.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Please stop quoting 36, 000kg. What Rossi said was an averaged daily flow of 36^3 meters of water, which could have been 35.5^3 to 36.49^3.

            Or any number from 35, 500 to 36, 499kg/day.

            To repeat, Rossi never said 36, 000kg, you said that.

          • JedRothwell

            To repeat, Rossi’s data shows 36,000 kg. Exactly. For several days. You don’t believe me? Ask him! Have him send you several days of data.

            He may have said that is an approximation, but it is not listed as an approximation in his data. I sorta kinda doubt his instruments showed exactly that amount, but you will have to discuss that issue with him. I am just telling you what he said. He can try to justify it, with his usual excuses, tap dancing, denial, and fake umbrage. That would be fun to see. You should ask him.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            I have never seen Rossi use 36,000kg. What I have seen is 36^3 mtr.

            Likewise I have never seen you use 36^3 mtr but only 36,000kg.

            Using 36,000kg implies a very much higher accuracy than does 36^3 mtr.

            I don’t believe any engineer would use 36,000kg when referring to an averaged daily flow of 36^3 mtrs.

          • JedRothwell

            “I have never seen Rossi use 36,000kg. What I have seen is 36^3 mtr.”

            He does often say that, yes. Although his data lists 35,000 kg, as I said. But, you know what? 36^3 meters of water weighs 36,000 kg. It is the same thing! Not only that, but the volume is 36,000 liters. What a coincidence! Who knew?

            Did you miss forth grade by any chance? Because that’s where I learned those things.

            “I don’t believe any engineer would use 36,000kg when referring to an averaged daily flow of 36^3 mtrs.”

            It is hard to believe, isn’t it? That’s one of the reasons I do not trust Rossi’s data. Rossi says all kinds of unbelievably sloppy, stupid, half-assed things. You should not believe him.

            Oh, and if you don’t believe me when I say that’s what his data shows . . . You should ask him. Ask him for data! Go ahead.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed who wtote:
            “Did you miss forth grade by any chance? Because that’s where I learned those things.”

            I have worked hard to keep our discussions about the data, the numbers and the physics. Never have I taken it personal. Shall we continue that process?

            What you have shared so far is that you have what you claim is Rossi data but you did not obtain it from him, so don’t know it’s validity and that the data covers several devices.

            You also claim this data did not come from IH or any IH associated source

            Plus you claim to know the instruments and installation positions in the 1 year test but this data is not from IH.

            Is that correct?

            If so as your data source is not directly IH nor Rossi, who then is feeding you data and what is their agenda?

            Care to share who is feeding you private proprietary data?

          • JedRothwell

            “I have worked hard to keep our discussions about the data, the numbers and the physics. Never have I taken it personal. Shall we continue that process?”

            Well, here is a personal question. What the hell were you thinking when you said “I have never seen Rossi use 36,000kg. What I have seen is 36^3 mtr.” What is that supposed to mean? Did you somehow overlook the fact that 36,000 kg and 36^3 mtr are the same thing?

            That was a spectacularly inane comment. What was the point? Were you just trying to pick an argument?

            “What you have shared so far is that you have what you claim is Rossi data but you did not obtain it from him, so don’t know it’s validity and that the data covers several devices.”

            No, I said emphatically and repeatedly I have 100% assured proof that it came from him. Eyewitness proof, from people who saw the data being collected, and other kinds of proof. Stop putting words in my mouth. You can say I am lying if you like, but do not claim I said I “don’t know it’s validity.” I am certain of it’s validity.

            “Care to share who is feeding you private proprietary data?”

            If I wanted to share that, I would have already. I am giving you more information that Rossi ever has. Take it or leave it.

          • Chapman

            No reason at all for you to care, but you just went up about 12 notches on my “Respect” scale!

          • ” If that is what you think, you have not seen his data, choice of instruments or configuration.”
            ***Choice of instruments and configuration were subject to the approval of IH according to the contract. If they’re wildly wrong, IH has no one to blame but themselves.
            When a jury trial comes up and IH points to the data and says ‘the flow rate is off by 20x!”, then Rossi’s attorney simply needs to point to the section of the contract that shows IH approved the instruments and configuration. Done deal, jury wipes their hands, IH is out $89Million.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “***Choice of instruments and configuration were subject to the approval of IH according to the contract.”

            As stated in I.H.’s motion to dismiss, Rossi changed the instruments and configuration, in violation of the agreement.

          • JedRothwell

            Seriously, dude. Do you think I overlooked that? How dumb do you think I am?

          • Chapman

            He DID! He HONESTLY asked that!!!

            It is a lovely Saturday, I just saw Independents Day II, and I am in too good a mood to let “trivialities” bring me down. (They make much ado about “Cold-Fusion Bombs” and I could not help wondering what YOU GUYS would be saying!)

            So: You get a pass on that one…

          • Chapman

            A Tuxedo, a Ferrari, and three Playboy Bunnies hanging off your arm couldn’t make you look good…

            You have destroyed your Credibility, your Standing, and your Reputation. And just as the Titanic will never be raised and restored to her former glory, you shall never again bask in the warm glow of the respect of your peers – let alone your Betters, Like Dr. Rossi.

          • Let’s see. Playboy magazine was started in the 1960’s, right? So 3 aging 1960’s era playboy bunnies, and a Ferrari in a Tuxedo would make anyone look crappy. Eventually the bunnies get changed out and the Ferrari’s Tuxedo gets removed, so everyone has a chance at renewal.

          • Chapman

            !!! nice !!! 🙂

          • Rossi has countered every claim in the response to the request for dismissal. If IH had such data they would have seen bullshit more than a year ago rather than right when it’s time to pay up.

            IH is caught with their pants down. They were trying to appropriate a technology but instead signed a contract that in essence makes them pay for a year long demo plus an independent report from a tester of their own choosing. The fact that they can’t replicate it is tough beans, especially in light of a PHOSITA like Parkhamov who actually was able to replicate with less available information. They didn’t sign a technology appropriation agreement.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “If IH had such data they would have seen bullshit more than a year ago rather than right when it’s time to pay up.”

            I am sure they did tell Rossi a year ago. Who told you otherwise? Perhaps you are making unwarranted assumptions about events you know nothing about.

          • Telling the fox not to raid the henhouse just doesn’t cut it in terms of due diligence when you’re investing other people’s money. Perhaps you are the one making unwarranted assumptions, plus you should add more bran to your diet.

      • For your benefit I have edited my post. So now you can see I was quoting a previous poster and responding to it. I did not write “the fact that they say…”, someone else did.

        If IH had such tremendous doubts they should have been forthcoming with them all along. It reminds me of a soil engineer my friend dealt with on a project. There were 5 samples to be drilled and analyzed for $25k total. The soil engineer approved 4 samples readily, no trouble ‘tall. Then on the final one, he ordered $150k worth of tests and refused to approve. It was a scam. IH is acting like that soil engineer.

        If as you say the data leaves no doubt, then why is IH withholding the ERV report? Penon worked for them before Rossi did. They could have started making noise long before, but instead they’re making noise when it’s time to pay up and Rossi has fulfilled the contract. IH’s problem is they’re not PHOSITA. That ain’t Rossi’s problem, he fulfilled the contract.

        • JedRothwell

          You wrote: “If IH had such tremendous doubts they should have been forthcoming with them all along.”

          [EDIT: Perhaps I misunderstand. I assume you mean “them” as in “their doubts.” They did not express their doubts to the public until the end. If you mean “them” as in Rossi, they were forthcoming with him the whole time.]

          Why? For what purpose? Right until the end they hoped that Rossi would improve his test and produce a positive result. They wanted to give him every opportunity to make it work. They could not have done that if they had told the public months ago that it was not working.

          Corporations do not usually announce R&D results midway through a program.

          Many months ago, I was aware that I.H. was dissatisfied. But I too sincerely hoped that the situation would change. That is why I signed up for Mat Lewan’s symposium. If I had thought it was hopeless I would not have done that.

          I thought they handled it well.

          • “Right until the end they hoped that Rossi would improve his test and produce a positive result.”

            O. M. G.

            You are now on record saying that IH knew for a long time that Rossi and Penon deviated from the proper, agreed to plan and swapped out instruments in an effort to commit fraud and they did it in an obvious way to boot.

            But in their kindness IH decided to say and do nothing and just hoped Rossi would repent and “improve his test” that you claim he intentionally rigged in the first place.

            While saying and doing nothing about Rossi’s fraudulent deviation, IH did or didn’t use the fake data to sell the “virtues” of the 1MW plant to other investors?

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “You are now on record saying that IH knew for a long time that Rossi and Penon deviated from the proper, agreed to plan and swapped out instruments in an effort to commit fraud and they did it in an obvious way to boot.”

            I am not the one who went on record saying they deviated from the agreed plan. That was I.H., in their motion to dismiss. I am telling you what I.H. said. I happen to know that is true.

            It looks like fraud to me, but it could be they are very, very stupid. I have seen many stupid experiments. It was obvious to me that it could not work with those instruments. But as I said, I have seen many honest but stupid researchers do things that cannot possibly work, so based on this alone you cannot be sure there is fraud.

            In my opinion, Rossi’s refusal to let the I.H. people into the customer site is proof of fraud. That company belongs to him. He can let anyone in he wants. If it were real, just by letting them in, he would get $89 million. There is no conceivable reason for him to block the door other than fraud.

          • “There is no conceivable reason for him to block the door other than fraud.”

            Or the entity using the heat to make a valuable product(s) did not want to be identified for obvious reasons.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Or the entity using the heat to make a valuable product(s) did not want to be identified for obvious reasons.”

            Rossi and his lawyer own the company. He is the entity. That is a matter of public record. There is nothing to hide.

            A company engaged in manufacturing with industrial scale equipment in Florida is not allowed hide that fact. It does not matter how valuable the products are; the equipment has to be inspected and certified safe for use. That certification is a matter of public record. There is no such certification for this factory. There is no equipment in that factory.

            (Only small equipment for private use or experimental use is exempt. I think less than 10 kW.)

            This factory was originally listed as a chemical distribution warehouse. There is no conceivable use for 1 MW of process heat in that business. If they are engaged in manufacturing, they have to tell the state what it is they are making. You are not allowed to set up heavy industrial manufacturing equipment without licences and proper zoning.

          • And yet, marijuana labs set up industrial scale equipment and stuff all over the place. Once those dudes are multimillionaires it becomes trivial to bribe the local zoning inspectors.

          • wpj

            I have been watching this argument, but have to chip in with Jed’s statement

            …………Rossi and his lawyer own the company. He is the entity. That is a matter of public record. There is nothing to hide………..

            There is an OFAC statement in the court documents (last page, easy to find) which states that neither Rossi, his lawyer or anyone associated with Leonardo has any interest in JM Chemical Products. WHERE IS THIS PUBLIC RECORD TO THE CONTRARY? You are saying that he has lied in a COURT DOCUMENT.

            This is indeed fraud if you can prove your statement and he ought to be jailed immediately!

            https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-2.pdf

          • JedRothwell

            J.M. Chemicals info:

            http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquiryType=DocumentNumber&aggregateId=domp-p14000056117-f1b317f1-99eb-48c8-9cce-18b618a70d75&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=JMCHEMICALPRODUCTS%20P140000561170&searchTerm=P14000056117

            Registered Agent Name & Address

            JOHNSON, HENRY W
            7900 GLADES ROAD, SUITE 530
            BOCA RATON, FL 33434

            This is Rossi’s lawyer. Elsewhere Rossi was quite open about the fact that he and the lawyer set up this company. I don’t recall where . . . an interview or his web page or something. I do not know about the OFAC statement or why it contradicts this, but I am sure this is Rossi’s company.

            It does not seem like something he should go to jail for. Everyone involved knows it is his company.

          • Everyone but you knows Rossi’s lawyer set up a shell company to protect the identity of the real customer who wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. You’re trying to play poker with half a deck and it shows.

          • GiveADogABone

            The URL you give reports :-
            Florida Profit Corporation J.M. PRODUCTS, INC.
            Filing Information Document Number P14000056117

            What relation, if any, to J.M. Chemicals would this be?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            A lawyer, who also happens to be Rossi’s, set up JM Chemicals for an overseas client.

            No where is there any evidence that Rossi in any way was a part of JM Chemicals. In fact there are sworn statement that JM Chemical is NOT his company.

          • JedRothwell

            And if you believe that, you will have no difficulty believing Rossi when he tells you the flow rate was exactly 36,000 kg per day. Which he will tell you if you persuade him to send you some data.

            Oh, wait. He won’t send you data, because he knows you will see his test was a transparently fake put-up job, that no engineer would believe.

          • “…he knows you will see his test was a transparently fake put-up job, that no engineer would believe.”

            so you’d have us believe Rossi could repeatedly fool many people for several years, including IH, (who very irresponsibly paid him 11.5M to date) but when the BIG 89M prize was on the line he didn’t even go to mediocre lengths to fool anyone? a laugh riot of data was all he could produce?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Wpj,

            Correctly spoken.

            Everytime someone claims JM Chemical is a Rossi owned business, they need to be shown that statement.

          • where did you learn about these stated regulations and requirements? links please

          • ” If it were real, just by letting them in, he would get $89 million. There is no conceivable reason for him to block the door other than fraud.”
            ***Since you posted the same argument again, then again I say bullshit. Rossi blocked the door so that his IP would not get stolen. Just like he blocked Celani from getting a spectra when measuring Gamma rays off the eCAT.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Rossi blocked the door so that his IP would not get stolen.”

            How can you “steal IP” by doing calorimetry with a heat exchanger and an exhaust system (a fan and vent)? What does that even mean?

            You cannot look at equipment and magically discover how it works.

            Furthermore, what IP is this? This is a chemical distribution warehouse with a mysterious machine that needs 1 MW of process heat. Are you saying Rossi invented this, along with all his e-cats? What is it? Where is the patent for it? When did he ever find the time to invent a revolutionary chemical distribution machine that uses as much heat as a good-sized factory?

            If you mean the IP for his e-cat gadget, how can someone steal the IP from it by doing calorimetry? That only tells you how much heat it is releasing. Also, that was the whole point of the test, from day one: to measure the heat from it.

          • How can you “steal IP” by doing calorimetry with a heat exchanger and an exhaust system (a fan and vent)? What does that even mean?

            ***I didn’t say you can do it by doing calorimetry, you did. You’re engaging a straw argument here. What’s with all the logical fallacies all of a sudden from you? You really are off your game.

             

            ———————————————————-

            You cannot look at equipment and magically discover how it works.

            ***You can get some serious clues by using a geiger counter and getting the spectra.

            ———————————————————-

            Furthermore, what IP is this? This is a chemical distribution warehouse with a mysterious machine that needs 1 MW of process heat. Are you saying Rossi invented this, along with all his e-cats? What is it? Where is the patent for it? When did he ever find the time to invent a revolutionary chemical distribution machine that uses as much heat as a good-sized factory?

            ***It is LISTED as a FORMER chemical distribution warehouse. Maybe the chemical he’s distributing is H2O and it’s a giant hot tub. No one knows, so you can’t proceed from silence to argue for or against it because it’s a logical fallacy. Why would he want to patent a giant hot tub? He found the time to invent a revolutionary chemical distribution machine when he unwound your logical fallacies and found them wanting, thereby creating negative time that he could spend on such trivial pursuits.

            ———————————————————-

            If you mean the IP for his e-cat gadget, how can someone steal the IP from it by doing calorimetry?

            ***Like a dog returning to its vomit, you return to the same logical fallacy again and again. You really need to take a break.

             

             

            That only tells you how much heat it is releasing. Also, that was the whole point of the test, from day one: to measure the heat from it.

            ***And maybe, just maybe, Rossi is working on some upgrade in his little former chemical plant. Maybe he’s working on chemical suppositories so that you don’t have to eat all that bran you obviously have been missing.

          • That was I.H., in their motion to dismiss.
            ***And that was the first time the vast majority of us heard anything about it. They didn’t exactly go out of their way to protect the public nor their investors from a suspected fraudster, did they?

          • JedRothwell

            “***And that was the first time the vast majority of us heard anything about it. They didn’t exactly go out of their way to protect the public nor their investors from a suspected fraudster, did they?”

            How do you know what they told told their investors?

            They are telling the public now.

          • When did they tell you? The 1 year clock starts ticking from the moment they suspected fraud. My guess is they told you last July and only have a few short days to insinuate fraud or that piece of leverage gets dropped entirely. But thanks for agreeing with me, that they didn’t go out of their way.

          • How do you know what they told told their investors?
            ***How do you know what they told Rossi? Two can play at that game.

            They are telling the public now.
            ***Yeah, as you stated earlier, ‘many months’ after suspecting fraud. Real paragons of the community, those IH folks. /s

      • I did not write that. I responded to someone who wrote it, and it was properly in quotes. This is the 2nd time on this thread you’ve made the same kind of assertion. You are really off your game; you’re triggered; you’re looking for places to misinterpret others. You’re arguing from tainted, silent evidence. You should take a break.

        • JedRothwell

          Oops. Sorry. It is hard to keep track of these threads sometimes.

    • Bruce__H

      I think you have a mistaken idea of what the patent office means by a person skilled in the art. They don’t mean a person who can reproduce the effect. They mean a person who can follow the steps described in the patent. If, for instance, a patent asks for an electrical circuit to be prepared according to a given diagram a person skilled in the art should be able to read such diagrams and prepare the circuit. Or if the patent requires preparation of a reaction vessel made of a certain metal and with a desired shape the person should be able to do that too. That’s all they mean.

      • And by that definition, Parkhamov is a PHOSITA and IH are not.

        • Bruce__H

          No. You have missed the point. The issue of whether a person is “skilled in the art” must be decidable completely aside from the issue of whether they can successfully replicate a particular new phenomenon described in a patent.

          • In this case, replication is what makes someone decidably PHOSITA, and lack of replication is what makes someone non-PHOSITA.

          • Bruce__H

            Hi Kevmo

            The patent office needs to define what is or is not a valid patent. One of the criteria is that the device or process specified in the patent can be made to work by a person skilled in the art who follows the instructions as laid out in the patent application.

            If “skilled in the art” simply means a person who can make the device work, then how do you recognize an invalid patent? What if the instructions are wrong, a step has been missed, or it is a deliberately false invention that just doesn’t work? There would be no way to recognize this as an invalid patent because every time someone failed to make it work you would just say “Oh they are non-PHOSITA”. And having no way to recognize an invalid patent on this ground then why would the patent regulations use the “skilled in the art” language at all?

          • You are missing the point. This isn’t about a patent application, it is about a legal contract. Using the PHOSITA example is simply appropriate to generate the point that the contract was fulfilled.

          • Bruce__H

            OK. Thanks then.

  • Steve Swatman

    So you watch this game, you are not happy with the team, the fans or the game itself, yet you still come to the training area and the matches every day, to do nothing but complain and pass on negative comments too the fans of the game.

    Personally I would not waste my time or efforts to come to a discussion board daily to comment negatively on something I not believe in and a man I do not believe in, I mean, whats the point, unless you are been paid.

    I think there are many instances of replication, You just do not accept any because of your preconceived bias maybe.

  • Ged

    I think you have seriously over-complicated it on accident and to fill an obvious preconceived bias, which happens to us all if we aren’t careful. You have presented no factual or even hypothetical evidence for your case at all, though.

    And any IH personnel and the “IH expert” could have measured all this noninvasively with ease -at the plant-. So there is No excuse.

    The customer side is utterly and totally irrelevant, and feigning imagined and non described boundary conditions (as I see you don’t give a description of them, since no such things exist to fill your idea there) does not help the argument or make any case for it (create a condition by chilling a section of pipe with some ice or upside down compressed air can to measure the temp response there and on either side and bam, you know the flow direction and rough magnitude with complete certainty in moments). Everything you could want is with the plant alone, and no amount of unsupported hand waving changes that.

  • Ged

    It is actually easy to deny. Sticking such an obstruction up a steam pipe would destroy the plant; but let’s dissect the argument more.

    Worst for your idea, consider too how big a heat source it would have to be to heat up that flowing water (as in your scenario it will not have been turned into steam before than by the reactors) into steam. To do so would take 1 MW of power to rise the flowing water to the pressure and temperature being directly measured at these flow rates, as we already know from basic math.

    Are you seriously suggesting you could stick a 1 MW heater into a small steam pipe (and it would have to be very flexible to move through the pipe’s turns; also pray tell what is that size that can deliver that power for a year in -water-) to heat a small area? That such a point heat (all that heat in a small part of pipe instead of the entire mass of the plant’s reactors) would not be detected as such (someone would still notice the upstream pipes were cold since the plant isn’t making steam in your scenario), and that they would fool the power bill which we know already shows 1 MW electricity was not used, all while not impeding flow and damaging the pipe due to mass obstruction?

    Remember too that flow is being measured (and pressure by the pumps) and that the turbulance of such a mass would be highly audible, made far worst by the water turning to steam at that point (101-103 C means all water is steam at that point, and no amount of trying to distract with were the heat comes from changes that phase change fact, so your heater must account for that).

    Yeah, no. If you invent such a device and show it off, please let us know as you would make a very large amount of money. But right now that idea (flexible, small 1 MW heater that doesn’t directly use 1 MW, transparent to the flow of steam and water, capable of working in flowing steam/water for a year in a pipe) is the most outlandish yet. Also, there is no basis to claim no one checked the pipes, as one cannot know that, especially one who wasn’t there. But anyone -could- do so at the plant and find out this information, and that once again disproves your idea the customer side holds any necessary info.

    So yes, I directly refute that claim with the contradictory evidence we already know. Furthermore, do not mistake my humoring unsupported thoughts by bringing up measuring pipe temp at spots as a control (which, by the way, would Also still catch your idea above too) as a letting you off the hook about how heat flows -with mass flow-, so you cannot heat up the outlet pipe in the opposite direction. That is still a basic science issue you have not addressed and sneaking something up the flow of a pipe does not address it (anything up stream like the reactors themselves would be cold).

    So still, the customer side is irrelevant and every last detail you could want you can only get best at the plant. You have not shown a single detail about plant performance that is not possible to get at the plant proper, and easily at that, which any number of IH people or their vaunted expert could well have done; they built the thing and know all its details after all.

    For a humoring you bonus, we know there is a stethoscope at the plant, so just give a pipe a ping and listen, and you would immediately know if there is an obstruction (ignoring flow and pressure and thermal gradients again). And once more you would catch the wizard all from the comfort of your container :).

  • JedRothwell

    My point is that your inane comments make me look good.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Jed,

      Did you ever calculate how much electrical energy is necessary to increase the temperature of 1,500kg of water from 25C to the boiling point in 1 hour?

      You might find the answer to be of interest.

      • JedRothwell

        Engineer48 wrote: “Did you ever calculate how much electrical energy is necessary to increase the temperature of 1,500kg of water from 25C to the boiling point in 1 hour?”

        1,500,000 g * 75 deg C = 112,500,000 calories

        That’s 470,700,000 J / 3600 s = 130,750 W.

        “You might find the answer to be of interest.”

        Why? What’s your point? Are you suggesting that Rossi’s flow rate was actually 1,500 kg per hour, as he claimed? If that is what you think, you have not seen his data, choice of instruments or configuration. That is far too high, for reasons that will be obvious to you the moment you see these things.

        Problems with flow meters will not surprise people experienced in calorimetry. I personally have screwed up measurements with 5 or 6 different kinds of flow meters.

        Flow meters are prone to trouble even when you use them correctly. The one at my house in Atlanta was changed out, and my water bill went from $40 to $200. I did some testing, called a plumber, and determined that the new meter is right, alas.

        If you would like to see an example of how people deliberately measure flow rates wrong in order to commit fraud and steal millions of dollars, see:

        http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

        Pay close attention to parts like this, because this is also how Rossi operates:

        “During the setup of the laboratory in Milan various improvements were introduced by the DE technicians and scientists concerning the calorimetry measurement. In particular a method independent of the flow rate measurement has been developed based on the heating of a large amount of water contained in a large tank and circulated through a pump in a closed circuit. This measure is independent of the measurement of the flow through the coil and it would remove any doubt about the heat measurement. DGT did not allow DE to
        use such measurement in any of the tests of their technology. As a further improvement we added a second flowmeter upstream of the water system in order to verify the behavior of the main flowmeter during the measurement of the excess power but also in this case the added flowmeter was readily removed by the DGT technicians forbidding us to make any verification.”

        • Engineer48

          Hi Jed,

          No I have not seen the configuration, so I work with what has been reported.

          Your calc is correct 130.8kWh per hour was needed to bring the 1, 500kg/hr of water to the boiling point, yet the reported energy bill averaged out at 22kWh, which would have had 37.6C warm water flowing out the reactor outlet.

          So either the energy bill is incorrect, the flow rate was less than 25kg/hr or the COP was correct.

          Not hard to do the numbers knowing the energy bill showed an average of 22kWh/hr and the reported steam temperature is above min superheat temp.

          It would seem that if the steam temp was 99.9743 or above the steam was superheated. Then knowing the averaged energy usage was 22kWh/hr and a IH declared COP no higher than 1, the flow rate must be no more than 30kg/hr.

          Is a max flow rate of 30kg/hr, the IH figured out flow rate?

          If the flow rate was above 30kg/hr and the steam temp was 99.9743C or above and the average electrical energy usage was 22kWh/hr, then the COP is greater than 1.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “So either the energy bill is incorrect, the flow rate was less than 25kg/hr or the COP was correct.”

            I have no knowledge of the energy bill, but the photos of the machine that have been released and other things I have seen make it seem likely the power consumption was ~20 kW, as claimed.

            The flow rate had to be far less than claimed. As I said, the reasons should be obvious to you if you get a chance to examine the data and instrument specifications.

            While I am confident the flow rate is too high, with the information I have from Rossi, I can only make a very rough estimate of what it might be. I.H. has better information, but I have not seen it. (I don’t want to see it, for now.)

            “It would seem that if the steam temp was 99.9743 or above the steam was superheated.”

            Not if the pressure in the pipe is, say, 3 psi:

            https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf

            I think the fluid probably was under some pressure. Plus I have reason to think the temperature readings may have been a little high.

            “Then knowing the averaged energy usage was 22kWh/hr and a IH declared COP no higher than 1, the flow rate must be no more than 30kg/hr.”

            Exactly. And my guess is . . . that’s what the flow rate is!

            “Is a max flow rate of 30kg/hr, the IH figured out flow rate?”

            I am sure they figured out what it is, but as I said, I have no data from them. Except, I said to them: “You did measure X, Y and Z, didn’t you? I hope.” They said, “of course we did!”

            “If the flow rate was above 30kg/hr and the steam temp was 99.9743C or above and the average electrical energy usage was 22kWh/hr, then the COP is greater than 1.”

            Correct-o-mundo.

          • JedRothwell

            Note this correction to my response:

            “Then knowing the averaged energy usage was 22kWh/hr and a IH declared COP no higher than 1, the flow rate must be no more than 30kg/hr.”

            Exactly. And my guess is . . . that’s what the flow rate is! IF THERE IS STEAM. But I doubt there is . . . If it is hot water going from 60 to 100 deg C (as claimed), the flow rate should be 429 kg/h. It could be a mixture of steam and hot water, with a flow rate somewhere in between.

            An error 3.5 with a flowmeter would be all in a day’s work for me, since I am an expert in getting the wrong answer from those things. Or for the city of Atlanta. Their error was by a factor of 5.

            I do not know whether there is steam, or what the steam quality is. There is no way to tell, thanks to Rossi’s shenanigans. I am sure I.H. knows.

            Calculation:

            20,000 W = 20,000 J/s = 4,780 cal/s
            Temperature change 60 to 100 deg C; 40 deg C
            4,780 cal/40 deg C = 119.5 g of water/s
            119.5 g * 3600 = 429 kg/hour

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Jed,

            I was able to design and implement a system to test the thermal output of a solar heating panel. The test system was designed to meet the requirements of ASHRAE-93 and was very closely monitored by the Solar Lab personnel at the University of Wisconsin. Their F-Chart software is one of the gold-standards for solar efficiency measurements.

            Key to accurate estimates of heat out of a solar array is to accurately measure (and control) the flow of water into the array and also to accurately measure temperature. We took pains to measure the flow, using a flowmeter tested by Omega and verified in the test device. The meter was $1000. To verify the flow rate, we used the following simple method with the following equipment:

            1). A stopwatch
            2). A series of empty 5 gallon plastic pails.
            3). An accurate scale (recently calibrated) that is used to weigh refrigerant for charging HVAC equipment.

            The procedure:

            1). Weigh and mark the mass of the pails.
            2). Take the outflow of the measured flow rate water and divert it into the pail, starting a stopwatch.
            3). When the pail is full, divert the water into the second pail.
            4). Repeat 3 until you have filled all of the buckets.
            5). Stop the stopwatch.

            The Calculation:

            1). Weigh the filled pails, subtracting the weight of the pails.
            2). Add up the total of the water for all the pails.
            3). Divide by the number of seconds you took.

            Average Flow = mass (in KG) / Time (in Seconds)

            Now you might have had a water meter off by a factor of 4 — they do fail, especially in places where hard water fouls pipes. However if IH failed to verify the flow rate into the device was being measured correctly, then they are complete idiots. As you can see from the above method, it is not rocket science to measure flow.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “1). A stopwatch
            2). A series of empty 5 gallon plastic pails.
            3). An accurate scale (recently calibrated) that is used to weigh refrigerant for charging HVAC equipment. . . .”

            Yes. This is the method recommend by the ASME and the Florida boiler inspection manual.

            “Now you might have had a water meter off by a factor of 4 — they do fail . . .”

            Yup. I confirmed the problem more or less by this method.

            “However if IH failed to verify the flow rate into the device was being measured correctly, . . .”

            I.H. did not fail to verify the flow rate.

          • Kevmo

            Here you say “I.H. did not fail to verify the flow rate.”
            Below you say “The flow rate had to be far less than claimed. As I said, the reasons should be obvious to you if you get a chance to examine the data and instrument specifications.”

            So which is it? Is the flow rate verified or is it less than claimed?

            In terms of legal contracts, the verification of a piece of data is the responsibility of the signing party, in this case IH, especially when they chose the instruments and the independent tester doing the testing. You’re claiming fraud which is going to be much harder to prove in court.

          • JedRothwell

            Here you say “I.H. did not fail to verify the flow rate.”
            Below you say “The flow rate had to be far less than claimed. As I said, the reasons should be obvious to you if you get a chance to examine the data and instrument specifications.”

            So which is it? Is the flow rate verified or is it less than claimed?”

            Both, obviously! Why would it not be both? It was obvious from the equipment and configuration that it must be wrong, and tests also confirmed it was wrong.

          • Kevmo

            If the configuration and testing were wrong, IH needed to speak up AT THE TIME. And the configuration & testing passed the ERV report by the guy THEY appointed.

          • JedRothwell

            They did speak up AT THE TIME! Loud and clear. Who told you they didn’t?

            Ah. Let me guess. Rossi told you that. Rossi is not a reliable source of information.

          • Kevmo

            JedRothwell They did speak up AT THE TIME! Loud and clear. Who told you they didn’t?
            ***I’ve been a Vortician for a few years now. I don’t remember any discussion from you nor anyone else about IH speaking up about Rossi munging the tests and breaking their contract. Certainly not with LOUD CAPITAL LETTERS and Exclamation Points! So if it did happen it was not LOUD nor clear. Go ahead and post the link where you brought this subject up and explain why IH didn’t void the contract right then.

            JedRothwell Ah. Let me guess. Rossi told you that. Rossi is not a reliable source of information.
            ***I’ve been distancing myself from Rossi for 5 years. What triggered you into this emotional state? Wife burn the toast again?

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “JedRothwell They did speak up AT THE TIME! Loud and clear. Who told you they didn’t?

            ***I’ve been a Vortician for a few years now. I don’t remember any discussion from you nor anyone else about IH speaking up about Rossi munging the tests and breaking their contract. Certainly not with LOUD CAPITAL LETTERS and Exclamation Points! So if it did happen it was not LOUD nor clear.”

            You totally misunderstand. Of course I.H. did not tell the public. No corporation would do that in the middle of a test.

            I.H. spoke to Rossi. Not to the general public. It would be highly unprofessional to reveal the results to the public before the test is over. I.H. wanted to give Rossi every opportunity to fix the problems. Rossi might have done that, after all. Suppose he had done a convincing, positive test in the last month or two. Suppose he had opened the customer site and revealed equipment consuming 1 MW of process heat. They would have paid him the $89 million. The earlier problems would not matter. Everyone would be thrilled, including me.

            I was aware of I.H.’s dissatisfaction before the test ended, but I would never reveal anything like that without permission. Especially not because it might have prevented a positive outcome. I too was hoping Rossi would fix the problems. I was apprehensive, but I did not know the test had ended badly until they released the March 10 announcement:

            http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741

          • sam

            Jed said
            Suppose he had opened the customer site and revealed equipment consuming 1 MW of process heat. They would have paid him the $89 million

            Why did I.H. not DEMAND
            they have access to customer
            site before test started is what
            I would like to know.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Why did I.H. not DEMAND they have access to customer site before test started is what I would like to know.”

            I have no idea how that came about. It seems strange.

            The only thing I know is that the I.H. experts insisted on going into the customer site, and Rossi refused. That is what Rossi said in the interview with Lewan.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “IIRC, one of the conditions for the last milestone test was that the 1MW plant work well, without fail, for about 350 days. Even if Rossi corrected his “mistakes” to everyone’s satisfaction in the last month it wouldn’t matter one bit.”

            I have not read the contract carefully, so I’ll take your word for that. However, let us assume for the sake of argument that the machine worked as he claimed. The I.H. experts disagreed. They told him they did not think so. Anyone would have told him that, because the test was sloppy, and every indication you could read from it showed no excess heat.

            Here’s the thing. 350 days ago, Rossi could have easily convinced I.H. that the device is real after all, despite his abominable calorimetry. He could have opened the door to the customer site next door. He owned that site. He had the keys, and he was often seen going in there. He could have asked the I.H. experts to sign an NDA not to discuss the equipment in there, and in any case, the expert did not need to look closely. The expert could measure the heat at a few places, and then at the ventilation equipment. That would confirm the 1 MW heat release. All endothermic industrial processes release nearly all process heat as waste heat.

            That would have resolved everything. But Rossi refused to do that. Why do you think he did that? I say it is because anyone looking in that room would see there is only a small radiator there, and that would be the final nail in the coffin, proving beyond doubt the claim is false. I say that because all of the evidence in Rossi’s own data points to that conclusion. The only way to disprove it would be to open the door to the customer site.

          • Kevmo

            However, let us assume for the sake of argument that the machine worked as he claimed. The I.H. experts disagreed.

            ***Then as was posted upthread, surely all those 51 days of missing the mark did not happen at the final month. That would have happened earlier in the test cycle, and IH would have been monitoring the progress & known to keep pushing back the final release date. But instead, they wait until after the ERV report was submitted, and after some time they said they couldn’t ‘substantiate’ the claims. Bullshit. They couldn’t replicate it themselves without Rossi. The claims were already substantiated in the ERV report.

             

            They told him they did not think so. Anyone would have told him that, because the test was sloppy, and every indication you could read from it showed no excess heat.

            ***So they waited until after the ERV report was submitted to say so. Complete, utter bullshit.

             

            Here’s the thing. 350 days ago, Rossi could have easily convinced I.H. that the device is real after all, despite his abominable calorimetry. He could have opened the door to the customer site next door. He owned that site. He had the keys, and he was often seen going in there. He could have asked the I.H. experts to sign an NDA not to discuss the equipment in there, and in any case, the expert did not need to look closely. The expert could measure the heat at a few places, and then at the ventilation equipment. That would confirm the 1 MW heat release. All endothermic industrial processes release nearly all process heat as waste heat.

            ***Remember when Rossi got real upset that Celani was measuring gamma rays off his device and tried to get a spectra? Rossi shut him down right away because there’s a serious clue as to how it all works when you do that. So maybe Rossi had some other serious clue that any knowing person would catch right away and steal his IP straightway by entering that customer site.

            That would have resolved everything. But Rossi refused to do that.

            ***Since you’re so busy arguing from silence then address why Rossi wanted spectra testing shut down immediately. And then apply that same argument to someone going into the customer site looking to steal Rossi’s IP.

             

            Why do you think he did that? I say it is because anyone looking in that room would see there is only a small radiator there,

            ***And I say it’s because he didn’t want his IP stolen. Another might say because they would see little green aliens operating the machinery. So how this logical fallacy of arguing from silence works?

             

             

            and that would be the final nail in the coffin, proving beyond doubt the claim is false. I say that because all of the evidence in Rossi’s own data points to that conclusion. The only way to disprove it would be to open the door to the customer site.

            ***There are other ways to disprove it, and IH sat on about half a dozen of them.

          • JedRothwell

            “***So they waited until after the ERV report was submitted to say so. Complete, utter bullshit.”

            No, they did not wait. They told him. They told several people, including me. However, they did not announce it to the general public, and they asked everyone they told to keep it confidential, in the hope that the disagreements could be resolved.

            “***And I say it’s because he didn’t want his IP stolen.”

            You have to explain how a person can “steal IP” by measuring the heat from a ventilation system or a heat exchanger. Fans and ducts are not secret inventions. They are not IP.

            “***There are other ways to disprove it, and IH sat on about half a dozen of them.”

            And what are these other ways? Would you care to list them?

            As it happens, I know of several other methods. For example, there are various ways to detect heat without going into a facility. All of these methods were performed, and all showed no evidence of excess heat.

          • Kevmo

            Jed: No, they did not wait. They told him.

            ***So since you’re sticking with this complete line of bullshit I’ll reiterate that telling the fox to stop raiding the henhouse is no way to perform due diligence when you’re investing other people’s money.

            ——————————————

             

             

            They told several people, including me. However, they did not announce it to the general public, and they asked everyone they told to keep it confidential, in the hope that the disagreements could be resolved.

            ***Rossi was invalidating their contract, according to IH’s Motion to Dismiss that you hold so precious. They had a responsibility to tell their investors and the public if they suspected fraud. But for months, they didn’t suspect fraud, hoping ‘disagreements’ could be resolved? In those months did they even bother to make one phone call to their lawyers? Did they push back the obviously unattainable 350 day test result? NO. They operated in exactly the same way that someone who is trying to steal IP operates.

             

            ——————————————

             

             

            “The claims were already substantiated in the ERV report.”

            On the contrary, the data in the ERV report proves beyond question that the claims are wrong.

            ***Then you and IH are in the clear to publish that data. Especially if fraud is suspected. Otherwise, it’s just more of the same bullshit.

            ——————————————

             

            “***And I say it’s because he didn’t want his IP stolen.”

            You have to explain how a person can “steal IP” by measuring the heat from a ventilation system or a heat exchanger. Fans and ducts are not secret inventions. They are not IP.

            ***They can steal IP by seeing how he’s got stuff hooked up, by looking at those geiger counters hooked up that are gathering spectrum data, by looking at the waveform that triggers the Mousey thing, by looking at the ash, by stealing some of the ash, by picking up papers lying around that have IP out in the open, by installing listening devices and cameras. That’s just off the top of my head.

            ——————————————

             

             

             

             

            “***There are other ways to disprove it, and IH sat on about half a dozen of them.”

            And what are these other ways? Would you care to list them?

            ***I just did.

            ——————————————

             

            As it happens, I know of several other methods. For example, there are various ways to detect heat without going into a facility. All of these methods were performed, and all showed no evidence of excess heat.

            ***Says IH, who asked you to be quiet about furthering such information. Not exactly trustworthy.

          • JedRothwell

            “***Rossi was invalidating their contract, according to IH’s Motion to Dismiss that you hold so precious. They had a responsibility to tell their investors and the public if they suspected fraud.”

            In the event they suspect fraud, a company has a responsibility to tell their investors, stockholders, and the police. Not the public.

            “You have to explain how a person can “steal IP” by measuring the heat from a ventilation system or a heat exchanger. Fans and ducts are not secret inventions. They are not IP.

            ***They can steal IP by seeing how he’s got stuff hooked up, by looking at those geiger counters hooked up that are gathering spectrum data, by looking at the waveform that triggers the Mousey thing . . .”

            You misunderstand completely. The facility next door is not Rossi’s laboratory. It is J.M. Chemical Products, listed as a chemical distribution warehouse. It is not engaged in research, according to the documents filed with Florida. The only machinery supposedly in this facility was industrial equipment that used the process heat from the reactor for some purpose. J.M. Chemical Products agreed to pay Rossi’s laboratory for the process heat.

            I.H. had full access to Rossi’s lab and his reactor, including Geiger counters and so on. If they were going to steal information from Geiger counters and spectra, they were free to do that. The hot fluid from the reactor went into J.M. Chemicals next door at about 100 deg C, and came back at 60 deg C, according to Rossi. What happened in J.M. Chemicals has nothing to do with Rossi’s discoveries.

            “. . . All of these methods were performed, and all showed no evidence of excess heat.

            ***Says IH, who asked you to be quiet about furthering such information. Not exactly trustworthy.”

            If they had asked me to be quiet about that, I would have said nothing. I have said nothing about many other aspects of this situation.

          • Kevmo

            What happened in J.M. Chemicals has nothing to do with Rossi’s discoveries.
            ***Then there’s no reason to let anyone in to have a look at those marijuana plants growing next door.

          • JedRothwell

            “What happened in J.M. Chemicals has nothing to do with Rossi’s discoveries.
            ***Then there’s no reason to let anyone in to have a look at those marijuana plants growing next door.”

            There is a good reason, as I explained several times. The calorimetry in Rossi’s lab shows no excess heat. The only way to show there is heat is to look in the customer site. That is why the I.H. expert insisted on looking.

            Rossi would get $89 million if there is actually equipment, so obviously it is in his interest to show it. The fact that he did not show it proves there is nothing there. Plus the fact that no heat release from the roof or anywhere else has been detected.

            You deny this and deny it and deny it. Either you do not understand elementary physics, or you pretend you do not understand. You are not fooling anyone, except perhaps yourself. Adding these stupid statements about marijuana plants makes you look even stupider.

          • “The calorimetry in Rossi’s lab shows no excess heat. The only way to show there is heat is to look in the customer site. That is why the I.H. expert insisted on looking.”

            How would looking at the customer’s site possibly trump the obvious and preposterous mistakes (your language) Penon/Rossi made?

            “Rossi would get $89 million if there is actually equipment, so obviously it is in his interest to show it.”

            Again, that makes no sense for reason stated above.

            “The fact that he did not show it proves there is nothing there. Plus the fact that no heat release from the roof or anywhere else has been detected.”

            You are unwilling to buy the idea that the customer wanted their operation kept hidden.

            And this idea that there had to be heat release issues on the customer’s site has been discussed thoroughly here and satisfactorily dealt with by Engineer48 and others. In a nutshell, if the process of production was endothermic then the heat went into the physical product and not into the atmosphere.

            Also, as an aside, are you under the mistaken impression that the customer’s site was in an adjacent warehouse, as Weaver claimed? I believe that this is not the case. Perhaps others here can remind us of where and how the 1MW and the customer’s site were situated. I believe E48 has a picture that shows what the facts are in this matter.

          • Kevmo

            The simple fact is that there’s a bunch of things that can dissipate that heat. And if Rossi was deviating from the test program, they should have cancelled his ticket right there. You can explain it a bunch more times and include even ranker insults, but it just makes you look dumb as frack. You continue to argue from silence, a logical fallacy. You’re the one fooling yourself. You’ve really been off your game. There is nothing stopping IH from publishing the ERV report.

          • Kevmo

            Kevmo: “The claims were already substantiated in the ERV report.”

            Jed: On the contrary, the data in the ERV report proves beyond question that the claims are wrong.
            ***Then there is nothing stopping IH from publishing the ERV report which they said they were gonna publish anyways. And also, Rossi could publish it. And very likely, you, since you’ve already opened up yourself to a libel lawsuit to a potential trillionaire and might as well do the public a favor as you go down in flames.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Jed,
            “I.H. did not fail to verify the flow rate.”

            Then they knew it was in error and still went to the investment community to raise funds. Sounds like fraud on IH’s part to me.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Then they knew it was in error and still went to the investment community to raise funds. Sounds like fraud on IH’s part to me.”

            I doubt that you have any idea when or in what order these events occurred, or what sort of instruments were installed at different times. You were probably not at the meetings, so you have no idea what they told the investment community. So it sounds to me like you are making up stuff and posting it on the internet.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Jed,

            “I doubt that you have any idea when or in what order these events occurred”.

            I also doubt that you have any confirmed documentation about the events as well. Did you make the measurements yourself? If so, publish them. If not, it is just another “IH says”.

            For every test I did, I calibrated the flow before and after. The temperature sensors were also compared against a NIST certified standard. If IH is so “sure”, where is the proof? If they did not check the results that were so surprising, they are in fact foolish, especially when they knew $89Mill was on the line.

            Sorry Jed, but seem look like a smart man, but there are so many holes in your story that I will wait until the proof emerges.

        • Kevmo

          ” If that is what you think, you have not seen his data, choice of instruments or configuration.”
          ***Choice of instruments and configuration were subject to the approval of IH according to the contract. If they’re wildly wrong, IH has no one to blame but themselves.
          When a jury trial comes up and IH points to the data and says ‘the flow rate is off by 20x!”, then Rossi’s attorney simply needs to point to the section of the contract that shows IH approved the instruments and configuration. Done deal, jury wipes their hands, IH is out $89Million.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “***Choice of instruments and configuration were subject to the approval of IH according to the contract.”

            As stated in I.H.’s motion to dismiss, Rossi change the instruments and configuration, in violation of the agreement.

          • Karl Venter

            I have a question about this 36000kg at 0 bar (absolute or Guage)

            When in a system like this your highest pressure is at the point where you pump the liquid water.
            It cant be as Engineer states below that the steam expands 1700 times and will push the steam through the pipe – it will then also push the steam back through the 0 bar pump
            Even in a conventional boiler the highest pressure is the feed pumps that pump the water into the boiler
            I am quite concerned about Engineers statement which is not possible and if you knew boilers with constant flow you would know that 0 bar wont work?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Karl,

            Rossi has never stated the reactor’s outlet steam pressure nor temperature.

            The 0.0 bar number was originally from Weaver and then picked up by Jed. The assumption is it is bar abs but with those 2, who knows how valid that number is. I mean Jed takes a number with 2 digits of significance, 36^3 mtr, and turns it into a number with 5 digits of significance, 36,000kg, when the original number could be anywhere berween 35.500 and 36.499.

            Rossi did advise me to design for 105C superheated steam at 1.2 bar abs.

      • JedRothwell

        Seriously, dude. Do you think I overlooked that? How dumb do you think I am?

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Any where did the energy come from to generate 1MW of superheated steam inside the outlet pipe?

    Assuming the flow was 1, 500kg/hr of water into the boiler (36, 000 kg/day) here is how much energy was needed to heat that much water to the boiling point in 1 hour.

    To heat 1, 500kg of 25C water to boiling:

    E = 4.186 kJ/kgC x 1, 500 kg x 75C = 470, 925 kJ = 130.8 kW-hr or an electrical power input of 130.8kWs for 1 hour, yet the reported electricity bill showed an averaged electrical power usage of only 22kWh per hour which should only have resulted in warm water exiting the reactor outlet if the COP was 1.

    Please note the 130.8 kWs of electrical power would have just started to boil the water. It does not include the extra energy to create 1, 500kg of wet steam nor the massively larger amount of energy needed to turn the 1, 500kg of steam dry.

    So sorry but you can’t feed heat into the outlet pipe to turn warm water flowing out the outlet into superheated steam.

  • JedRothwell

    EEStorFanFibb wrote: “Are you saying thet the instrument that was criminally ‘swapped in’ couldn’t handle 36000 kg/day”

    I did not say anything about “criminally.” I said the same thing I.H. said in their motion to dismiss: the instruments were unsuitable and the measurements were flawed. I concur.

    “When did you get this info?”

    I will leave that to your imagination.

    “Why don’t you want to see it?”

    So as not to affect my evaluation of Rossi’s data.

    “How do you know IH has better information?”

    Because I know what instruments and procedures they used to acquire it.

    • Kevmo

      “I said the same thing I.H. said in their motion to dismiss: the instruments were unsuitable and the measurements were flawed. I concur.”
      ***IH chose the instruments and how the measurements were to be taken by their own independent tester dude, per the contract they signed. If they chose unsuitable instruments and flawed measurements, they’re fracked and will be out $89Million. But I doubt Rossi will see one dime of that money because IH has chosen the high dollar attorney route.

      • JedRothwell

        You wrote: “IH chose the instruments and how the measurements were to be taken by their own independent tester . . .”

        As noted in the I.H. motion to dismiss, Rossi “departed from” the agreed-upon plan. Meaning he did not do what he agreed to do.

        • Kevmo

          Then he never should have passed the ERV report and good luck getting a jury to parse the technical side of all that bowlsheet. If he was “departing from” the plan, it was IH’s responsibility to call attention to it WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. Not when it came time to pay and when the ERV report was positive.

          Like in my soil engineer analogy, the time to order 5X value worth of testing and screaming is on the first test, not the last one.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Then he never should have passed the ERV report and good luck getting a jury to parse the technical side of all that bowlsheet.”

            I don’t know what you mean. “Pass” in what sense? Approve of it? Or pass it on to I.H.?

            I am sure Rossi approved of the calorimetry. As I said, it has all the hallmarks of his handiwork: it is sloppy, dangerous, and half-assed; it proves nothing, and it infuriates the observers even while exposing them to the danger of being burned or filled with metal shards. Just as he did in most previous tests, he agreed to do one thing, and then he went and did another instead, as I.H. stated in their motion to dismiss.

            I think he had no choice but to pass it on to I.H.

            I doubt that a jury will need to examine the ERV report. Such things are usually left to expert witnesses. In this case, an expert witness would be an HVAC engineer licensed by the state of Florida. The problem for Rossi is that any HVAC engineer who testifies that this test was valid and conducted according to Florida codes will be committing perjury, and he may lose his license and livelihood. So I doubt Rossi will find anyone willing to do that. Not many people are as stupid as Penon. He is disqualified, since he is not an HVAC engineer, and he is not licensed in Florida.

            “If he was ‘departing from’ the plan, it was IH’s responsibility to call attention to it WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING.”

            Of course they informed him WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. They informed me and several other people WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. Why would they not tell Rossi? That makes no sense.

          • Kevmo

            “I don’t know what you mean. “Pass” in what sense? Approve of it? Or pass it on to I.H.?”

            ***By most accounts including yours, the ERV report is positive for Rossi. Penon was the tester proposed by IH and agreed to by Rossi. So when Rossi got a positive ERV report, he met the legal requirements in his contract. His demo got a passing grade on the ERV report.

            I am sure Rossi approved of the calorimetry. As I said, it has all the hallmarks of his handiwork: it is sloppy, dangerous, and half-assed; it proves nothing, and it infuriates the observers even while exposing them to the danger of being burned or filled with metal shards. Just as he did in most previous tests, he agreed to do one thing, and then he went and did another instead, as I.H. stated in their motion to dismiss. I think he had no choice but to pass it on to I.H.

            ***So IH is in a position of denigrating the report generated by the expert they nominated. Rossi has a great legal case.

            I doubt that a jury will need to examine the ERV report.

            ***Of course they do. That’s part of deliberation. Remember how stupid the jury was with DNA evidence at the OJ Simpson trial? That’s about the level you can expect from modern jurors.

             

            Such things are usually left to expert witnesses.

            ***Sure, they’re witnesses, but they ain’t on the jury.

             

            In this case, an expert witness would be an HVAC engineer licensed by the state of Florida. The problem for Rossi is that any HVAC engineer who testifies that this test was valid and conducted according to Florida codes will be committing perjury, and he may lose his license and livelihood.

            ***All he needs is Penon to testify. Jurors will fall asleep with the back & forth bullshit between supposed experts. Advantage Rossi. I don’t recall if the legal documents say that the test was supposed to be conducted according to Florida HVAC codes, but yet again, that would have been IH’s responsibility.

             

            So I doubt Rossi will find anyone willing to do that.

            ***He doesn’t need to.

             

            Not many people are as stupid as Penon. He is disqualified, since he is not an HVAC engineer, and he is not licensed in Florida.

            ***It does not matter. He worked with IH before, was nominated by them to be the tester & ERV report writer, Rossi agreed and they signed a contract over it.

            Kevmo: “If he was ‘departing from’ the plan, it was IH’s responsibility to call attention to it WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING.”

            Jed: Of course they informed him WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. They informed me and several other people WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. Why would they not tell Rossi? That makes no sense.

            ***Well, Jed, I’ve been a fan of yours for several years on Vortex and do not recall you ever calling any attention to IH informing you WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. If their contract was being ignored and they knew it, it was their responsibility to void it WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. Your entire demeanor has changed in the last few weeks to the point that you are looking for ways to misinterpret what people write plainly.

          • JedRothwell

            “***By most accounts including yours, the ERV report is positive for Rossi.”

            Yes, I believe it is. Rossi’s calorimetry shows ~1 MW of heat. However, it is invalid.

            “Penon was the tester proposed by IH and agreed to by Rossi. So when Rossi got a positive ERV report, he met the legal requirements in his contract.”

            That is not how contracts work in the real world. You have to actually perform the work per specification. You can’t just have some guy claim you did, even if that is part of the contract. For example, suppose this was a contract to build a house. After some time, the contractor shows up with a letter from an approved building inspector saying “this house is finished and built according to code.” So you drive to the site and you find . . . a hole in the ground, a large pile of rotting lumber, concrete ruined by rain, rats and debris everywhere.

            That contract is not fulfilled. You don’t have to pay. The part about the third party expert testifying that the job was done right does not overrule the fact that the job itself was done wrong. No court would ever force you to pay.

            “Well, Jed, I’ve been a fan of yours for several years on Vortex and do not recall you ever calling any attention to IH informing you WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING.”

            If you think I would do that, you do not know me. I never, ever reveal information that researchers or companies ask me to keep confidential. I have refrained from uploading several hundred papers, because the authors did not grant permission.

            As I said here, I.H. was hoping that Rossi would clean up his act and do the test properly. They did not want to upset him more than necessary, or have him quit before the agreed upon time. They wanted to give him every opportunity. They asked everyone, including me, to let the test go to the end before making any announcement. I think any corporation would do that. It is the correct, professional thing to do.

            After all, Rossi might have fixed the problems. It was his choice not to. He might have fixed them even in the last month or so. Suppose the gadget actually worked, and he had shown convincing proof in the last several weeks of the test. They would have paid him $89 million, and all would be well.

            I too was hoping he would fix the problems. I was somewhat optimistic even toward the end, which is why I agree to take part in Mats Lewan’s symposium.

            “Your entire demeanor has changed in the last few weeks . . .

            Because I became aware that that Rossi was engaged in massive fraud, and he sucked $11 million away from legitimate cold fusion research. That makes me angry. I felt the same when Defkalion’s fraud was revealed here:

            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

            If you think I am upset, you should talk to the people at I.H.

            “. . . to the point that you are looking for ways to misinterpret what people write plainly.”

            Oh for goodness sake. When I ask you what you mean by “passed” it is because I fail to understand. There is no rhetorical plus to my pretending I misunderstand — I really did fail to understand.

          • Kevmo

            Kevmo:***By most accounts including yours, the ERV report is positive for Rossi.”

            Jed: Yes, I believe it is. Rossi’s calorimetry shows ~1 MW of heat. However, it is invalid.

            ***That is your opinion. The ERV report opinion counts much more than yours.

             

            Kevmo: “Penon was the tester proposed by IH and agreed to by Rossi. So when Rossi got a positive ERV report, he met the legal requirements in his contract.”

            Jed: That is not how contracts work in the real world.

            ***That is precisely how contracts work in the real world.

             

            Jed: You have to actually perform the work per specification.

            ***And Rossi performed the work per specification. The ERV report is verification of it.

             

            Jed: You can’t just have some guy claim you did, even if that is part of the contract.

            ***That is precisely how contracts function. If both sides agree on the tester, his word is the deciding factor.

            Jed: For example, suppose this was a contract to build a house. After some time, the contractor shows up with a letter from an approved building inspector saying “this house is finished and built according to code.” So you drive to the site and you find . . . a hole in the ground, a large pile of rotting lumber, concrete ruined by rain, rats and debris everywhere.

            That contract is not fulfilled. You don’t have to pay. The part about the third party expert testifying that the job was done right does not overrule the fact that the job itself was done wrong. No court would ever force you to pay.

            ***If the building inspector was agreed to by both sides of the contract, then the contract is fulfilled and the only real recourse is for the owner to claim fraud on one or both parties. But it is highly suspicious that the owner visited the site several times during the building phase and nodded his head & said nothing negative.

             

             

            Kevmo: “Well, Jed, I’ve been a fan of yours for several years on Vortex and do not recall you ever calling any attention to IH informing you WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING.”

            If you think I would do that, you do not know me. I never, ever reveal information that researchers or companies ask me to keep confidential. I have refrained from uploading several hundred papers, because the authors did not grant permission.

            ***Then you are proceeding from silence of the evidence. IH never said squat to the general public like me, so they hung themselves out to dry.

             

            Jed As I said here, I.H. was hoping that Rossi would clean up his act and do the test properly. They did not want to upset him more than necessary, or have him quit before the agreed upon time. They wanted to give him every opportunity. They asked everyone, including me, to let the test go to the end before making any announcement. I think any corporation would do that. It is the correct, professional thing to do.

            ***Nope. Because they let a fraud get perpetuated and the positive ERV report makes them look like they were trying to steal Rossi’s IP. Professionals steal IP all the time, it is “the professional thing to do.”

             

             

            Jed: After all, Rossi might have fixed the problems. It was his choice not to. He might have fixed them even in the last month or so. Suppose the gadget actually worked, and he had shown convincing proof in the last several weeks of the test. They would have paid him $89 million, and all would be well.

            ***That was Penon’s responsibility to fix the problems, and IH’s responsibility to call foul. IH basically screwed the pooch or were caught red handed trying to appropriate Rossi’s IP. Either way, they are fracked.

             

             

            I too was hoping he would fix the problems. I was somewhat optimistic even toward the end, which is why I agree to take part in Mats Lewan’s symposium.

            ***You’re kinda quiet about IH’s responsibility in this matter. Do you have a paper trail that corroborates what you tell us? If so, you can testify in the trial. If not, it’s just another bunch of hearsay bullshit that’s been circling LENR like vultures for 25 years.

             

             

            Jed: “Your entire demeanor has changed in the last few weeks . . .

            Because I became aware that that Rossi was engaged in massive fraud, and he sucked $11 million away from legitimate cold fusion research. That makes me angry. I felt the same when Defkalion’s fraud was revealed here:

            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/G

            ***Oh, good, you’re calling Rossi a fraud in writing and probably have the paper trail to back up what you say. Otherwise you’re susceptible to a libel lawsuit.

             

            Jed: If you think I am upset, you should talk to the people at I.H.

            ***The people at IH should talk to us LENR afficianados. They’re notably quiet. Why is that? If they lost $11M they should at least have squawking rights.

            Jed quoting Kevmo”. . . to the point that you are looking for ways to misinterpret what people write plainly.”

            Oh for goodness sake. When I ask you what you mean by “passed” it is because I fail to understand. There is no rhetorical plus to my pretending I misunderstand — I really did fail to understand.

            ***Okie dokie, but I wasn’t just commenting on the ‘passed’ stuff. It’s more generalized to your demeanor on Vortex as well as here lately.

          • JedRothwell

            “Jed: Yes, I believe it is. Rossi’s calorimetry shows ~1 MW of heat. However, it is invalid.

            ***That is your opinion. The ERV report opinion counts much more than yours.”

            Well, perhaps if you get a chance to review the report you will agree with my opinion. You will see that the experts at I.H. are right. Until you get a chance to do that, I suggest you refrain from trying to judge this. You need to hear from both sides, and you need to think carefully. This is a technical dispute and you have no technical information.

            “***That is precisely how contracts function. If both sides agree on the tester, his word is the deciding factor.”

            I have been in business for 40 years and I assure you that is not how things work in the real world. Definitely not in the building trades or the computer business. If the computer gets the wrong answer, the contract is void, no matter what your expert claims.

            “***Oh, good, you’re calling Rossi a fraud in writing and probably have the paper trail to back up what you say. Otherwise you’re susceptible to a libel lawsuit.”

            His data proves he is a fraud. Or an idiot. If he sues me, I will publish his data. That’s the last thing he wants.

            At worst, I will be guilty of making an incorrect analysis of his data.

            I expect his plate is full in any case. Lots of people are calling him a fraud. I happen to know why he is, in more detail than most people do. But even you can see he is a fraud. Look at the way he refused to let the I.H. expert into the pretend customer site.

    • Kevmo

      I will leave that to your imagination.

      ***Confidentiality rabbit hole bullshit.

  • JedRothwell

    Bruce_H wrote: “Are the deficiencies as obvious as that?”

    In my opinion, yes. I am not an expert or an HVAC engineer, but I have fairly extensive experience doing laboratory scale calorimetry, and I spent about a month working with HVAC engineers on various large scale systems. (Mostly by staying out of their way, and learning how to do air-flow measurements and steam sparging with ~60 kW systems without getting myself killed. One of the reasons I do not think this is a 1 MW reactor is that it seems smaller, less powerful and safer to work with than those 60 kW boilers.)

    Anyway, the deficiencies seemed obvious to me after 10 minutes of evaluation. For example, it was clear why the I.H. expert insisted on seeing the customer site. I do not think think you can reliably measure the heat using only the instruments in Rossi’s lab. Rossi refused to let the I.H. expert into the customer site because he said it was not necessary, as he explained in the Lewan interview.

    I believe the I.H. people later fixed this problem.

  • JedRothwell

    You wrote: “Do you mean ERV’s data?”

    I can’t tell if the author is Rossi or Penon. Anyway, Penon is Rossi’s puppet. Rossi is in charge there. This is his handiwork. It is the same kind of sloppy, half-baked, idiotic test he did previously, such as when he almost blew up Jim Dunn and those nice people from NASA.

    The guy is a loose cannon.

    • Kevmo

      Penon worked with IH before he worked alongside Rossi.

  • readers need to ask themselves if Jed is being clear and forthright in answering these questions I’ve posed to him yesterday and today.

    https://disqus.com/by/EEStorFanFibb/

    I think, given the importance of the invention, and the accusations made against the inventor by Jed, he should be crystal clear about what he knows and doesn’t know. Don’t you?

    • JedRothwell

      You are making far too many assumptions about events & situations that you know nothing about. I do not have time, so one example will have to suffice. You wrote:

      “They must have failed for about a year, or the test would have been stopped early. You can’t possibly believe the test was allowed to continue even one day after IH discovered the problem with the flow rate.”

      First, as far as I know, I.H. was not in a position to “allow” the test or disallow it. The fact that Rossi refused to let the I.H. expert into the customer site tells you they were not fully in control.

      Second, perhaps you would have stopped the test as soon as you found a problem, but others would not. That would be precipitous, and pointless. It wasn’t costing I.H. anything to let Rossi continue.

      I personally have continued for weeks or months participating in experiments even after I was pretty sure the test was being done wrong or it was a dead-end approach. When you do research, you have to put up with failure. Most experiments end badly. Many researchers do things that other researchers feel are a mistake. Rossi in particular never listens to advice from others.

      I.H. found problems. They asked Rossi to fix them. He did various things, but he did not address the issues. They hoped he would. They gave him plenty of time. They and I both sincerely hoped the problems would be addressed. As I said many times, you can see I sincerely hoped that, because I signed up for Lewan’s symposium. In the end, Rossi did not improve the test.

      Most of your other criticisms are similarly based on your own mistaken assumptions and ignorance of the situation.

      You criticize me for not giving more information. This is grossly unfair. You should be demanding information from Rossi, not me. I can only say that which has already been revealed by Rossi or I.H. I cannot reveal anything new. Those are the rules. I explained them clearly, several times. I can put the information in context, and explain what it means, and clarify some misunderstandings. For example, Kevmo thought that “the fact that I.H, say they can’t substantiate Rossi’s claims is not the same as denying that it works.” That is incorrect. Based on their their Motion to Dismiss, their press releases, and their comments to me I am quite sure they deny that it works. That does not mean they are right; it means they are sure.

      If you don’t want to believe me, stop kvetching and stop reading my messages. You should be thankful I can tell you a little. You will get no explanation, clarification or proof of anything from Rossi.

      • IIRC, one of the conditions for the last milestone test was that the 1MW plant work well, without fail, for about 350 days. Even if Rossi corrected his “mistakes” to everyone’s satisfaction in the last month it wouldn’t matter one bit. IH would not be obliged to pay him anything. This was an endurance test as much as anything.

        IF IH didn’t know whether the ecat worked or not years before the 1MW/350 day test started then they are beyond inept.

        • JedRothwell

          You wrote: “IIRC, one of the conditions for the last milestone test was that the 1MW plant work well, without fail, for about 350 days. Even if Rossi corrected his “mistakes” to everyone’s satisfaction in the last month it wouldn’t matter one bit.”

          I have not read the contract carefully, so I’ll take your word for that. However, let us assume for the sake of argument that the machine worked as he claimed. The I.H. experts disagreed. They told him they did not think so. Anyone would have told him that, because the test was sloppy, and every indication you could read from it showed no excess heat.

          Here’s the thing. 350 days ago, Rossi could have easily convinced I.H. that the device is real after all, despite his abominable calorimetry. He could have opened the door to the customer site next door. He owned that site. He had the keys, and he was often seen going in there. He could have asked the I.H. experts to sign an NDA not to discuss the equipment in there, and in any case, the expert did not need to look closely. The expert could measure the heat at a few places, and then at the ventilation equipment. That would confirm the 1 MW heat release. All endothermic industrial processes release nearly all process heat as waste heat.

          That would have resolved everything. But Rossi refused to do that. Why do you think he did that? I say it is because anyone looking in that room would see there is only a small radiator there, and that would be the final nail in the coffin, proving beyond doubt the claim is false. I say that because all of the evidence in Rossi’s own data points to that conclusion. The only way to disprove it would be to open the door to the customer site.

          • Jed: However, let us assume for the sake of argument that the machine worked as he claimed. The I.H. experts disagreed.

            ***Then as was posted upthread, surely all those 51 days of missing the mark did not happen at the final month. That would have happened earlier in the test cycle, and IH would have been monitoring the progress & known to keep pushing back the final release date. But instead, they wait until after the ERV report was submitted, and after some time they said they couldn’t ‘substantiate’ the claims. Bullshit. They couldn’t replicate it themselves without Rossi. The claims were already substantiated in the ERV report.

             

            They told him they did not think so. Anyone would have told him that, because the test was sloppy, and every indication you could read from it showed no excess heat.

            ***So they waited until after the ERV report was submitted to say so. Complete, utter bullshit.

             
            ——————————————————————
            Here’s the thing. 350 days ago, Rossi could have easily convinced I.H. that the device is real after all, despite his abominable calorimetry. He could have opened the door to the customer site next door. He owned that site. He had the keys, and he was often seen going in there. He could have asked the I.H. experts to sign an NDA not to discuss the equipment in there, and in any case, the expert did not need to look closely. The expert could measure the heat at a few places, and then at the ventilation equipment. That would confirm the 1 MW heat release. All endothermic industrial processes release nearly all process heat as waste heat.

            ***Remember when Rossi got real upset that Celani was measuring gamma rays off his device and tried to get a spectra? Rossi shut him down right away because there’s a serious clue as to how it all works when you do that. So maybe Rossi had some other serious clue that any knowing person would catch right away and steal his IP straightway by entering that customer site.

            ——————————————————————
            That would have resolved everything. But Rossi refused to do that.

            ***Since you’re so busy arguing from silence then address why Rossi wanted spectra testing shut down immediately. And then apply that same argument to someone going into the customer site looking to steal Rossi’s IP.

             
            ——————————————————————
            Why do you think he did that? I say it is because anyone looking in that room would see there is only a small radiator there,

            ***And I say it’s because he didn’t want his IP stolen. Another might say because they would see little green aliens operating the machinery. See how this logical fallacy of arguing from silence works?

             

             ——————————————————————

            and that would be the final nail in the coffin, proving beyond doubt the claim is false. I say that because all of the evidence in Rossi’s own data points to that conclusion. The only way to disprove it would be to open the door to the customer site.

            ***There are other ways to disprove it, and IH sat on about half a dozen of them.

          • JedRothwell

            “***So they waited until after the ERV report was submitted to say so. Complete, utter bullshit.”

            No, they did not wait. They told him. They told several people, including me. However, they did not announce it to the general public, and they asked everyone they told to keep it confidential, in the hope that the disagreements could be resolved.

            “The claims were already substantiated in the ERV report.”

            On the contrary, the data in the ERV report proves beyond question that the claims are wrong.

            “***And I say it’s because he didn’t want his IP stolen.”

            You have to explain how a person can “steal IP” by measuring the heat from a ventilation system or a heat exchanger. Fans and ducts are not secret inventions. They are not IP.

            “***There are other ways to disprove it, and IH sat on about half a dozen of them.”

            And what are these other ways? Would you care to list them?

            As it happens, I know of several other methods. For example, there are various ways to detect heat without going into a facility. All of these methods were performed, and all showed no evidence of excess heat.

          • Jed: No, they did not wait. They told him.

            ***So since you’re sticking with this complete line of bullshit I’ll reiterate that telling the fox to stop raiding the henhouse is no way to perform due diligence when you’re investing other people’s money.

            ——————————————

             

             

            They told several people, including me. However, they did not announce it to the general public, and they asked everyone they told to keep it confidential, in the hope that the disagreements could be resolved.

            ***Rossi was invalidating their contract, according to IH’s Motion to Dismiss that you hold so precious. They had a responsibility to tell their investors and the public if they suspected fraud. But for months, they didn’t suspect fraud, hoping ‘disagreements’ could be resolved? In those months did they even bother to make one phone call to their lawyers? Did they push back the obviously unattainable 350 day test result? NO. They operated in exactly the same way that someone who is trying to steal IP operates.

             

            ——————————————

             

             

            “The claims were already substantiated in the ERV report.”

            On the contrary, the data in the ERV report proves beyond question that the claims are wrong.

            ***Then you and IH are in the clear to publish that data. Especially if fraud is suspected. Otherwise, it’s just more of the same bullshit.

            ——————————————

             

            “***And I say it’s because he didn’t want his IP stolen.”

            You have to explain how a person can “steal IP” by measuring the heat from a ventilation system or a heat exchanger. Fans and ducts are not secret inventions. They are not IP.

            ***They can steal IP by seeing how he’s got stuff hooked up, by looking at those geiger counters hooked up that are gathering spectrum data, by looking at the waveform that triggers the Mousey thing, by looking at the ash, by stealing some of the ash, by picking up papers lying around that have IP out in the open, by installing listening devices and cameras. That’s just off the top of my head.

            ——————————————

             

             

             

             

            “***There are other ways to disprove it, and IH sat on about half a dozen of them.”

            And what are these other ways? Would you care to list them?

            ***I just did.

            ——————————————

             

            As it happens, I know of several other methods. For example, there are various ways to detect heat without going into a facility. All of these methods were performed, and all showed no evidence of excess heat.

            ***Says IH, who asked you to be quiet about furthering such information. Not exactly trustworthy.

          • JedRothwell

            “***Rossi was invalidating their contract, according to IH’s Motion to Dismiss that you hold so precious. They had a responsibility to tell their investors and the public if they suspected fraud.”

            In the event they suspect fraud, a company has a responsibility to tell their investors, stockholders, and the police. Not the public.

            “You have to explain how a person can “steal IP” by measuring the heat from a ventilation system or a heat exchanger. Fans and ducts are not secret inventions. They are not IP.

            ***They can steal IP by seeing how he’s got stuff hooked up, by looking at those geiger counters hooked up that are gathering spectrum data, by looking at the waveform that triggers the Mousey thing . . .”

            You misunderstand completely. The facility next door is not Rossi’s laboratory. It is J.M. Chemical Products, listed as a chemical distribution warehouse. It is not engaged in research, according to the documents filed with Florida. The only machinery supposedly in this facility was industrial equipment that used the process heat from the reactor for some purpose. J.M. Chemical Products agreed to pay Rossi’s laboratory for the process heat.

            I.H. had full access to Rossi’s lab and his reactor, including Geiger counters and so on. If they were going to steal information from Geiger counters and spectra, they were free to do that. The hot fluid from the reactor went into J.M. Chemicals next door at about 100 deg C, and came back at 60 deg C, according to Rossi. What happened in J.M. Chemicals has nothing to do with Rossi’s discoveries.

            “. . . All of these methods were performed, and all showed no evidence of excess heat.

            ***Says IH, who asked you to be quiet about furthering such information. Not exactly trustworthy.”

            If they had asked me to be quiet about that, I would have said nothing. I have said nothing about many other aspects of this situation.

          • What happened in J.M. Chemicals has nothing to do with Rossi’s discoveries.
            ***Then there’s no reason to let anyone in to have a look at those marijuana plants growing next door.

          • JedRothwell

            “What happened in J.M. Chemicals has nothing to do with Rossi’s discoveries.
            ***Then there’s no reason to let anyone in to have a look at those marijuana plants growing next door.”

            There is a good reason, as I explained several times. The calorimetry in Rossi’s lab shows no excess heat. The only way to show there is heat is to look in the customer site. That is why the I.H. expert insisted on looking.

            Rossi would get $89 million if there is actually equipment, so obviously it is in his interest to show it. The fact that he did not show it proves there is nothing there. Plus the fact that no heat release from the roof or anywhere else has been detected.

            You deny this and deny it and deny it. Either you do not understand elementary physics, or you pretend you do not understand. You are not fooling anyone, except perhaps yourself. Adding these stupid statements about marijuana plants makes you look even stupider.

          • “The calorimetry in Rossi’s lab shows no excess heat. The only way to show there is heat is to look in the customer site. That is why the I.H. expert insisted on looking.”

            How would looking at the customer’s site possibly trump the obvious and preposterous mistakes (your language) Penon/Rossi made?

            “Rossi would get $89 million if there is actually equipment, so obviously it is in his interest to show it.”

            Again, that makes no sense for reason stated above.

            “The fact that he did not show it proves there is nothing there. Plus the fact that no heat release from the roof or anywhere else has been detected.”

            You are unwilling to buy the idea that the customer wanted their operation kept hidden.

            And this idea that there had to be heat release issues on the customer’s site has been discussed thoroughly here and satisfactorily dealt with by Engineer48 and others. In a nutshell, if the process of production was endothermic then the heat went into the physical product and not into the atmosphere.

            Also, as an aside, are you under the mistaken impression that the customer’s site was in an adjacent warehouse, as Weaver claimed? I believe that this is not the case. Perhaps others here can remind us of where and how the 1MW and the customer’s site were situated. I believe E48 has a picture that shows what the facts are in this matter.

          • The simple fact is that there’s a bunch of things that can dissipate that heat. And if Rossi was deviating from the test program, they should have cancelled his ticket right there. You can explain it a bunch more times and include even ranker insults, but it just makes you look dumb as frack. You continue to argue from silence, a logical fallacy. You’re the one fooling yourself. You’ve really been off your game. There is nothing stopping IH from publishing the ERV report.

          • JD: “. . . All of these methods were performed, and all showed no evidence of excess heat.”

            Kevmo: “***Says IH, who asked you to be quiet about furthering such information. Not exactly trustworthy.”

            JD: “If they had asked me to be quiet about that, I would have said nothing. I have said nothing about many other aspects of this situation.”

            Jed that is not something you should have kept secret. You are now implicated in a multi-million dollar fraud. But keep digging I’m enjoying watching you self destruct.

            Let’s summarize: According to Jed, IH discovers early on that Penon and Rossi has grossly deviated from the agreed to data acquisition plan and ignores IH’s request to address the issues. IH says nothing publicly but and allows the test to continue for hundreds of days.

            If IH (as Rossi says and video footage can potentially support) during the middle of the test was selling more investors on the idea that the plant works while they knew there were major issues then IH committed fraud as well. Let’s not forget that there were 4 ERV reports all saying the same thing. That the plant works and has a COP averaging over 50. IH had ample opportunity to stop the test and fire Penon and try to correct everything.

            I think IH (and Jed) are at fault for not blowing the whistle when the issue arose. Unless of course the plant really does work and IH is just refusing to pay Rossi because the invention of the QuarkX has forced IH to play nasty hard ball.

          • Kevmo: “The claims were already substantiated in the ERV report.”

            Jed: On the contrary, the data in the ERV report proves beyond question that the claims are wrong.
            ***Then there is nothing stopping IH from publishing the ERV report which they said they were gonna publish anyways. And also, Rossi could publish it. And very likely, you, since you’ve already opened up yourself to a libel lawsuit to a potential trillionaire and might as well do the public a favor as you go down in flames.

          • Bruce__H

            The most important thing you have said here, (for the “no reason to look behind the door” crowd) is that you believe only a SMALL radiator would be found. In other words, not a radiator capable of dissipating 1 MW of heat per day.

            Is that correct?

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “The most important thing you have said here, (for the “no reason to look behind the door” crowd) is that you believe only a SMALL radiator would be found. In other words, not a radiator capable of dissipating 1 MW of heat per day.

            Is that correct?”

            Correct.

            Rossi claims there is industrial equipment using 1 MW of process heat. That is to say, heat rather than steam; the fluid all comes back as water at 60 deg C. This could easily be confirmed by examining either the equipment or the ventilation system.

            In any industrial process, nearly all the process heat ends up as waste heat. It has to be safely disposed of, according to code. Two methods are allowed in Florida: air ventilation, with a 22″ vent and powerful fan, or steam. You cannot dispose of this much heat by heating water. That would take ~3 times more water than a large factory uses, because of temperature restrictions. The water service pipe to a building of this size is not big enough.

            Air ventilation or steam of 1 MW is very easy to detect. Even from outside the building, you could measure it at the street level or on the roof. I.H. and others have checked and found there is no 22″ vent — just an ordinary HVAC vent, and no heat release of this magnitude from any part of the building.

            I believe there is only a small radiator first because there is no large heat release, and second because I estimated there is little or no excess heat. Certainly not 1 MW. The error margin is so large I cannot rule out some excess heat from Rossi’s data. However, I.H. says they have better data which conclusively rules it out.

            Here is the Google map view of the roof. The vents for each rental unit in the building are on the left side of this image. One unit has small AC fans (5th from the top). None of these vents or fans is big enough to vent 1 MW, and no such heat release has been detected. I think this photo was taken in 2014, but I have heard it looks the same now.

            https://www.google.com/maps/@25.8157611,-80.3250736,204m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

          • sam

            AR should have provided some photos of
            inside the customers plant to TD.
            Surely there would be no harm in that.
            He would have some idea of production.

          • JedRothwell

            Photos would not do the job. Just seeing equipment does not tell you how much heat that equipment is consuming.

            However, as I said, even though he blocked the door, I have heard that I.H. and others found ways to estimate the heat from the rental unit. So the issue is settled.

            Heat has to go somewhere, and there has to be vent or a steam pipe, so it is not hard to confirm 1 MW of heat. Methods of detecting heat from outside a building are not precise. I do not think anyone could detect 20 kW input and 30 kW output, with 10 kW of excess heat. But you can’t miss 1 MW.

            The police use IR cameras to detect heat from outside of buildings to find hidden indoor marijuana farms. See, for example:

            http://www.citylab.com/tech/2013/10/police-can-find-your-marijuana-grow-house-heat-sensing-helicopters/7246/

          • sam

            How do you know that I.H.testing
            was done properly.

          • JedRothwell

            They told me about the methods, instruments and so on. I have a general idea of what they did, and I think it meets the normal standards of HVAC testing in Florida. Plus, those people are sharp. They know way more than I do about calorimetry.

            They did not give me any specific numbers, so as not to prejudice my analysis of Rossi’s data. I want my analysis to be entirely based on Rossi’s work. With my interpretation, of course. His interpretation is that there is 1 MW of heat. His numbers, taken at face value, do indicate that. I am not suggesting he made an arithmetic error. I agree with I.H. that the instruments were probably unsuitable and the measurements flawed. Of course we could be wrong.

            I personally have done many studies with unsuitable instruments and flawed measurements. So I recognize ’em when I see ’em. I am an expert only by to Bohr’s definition: “someone who has made every possible mistake.”

            The people at I.H. are experts by official standards, such as advanced degrees. My degree is in Japanese, with advanced degrees in programming, assembly language, Pascal, instrument interfacing, calorimetry and so on from the School of Hard Knocks. As Franklin put it, experience is a dear teacher, but a fool will learn at no other.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            How do you know the data you have is from Rossi and has not been tempered with?

            You said it was from several tests?

            1) Which tests are the data from?

            2) How did you confirm your 2nd data is accurate?

            3) How do you know the instruments and their locations in each of the several tests?

          • JedRothwell

            “How do you know the data you have is from Rossi and has not been tempered with?”

            I have already answered this question. Please review my messages. To summarize, some people I have known for a long time outside of I.H. saw the tests and read the data directly from the instruments. These are old fashioned instruments with faceplates and displays. Plus, Rossi gave the data to Lewan who published it, and it is the same as I have.

            I have some other means of verification which I won’t get into.

            “How do you know the instruments and their locations in each of the several tests?”

            A schematic, and eyewitness reports.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed, who write:
            “Plus, Rossi gave the data to Lewan who published it, and it is the same as I have.”

            Excellent news. Finally we are moving forward.

            And the link to the Rossi data Mats published is?

          • JedRothwell
          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            There is no output pressure nor temperature data there, so where is your data from?

            BTW Rossi did respond to my email

            Jed has no data at all, they are trying to make me give data that can be disclosed only in Court.
            You can simply respond that Mt Rothwell is an imbecile who talks of data that he has invented.
            Thank you for your help,
            Warmest Regards,
            Andrea

          • JedRothwell

            “There is no output pressure nor temperature data there, so where is your data from?”

            There was flow rate, fluid temp in and out, and some other things I confirmed with Lewan.

            My data is from Rossi, as I mentioned before. He denies it. If the ERV is ever published, you will see at once who is lying here, and who is telling the truth. I would be pretty stupid to lie about numbers that anyone can check in an instant. Rossi calibrates his lies carefully, making them somewhat sort of hard to pin down or disprove even when the facts are against him. He has done a great job doing that with his pretend customer.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            So you confirm you have from the 1 year test

            1) ERV monitored data?

            2) ERV instruments used?

            3) ERV instrument locations?

            4) Where not given this information by IH or Rossi?

            5) Have somehow managed to confirm all the 2nd hand information you received is correct without involving IH or Rossi, as surely they might be upset that data had leaked.

            If you haven’t confirmed accurate ERV data from the 1 year test, then why are you posting statements made from old, not relevant and unsubstantiated data?

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “1) ERV monitored data?”

            I confirm I have some of it. Enough to give me confidence in my analysis.

            “2) ERV instruments used?
            3) ERV instrument locations?”

            Yup.

            “5) Have somehow managed to confirm all the 2nd hand information you received . . .”

            I wouldn’t call it second hand. I confirmed that the configuration and instrument readings in the sample data are correct. People I trust a great deal said that’s what the test showed. Plus some people I do not trust so much confirmed it.

            That’s all there is to it.

            We’ll have to skip your other questions. And you will have to wait to see the ERV before you know whether I am telling the truth, or Rossi is. It is regrettable the ERV has not been published.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            So if your data is ERV data, supplied to you by IH, why do you refer to it as Rossi data?

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “So if your data is ERV data, supplied to you by IH, why do you refer to it as Rossi data?”

            Shorthand. I mean the data from Rossi’s lab. I can’t tell whether Rossi collected it or Penon did.

            I strongly suspect Penon is Rossi’s puppet, and Rossi designed the test and collected the data. I say this because only Rossi could come up with such a sloppy, infuriating, outrageous, deceptive test. Only he would have the chutzpah to remove essential instruments and violate agreements so brazenly.

            Perhaps Penon merely signed off on this test. Penon authored an idiotic report in 2012:

            http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf

            Rossi said Penon should not be blamed for that because he only signed off on it, he didn’t actually write it. That’s not actually a valid excuse; you are responsible when sign a report just as much as when you author it. But I wonder if perhaps Rossi saw this 2012 report and figured: “Ah, ha! I will hire this nitwit, write a ridiculous Rossi-style non-report, and then have him sign it! I can foist it off on the court and get another $89 million.”

            Rossi uses people. He destroys lives & careers for profit. He destroyed Mats Lewan. He played him for a fool, leading him on, telling him he would release the ERV. Lewan spent a lot of time and his own money organizing his symposium, which he said would only happen if the ERV was published and positive. Rossi must have planned all along to file the lawsuit and then use that as an excuse to withhold the ERV. He knows the ERV proves he has no excess heat, and it makes him look like a fool or a fraud. Rossi is not stupid. He knows that as well as I do.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            What do you mean “the data from Rossi’s lab”?

            The 1 year test reactor was built & owned by IH. You surely mean the data collected by the ERV’s instruments, attached to the 1 year test reactor?

            Those ERV instruments, their location and monitoring/recording method were approved by the IH experts before the ERV acquired and installed the instruments.

            So if the instruments, locations and data were bad, the fault is with IH and not Rossi.

            I find it hard to accept your statement:
            “I strongly suspect Penon is Rossi’s puppet, and Rossi designed the test and collected the data. I say this because only Rossi could come up with such a sloppy, infuriating, outrageous, deceptive test. Only he would have the chutzpah to remove essential instruments and violate agreements so brazenly.”

            I guess you have no proof to offer about the above statement?

          • JedRothwell

            “What do you mean “the data from Rossi’s lab”?”

            I mean the data from test conducted in Rossi’s lab in Florida. Does he have any other labs?

            “The 1 year test reactor was built & owned by IH.”

            As far as I know, it was built by Rossi.

            “You surely mean the data collected by the ERV’s instruments, attached to the 1 year test reactor?”

            Yes, the ERV, Rossi’s puppet.

            “‘I strongly suspect Penon is Rossi’s puppet, and Rossi designed the test and collected the data. . . . ‘

            I guess you have no proof to offer about the above statement?”

            The paragraph begins “I strongly suspect . . .” If I had proof, I wouldn’t say that, would I? I would say, “I know for a fact that . . .”

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Better check with IH. The reactors used in the 1 year test were, AFAIK, built by IH in Raleigh and then shipped to Doral.

            Rossi’s lab is not the 1 year plant test site. So is your data from some test that was run in Rossi’s Florida lab or is it the ERV data from the 1 year test plant?

            Jed, just maybe if you have no proof of such claims, such as your Penon claim, maybe better to hold off making such potentially libelous claims until you have proof.

            I mean so far Jed you have not presented any proof to support anything you claim or suspect is true.

          • Bruce__H

            Engineer has mentioned a number of times that the equipment for the 1 year 1 MW test was built by IH. This is certainly what Rossi seems to say. But I note that in the contract between IH and Rossi it mentions that the ECAT is to by Leonardo Corp and then shipped to the IH premises. So I don’t know what the actual situation is. When I pointed out to Engineer the section of the contract stating this, I did not receive a reply.

          • so much highly distasteful, libelous language from Jed today.

          • Jed, you’re not really making a strong case for putting any faith in your calorimetry abilities with that kind of admission.

          • Bruce__H

            I had wondered if anyone had done some thermal imaging.

            I’m finding this a persuasive case that there was no 1 MW production during this test.

          • Bruce__H

            I don’t know how solid your information about the lack of measurable large-scale emenations heat is but I like the idea of treating the 2 rooms — the ECAT lab and the Room Next Door — as a black box with associated inputs and outputs. We are presently looking for a 1 MW output from somewhere inside the box to the outside and not seeing any likely suspects.

          • “350 days ago, Rossi could have easily convinced I.H. that the device is real after all, despite his abominable calorimetry”

            Easily? despite being abominable? What do you take IH for, idiots. I thought you said they were competent.

          • “The expert could measure the heat at a few places, and then at the ventilation equipment. That would confirm the 1 MW heat release. All endothermic industrial processes release nearly all process heat as waste heat.That would have resolved everything.”

            I seriously doubt that would resolve anything if the data measurements on the plant side were already deemed to be faulty.

            If the production plant owner wished to remain anonymous and had valuable IP to protect and put that condition on Rossi, I can understand why Rossi would not allow the inspection. His hands were tied because he expected to do business with secret company in the future. Plus it was unnecessary to see that operation.

          • JedRothwell

            “I seriously doubt that would resolve anything if the data measurements on the plant side were already deemed to be faulty.”

            Why wouldn’t it? The measurements on the plant side would have nothing to do with the measurements on the ventilation at the customer site. They would be totally independent, which is the beauty of it. This would supersede the controversy, and make it unnessary for Rossi to improve his instruments to convince I.H. This measurement would employ a different set of instruments and techniques. It would an industry standard HVAC procedure, which is done thousands of times a day in Florida. Any HVAC engineer can do it with 100% confidence.

            The result is imprecise by the standards of laboratory calorimetry, but it is accurate. There is no way you could mistake 20 kW for 1 MW.

            This web page has a nifty video of a guy demonstrating how to measure the heat flow in a vent:

            http://www.trutechtools.com/Measuring-Airlfow-with-a-Hot-Wire-Anemometer_c_1001.html

            Highly recommended! This is how a real engineer does it. By the numbers, with great technique, and meticulous attention and care. If Rossi had done a positive test remotely as good as this, he would have the $89 million in the bank.

            “. . . I can understand why Rossi would not allow the inspection. His hands were tied . . .”

            That is pure bullshit. Rossi owns the company. The company has no employees, does no business, has no equipment (or no legally inspected equipment) and emits no heat. His hands were not tied. He was in and out of the pretend company often. And if the company were real, he could have the I.H. expert sign an NDA not to disclose the company’s business. With $89 million at stake, do you think he would not do that?

          • Chapman

            Is there NO ONE ELSE here who noticed the dead giveaway???

            ” “I have not read the contract carefully, so I’ll take your word for that.” ”

            Will SOMEONE please shut this blathering idiot down???

            He has, in plain English, and without any ambiguity, clearly confessed to the fact that he HAS NOT EVEN READ THE CONTRACT!!!

            Hello! Are you all sleeping out there? The man is admitting to the fact that he has NO KNOWLEDGE of the details of the agreement other than what his handlers have given to him in his assigned “talking notes”. He is a TOOL! Nothing more.

            You are all arguing with a ghost. JED is not a representation of an intellect with a differing opinion with which you might engage in the hopes of enlightenment. He is a FUD construct. There is no MAN behind the curtain. There is no INTELLECT behind the remarks. JED is a 21st century Turing test – to see if you can spot the difference between an actual HUMAN and a scripted preprogrammed set of responses to any given subject matter.

            Come on, guys… You are embarrassing me here. You might as well try to convince the American Airlines automated reservation AI to convert to Mormonism.

            You are engaging a “Non-Entity”; Dancing with a shadow. There is no “mind” to engage on the other end of the connection.

            You are publicly arguing with a fire hydrant! Which do you think deserves the straight jacket???

          • sam

            He did not say he did not read the contract.
            He said he did not read it CAREFULLY.

          • JedRothwell

            That’s true. I did read it. My eyes glaze over reading legal documents. I would rather spend all day looking for a bug in assembly language code than 10 minutes reading legal documents.

            (Assembly language is awful. But not as bad some some BASIC interpreters circa 1972. Ugh! COBOL . . . is actually pretty darn good in some ways. It got a bad rep.)

          • JedRothwell

            “He has, in plain English, and without any ambiguity, clearly confessed to the fact that he HAS NOT EVEN READ THE CONTRACT!!!”

            Yes. As I explained several times, I do calorimetry, not legal contracts or court cases. I do science and technology only. I am sure Rossi’s data shows no excess heat on the 1 MW scale he claims.

            The contract has no relevance to thermodynamics or calorimetry. It is of no use whatever in my analysis of Rossi’s data.

            I suppose it is possible the court will order I.H. to pay $89 million even though the device does not produce any heat, and even though Rossi’s customer is fake, just because Penon said it works. I expect any licensed HVAC engineer will say it could not have worked, which I suppose would counter Penon’s report. Based on my experience in business, I doubt this contract is enforceable. However, these issues pertain to the law and the courts, about which I know nothing.

            I would never venture an opinion about the law, opera, baseball, or some other subject I know nothing about.

          • actually without understanding the terms of the contract your ability to gauge/interpret what has happened is limited and flawed. you saying the contract terms don’t matter doesn’t make it so

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “actually without understanding the terms of the contract your ability to gauge/interpret what has happened is limited and flawed.”

            Explain to us how a contract affects calorimetry. What other laws of physics or engineering are subject to legal contract law? I did not realize the laws of nature must obey U.S. courts of law.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            According to the contract IH were responsible for approving every instrument, where they were placed and how the data was collected by their agent, the ERV.

            Yet you blame Rossi for incorrect instrument selection, incorrect placement and incorrect data collection.

            Jed the contract defines the ultimate responsible party was IH. So why not place any blame at their feet as they are responsible?

          • you miss the point entirely. you made several major gaffes in your mission to libel Rossi.

            the first gaffe occurred when you said that Rossi was to blame for the bad data acquisition issues. you failed to realize that the contract stipulated that IH and the ERV had control over, and responsibility for, the data acquisition protocols, choice of instruments and their position.

            then you tried to cover your butt by claiming that Rossi nefariously switched out instruments and otherwise deviated from the agreed to plan.

            then you tried to sell the nonsensical idea that IH, having discovered this major breach early on, was willing to forgive Rossi if he was able to “improve” his results even up to the last minute. You were unaware that, according to the contract, the 1MW plant had to perform properly for 350 days.

            you also claimed all the “preposterous and obvious, laff riot” data problems could be ignored easily, (and Rossi paid 89M) if only IH was allowed to inspect the customer’s operation, even though everyone knows the secret customer (not Rossi) would not allow this AND IH agreed to this condition in writing before the test started.

            you also claimed Rossi was the real owner of the customer’s operation, unfortunately not knowing that the contract (submitted to court as true and accurate) specifically and clearly stated that Rossi and his lawyer had NO such ownership. Another surprise for you, no doubt.

            you also called Penon Rossi’s puppet which makes no sense to people that know from the contract that IH was paying half of Penon’s salary for the year. Another gem you forgot about?

            these are just off the top of my head. There are probably other examples I could find where your lack of awareness of the contract terms made you look foolish or worse.

            All in all, worst FUD campaign ever, imo.

          • JedRothwell

            “you failed to realize that the contract stipulated that IH and the ERV had control over, and responsibility for, the data acquisition protocols, choice of instruments and their position.”

            You mean that nitwit Penon. Yeah, yeah, sure I have heard that nonsense. I am sure Rossi was in charge. Rossi makes all the decisions in Rossi’s lab. He may have picked Penon to be his puppet, but no one other than Rossi could come up with a test as bad as this. Not even Penon.

            “. . . then you tried to cover your butt by claiming that Rossi nefariously switched out instruments and otherwise deviated from the agreed to plan.”

            That wasn’t me. I.H. said that. I am sure they are right, because no sane person would approve of the final configuration.

            “All in all, worst FUD campaign ever, imo.”

            Fear, uncertainty and doubt. Who, exactly am I frightening? Where is this fear of which you speak? Uncertainty? You are incapable of it, just as you can’t even see that Rossi is putting you on when he says there is no need for anyone to go into his pretend customer site. Doubt? When have you or Rossi felt one nanogram of doubt? You are impervious to facts, logic, engineering and common sense.

        • How far ‘beyond inept’ would they be? Criminally negligent?

      • “Most of your other criticisms are similarly based on your own mistaken assumptions and ignorance of the situation.”

        ***Again, a crock of shit. The vast majority of us do not have access to information. That is not ignorance. So put a sock in it.

        “For example, Kevmo thought…”
        ***No, Kevmo did not think this. Kevmo responded to someone else who posted that remark. You’re getting stuff wrong, Jed. A lot. So maybe in your heightened emotional state you’re getting other stuff wrong, like how IH was seeking investors in this technology when you say they were suspicious of fraud.

    • Chapman

      I asked myself that, but I blush now at the language I got back in response… from myself.

      I am at once disappointed AND impressed! I have no idea where I picked up such language, as I usually associate with a more refined crowd than such vulgarity suggests.

  • Kevmo

    Let’s see. Playboy magazine was started in the 1960’s, right? So 3 aging 1960’s era playboy bunnies, and a Ferrari in a Tuxedo would make anyone look crappy. Eventually the bunnies get changed out and the Ferrari’s Tuxedo gets removed, so everyone has a chance at renewal.

  • Steve Swatman

    Hope is a positive, a positive attitude (when done right), I find your comments to be far from hope, far from positive, far from wanting to know, much more like, negative, hopeless, not wanting to hear or listen to anything positive.

    Maybe you need a break, a vacation from watching the game/show, so that you can appreciate the value and the potential a little more, afteral, it is a game, a show, a potential game changer, a potential show stopper, buy some popcorn, watch the football for a while, come back less and look with a more positive view point, its much more fun that way.

  • Kevmo

    He apparently does believe this.

  • Oh Jed. Stop digging. Your whole whacked story keeps getting more convoluted and preposterous the more you type.

    • JedRothwell

      This is not my “story.” It is information I.H. has presented to the court. Granted, if it not true, they will be in big trouble, and you & Rossi will be vindicated.

      What I say may seem preposterous to you, but Rossi’s stories are also preposterous, and unlike me, he has given you no evidence. The only thing he told you is that he refused to let people into his customer site, thus throwing away $89 million for no reason. You don’t find that preposterous? Not even suspicious? If you owned a factory with equipment consuming 1 MW of process heat, and someone promised to pay you $89 million just to confirm that fact, would you let that person in? Or would you block the door? Think about that before blathering more Rossi-speak. THINK ABOUT IT.

      In any case, however preposterous it may sound, everything I say is backed up by Rossi’s own data. So you should blame him, not me. You don’t believe it is based on his data, but you have not seen that data, so you have no basis to doubt me. You have no basis to judge anything really. A sensible person in your position would say “I can’t judge” and wait for the information to be published, rather than takes side in complete ignorance of the facts.

      You should be demanding information from Rossi, not me. This is his story, not mine.

      • “If… someone promised to pay you $89 million just to confirm that fact, ”
        ***What a crock of shit. They would not have paid him $89Mil just to look at a factory. Rossi could build a factory for $5Mil, and just take their money.

      • “The only thing he told you is that he refused to let people into his customer site, thus throwing away $89 million for no reason.”

        Others here have concluded that what is behind that door has zero bearing on whether the plant worked or not, So whether to pay 89M or not couldn’t possibly depend on what was behind that door. If you are correct that the instrument use and data collection was faulty how could examining the secret customer’s operation fix any of that?

        FUD is the game here imo.

      • Jed002

        How can we even know you are that Jed? Or that you ever was near to near IH or AR?

        • JedRothwell

          You wrote: “How can we even know you are that Jed? Or that you ever was near to near IH or AR?”

          Oh come now. This is the 21st century. Have you not heard of Google? Are you incapable of elementary fact checking? For goodness sake, start at the bottom of any page at http://lenr-canr.org/ It shows my name, address, telephone number and e-mail address. Call and ask me if I am me.

          If I am not me, I would be upset with this impostor, wouldn’t I?

          I have never been near AR. But you know what again? This is the 21st century. We don’t need to go places or be physically close to people in order to get data. Data is stored in digital format on computers, and it can be sent anywhere in the world conveniently with this nifty thing they call the “Internet,” which is a series of tubes I hear.

          • Jed002

            Ok – you claim you are you and says that you get data through the internet tube.

            How did you get data about/from IH?

          • JedRothwell

            “How did you get data about/from IH?”

            I asked them.

          • Mats002

            Through the tube I presume.

          • JedRothwell

            Exactly!

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Excellent infirmation.

            Just for the record, please confirm IH officially gave you the ERV report for the 1 year test, including the instruments used and their location?

          • JedRothwell

            “Just for the record, please confirm IH officially gave you the ERV report for the 1 year test, including the instruments used and their location?”

            No comment.

            Just for the record, why do you even bother asking?

      • INVENTOR INVENTED

        I agree with you 100%

  • JedRothwell

    You are making far too many assumptions about events & situations that you know nothing about. I do not have time, so one example will have to suffice. You wrote:

    “They must have failed for about a year, or the test would have been stopped early. You can’t possibly believe the test was allowed to continue even one day after IH discovered the problem with the flow rate.”

    First, as far as I know, I.H. was not in a position to “allow” the test or disallow it. The fact that Rossi refused to let the I.H. expert into the customer site tells you they were not fully in control.

    Second, perhaps you would have stopped the test as soon as you found a problem, but others would not. That would be precipitous, and pointless. It wasn’t costing I.H. anything to let Rossi continue.

    I personally have continued for weeks or month participating in experiments even after I was pretty sure the test was being done wrong or it was a dead-end approach. When you do research, you have to put up with failure. Most experiments end badly. Many researchers do things that other researchers feel are a mistake. Rossi in particular never listens to advice from others.

    I.H. found problems. They asked Rossi to fix them. He did various things, but he did not address the issues. They hoped he would. They gave him plenty of time. They and I both sincerely hoped the problems would be addressed. As I said many times, you can see I sincerely hoped that, because I signed up for Lewan’s symposium. In the end, Rossi did not improve the test.

    Most of your other criticisms are similarly based on your own mistaken assumptions and ignorance of the situation.

    You criticize me for not giving more information. This is grossly unfair. You should be demanding information from Rossi, not me. I can only say that which has already been revealed by Rossi or I.H. I cannot reveal anything new. Those are the rules. I explained them clearly, several times. I can put the information in context, and explain what it means, and clarify some misunderstandings. For example, Kevmo thought that “the fact that I.H, say they can’t substantiate Rossi’s claims is not the same as denying that it works.” That is incorrect. Based on their their Motion to Dismiss, their press releases, and their comments to me I am quite sure they deny that it works. That does not mean they are right; it means they are sure.

    If you don’t want to believe me, stop kvetching and stop reading my messages. You should be thankful I can tell you a little. You will get no explanation, clarification or proof of anything from Rossi.

  • JedRothwell

    You wrote: “You are now on record saying that IH knew for a long time that Rossi and Penon deviated from the proper, agreed to plan and swapped out instruments in an effort to commit fraud and they did it in an obvious way to boot.”

    I am not the one who went on record saying they deviated from the agreed plan. That was I.H., in their motion to dismiss. I am telling you what I.H. said. I happen to know that is true.

    It looks like fraud to me, but it could be they are very, very stupid. I have seen many stupid experiments. It was obvious to me that it could not work with those instruments. But as I said, I have seen many honest but stupid researchers do things that cannot possibly work, so based on this alone you cannot be sure there is fraud.

    In my opinion, Rossi’s refusal to let the I.H. people into the customer site is proof of fraud. That company belongs to him. He can let anyone in he wants. If it were real, just by letting them in, he would get $89 million. There is no conceivable reason for him to block the door other than fraud.

    • Kevmo

      ” If it were real, just by letting them in, he would get $89 million. There is no conceivable reason for him to block the door other than fraud.”
      ***Since you posted the same argument again, then again I say bullshit. Rossi blocked the door so that his IP would not get stolen. Just like he blocked Celani from getting a spectra when measuring Gamma rays off the eCAT.

      • JedRothwell

        You wrote: “Rossi blocked the door so that his IP would not get stolen.”

        How can you “steal IP” by doing calorimetry with a heat exchanger and an exhaust system (a fan and vent)? What does that even mean?

        You cannot look at equipment and magically discover how it works.

        Furthermore, what IP is this? This is a chemical distribution warehouse with a mysterious machine that needs 1 MW of process heat. Are you saying Rossi invented this, along with all his e-cats? What is it? Where is the patent for it? When did he ever find the time to invent a revolutionary chemical distribution machine that uses as much heat as a good-sized factory?

        If you mean the IP for his e-cat gadget, how can someone steal the IP from it by doing calorimetry? That only tells you how much heat it is releasing. Also, that was the whole point of the test, from day one: to measure the heat from it.

        • Kevmo

          How can you “steal IP” by doing calorimetry with a heat exchanger and an exhaust system (a fan and vent)? What does that even mean?

          ***I didn’t say you can do it by doing calorimetry, you did. You’re engaging a straw argument here. What’s with all the logical fallacies all of a sudden from you? You really are off your game.

           

          ———————————————————-

          You cannot look at equipment and magically discover how it works.

          ***You can get some serious clues by using a geiger counter and getting the spectra.

          ———————————————————-

          Furthermore, what IP is this? This is a chemical distribution warehouse with a mysterious machine that needs 1 MW of process heat. Are you saying Rossi invented this, along with all his e-cats? What is it? Where is the patent for it? When did he ever find the time to invent a revolutionary chemical distribution machine that uses as much heat as a good-sized factory?

          ***It is LISTED as a FORMER chemical distribution warehouse. Maybe the chemical he’s distributing is H2O and it’s a giant hot tub. No one knows, so you can’t proceed from silence to argue for or against it because it’s a logical fallacy. Why would he want to patent a giant hot tub? He found the time to invent a revolutionary chemical distribution machine when he unwound your logical fallacies and found them wanting, thereby creating negative time that he could spend on such trivial pursuits.

          ———————————————————-

          If you mean the IP for his e-cat gadget, how can someone steal the IP from it by doing calorimetry?

          ***Like a dog returning to its vomit, you return to the same logical fallacy again and again. You really need to take a break.

           

           

          That only tells you how much heat it is releasing. Also, that was the whole point of the test, from day one: to measure the heat from it.

          ***And maybe, just maybe, Rossi is working on some upgrade in his little former chemical plant. Maybe he’s working on chemical suppositories so that you don’t have to eat all that bran you obviously have been missing.

    • Kevmo

      That was I.H., in their motion to dismiss.
      ***And that was the first time the vast majority of us heard anything about it. They didn’t exactly go out of their way to protect the public nor their investors from a suspected fraudster, did they?

      • JedRothwell

        “***And that was the first time the vast majority of us heard anything about it. They didn’t exactly go out of their way to protect the public nor their investors from a suspected fraudster, did they?”

        How do you know what they told told their investors?

        They are telling the public now.

        • Kevmo

          When did they tell you? The 1 year clock starts ticking from the moment they suspected fraud. My guess is they told you last July and only have a few short days to insinuate fraud or that piece of leverage gets dropped entirely. But thanks for agreeing with me, that they didn’t go out of their way.

        • Kevmo

          They are telling the public now.
          ***Yeah, as you stated earlier, ‘many months’ after suspecting fraud. Real paragons of the community, those IH folks. /s

  • JedRothwell

    You wrote: “You seemed to say that AFTER IH approved everything Rossi substituted the instruments and deviated from the approved data acquisition plan.”

    No, I did not “seem” to say that. I said it. Again and again. Clearly. I cannot understand why you insist I did not say what I said. I said it because I know it to be true, and because I.H. revealed it in their motion to dismiss. I would not mention it otherwise.

    “How is that not a criminal act?”

    I do not know enough about criminal law to comment. People doing tests often disagree with one another. As far as I can tell, Rossi was in charge of this test, but I am not familiar with the contracts and business deals.

    “Business fraud is a crime is it not? Ignore that question. Here’s what you need to answer if you want to be understood . . .”

    Other people understand me. You are the only one with reading comprehension problems here.

    “Do you have any real evidence of this instrument swap by Rossi and can you show that the swapped in instrument can’t handle 36000 kg/day?”

    I can’t address those questions. Rossi and I.H. have not revealed that level of detail yet.

  • JedRothwell

    This is not my “story.” It is information I.H. has presented to the court. Granted, if it not true, they will be in big trouble, and you & Rossi will be vindicated.

    What I say may seem preposterous to you, but Rossi’s stories are also preposterous, and unlike me, he has given you no evidence. The only thing he told you is that he refused to let people into his customer site, thus throwing away $89 million for no reason. You don’t find that preposterous? Not even suspicious? If you owned a factory with equipment consuming 1 MW of process heat, and someone promised to pay you $89 million just to confirm that fact, would you let that person in? Or would you block the door? Think about that before blathering more Rossi-speak. THINK ABOUT IT.

    In any case, however preposterous it may sound, everything I say is backed up by Rossi’s own data. So you should blame him, not me. You don’t believe it is based on his data, but you have not seen that data, so you have no basis to doubt me. You have no basis to judge anything really. A sensible person in your position would say “I can’t judge” and wait for the information to be published, rather than takes side in complete ignorance of the facts.

    You should be demanding information from Rossi, not me. This is his story, not mine.

    • Jed002

      How can we even know you are that Jed? Or that you ever was near to near IH or AR?

      • JedRothwell

        You wrote: “How can we even know you are that Jed? Or that you ever was near to near IH or AR?”

        Oh come now. This is the 21st century. Have you not heard of Google? Are you incapable of elementary fact checking? For goodness sake, start at the bottom of any page at http://lenr-canr.org/ It shows my name, address, telephone number and e-mail address. Call and ask me if I am me.

        If I am not me, I would be upset with this impostor, wouldn’t I?

        I have never been near AR. But you know what again? This is the 21st century. We don’t need to go places or be physically close to people in order to get data. Data is stored in digital format on computers, and it can be sent anywhere in the world conveniently with this nifty thing they call the “Internet,” which is a series of tubes I hear.

        • Jed002

          Ok – you claim you are you and says that you get data through the internet tube.

          How did you get data about/from IH?

          • JedRothwell

            “How did you get data about/from IH?”

            I asked them.

          • Mats002

            Through the tube I presume.

          • JedRothwell

            Exactly!

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Excellent infirmation.

            Just for the record, please confirm IH officially gave you the ERV report for the 1 year test, including the instruments used and their location?

          • JedRothwell

            “Just for the record, please confirm IH officially gave you the ERV report for the 1 year test, including the instruments used and their location?”

            No comment.

            Just for the record, why do you even bother asking?

  • JedRothwell

    You wrote: “Or the entity using the heat to make a valuable product(s) did not want to be identified for obvious reasons.”

    Rossi and his lawyer own the company. He is the entity. That is a matter of public record. There is nothing to hide.

    A company engaged in manufacturing with industrial scale equipment in Florida is not allowed hide that fact. It does not matter how valuable the products are; the equipment has to be inspected and certified safe for use. That certification is a matter of public record. There is no such certification for this factory. There is no equipment in that factory.

    (Only small equipment for private use or experimental use is exempt. I think less than 10 kW.)

    This factory was originally listed as a chemical distribution warehouse. There is no conceivable use for 1 MW of process heat in that business. If they are engaged in manufacturing, they have to tell the state what it is they are making. You are not allowed to set up heavy industrial manufacturing equipment without licences and proper zoning.

    • Kevmo

      And yet, marijuana labs set up industrial scale equipment and stuff all over the place. Once those dudes are multimillionaires it becomes trivial to bribe the local zoning inspectors.

    • wpj

      I have been watching this argument, but have to chip in with Jed’s statement

      …………Rossi and his lawyer own the company. He is the entity. That is a matter of public record. There is nothing to hide………..

      There is an OFAC statement in the court documents (last page, easy to find) which states that neither Rossi, his lawyer or anyone associated with Leonardo has any interest in JM Chemical Products. WHERE IS THIS PUBLIC RECORD TO THE CONTRARY? You are saying that he has lied in a COURT DOCUMENT.

      This is indeed fraud if you can prove your statement and he ought to be jailed immediately!

      https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-2.pdf

      • JedRothwell

        J.M. Chemicals info:

        http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquiryType=DocumentNumber&aggregateId=domp-p14000056117-f1b317f1-99eb-48c8-9cce-18b618a70d75&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=JMCHEMICALPRODUCTS%20P140000561170&searchTerm=P14000056117

        Registered Agent Name & Address

        JOHNSON, HENRY W
        7900 GLADES ROAD, SUITE 530
        BOCA RATON, FL 33434

        This is Rossi’s lawyer. Elsewhere Rossi was quite open about the fact that he and the lawyer set up this company. I don’t recall where . . . an interview or his web page or something. I do not know about the OFAC statement or why it contradicts this, but I am sure this is Rossi’s company.

        It does not seem like something he should go to jail for. Everyone involved knows it is his company.

        • GiveADogABone

          The URL you give reports :-
          Florida Profit Corporation J.M. PRODUCTS, INC.
          Filing Information Document Number P14000056117

          What relation, if any, to J.M. Chemicals would this be?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Jed,

          A lawyer, who also happens to be Rossi’s, set up JM Chemicals for an overseas client.

          No where is there any evidence that Rossi in any way was a part of JM Chemicals. In fact there are sworn statement that JM Chemical is NOT his company.

          • JedRothwell

            And if you believe that, you will have no difficulty believing Rossi when he tells you the flow rate was exactly 36,000 kg per day. Which he will tell you if you persuade him to send you some data.

            Oh, wait. He won’t send you data, because he knows you will see his test was a transparently fake put-up job, that no engineer would believe.

          • “…he knows you will see his test was a transparently fake put-up job, that no engineer would believe.”

            so you’d have us believe Rossi could repeatedly fool many people for several years, including IH, (who very irresponsibly paid him 11.5M to date) but when the BIG 89M prize was on the line he didn’t even go to mediocre lengths to fool anyone? a laugh riot of data was all he could produce?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Wpj,

        Correctly spoken.

        Everytime someone claims JM Chemical is a Rossi owned business, they need to be shown that statement.

  • Kevmo

    A group of science minded individuals who follow edgey science stuff like LENR on vortex-l. Jed is an acknowledged leader in the group because of his active involvement and the effort he has put into building up lenr-canr.org

     

    https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/

  • Kevmo

    And by that definition, Parkhamov is a PHOSITA and IH are not.

  • Kevmo

    Not insanity, just a loss of perspective from someone who went down a rabbit hole; someone who is normally quite rational.

  • Kevmo

    How far ‘beyond inept’ would they be? Criminally negligent?

  • Thomas Kaminski

    “Well, mostly I am using Rossi’s measurements, which I will grant are highly suspect in some ways.”

    So you are using a “Rossi says” data set. Hmmm. And since you did not make the measurements yourself and got them second hand through IH, then it still is “IH says”. Did you check the chain of custody of the data sets? Were they “fudged” in any way?

    “Who are you? A fly on the wall? Do you work for the NSA?”

    No, I am just an interested observer. However my 47 years as a practicing electrical engineer, some of which were spent on devices that have heat transfer embodied in them taught me to trust no one without verification. “Rossi Says” is backed up with pictures and what seems to me like a continuing evolution of a product. “IH says” seems like a load of bull promulgated by investment bankers to plug holes in a leaking ship.

    I will no longer respond to your crap. Have a good life.

    • JedRothwell

      “Did you check the chain of custody of the data sets?”

      Yup. With eyewitnesses who are not part of I.H., who saw the instrument readings directly several times, and with data directly from Rossi. For example, he gave the same numbers to Lewan in the interview.

      “Were they ‘fudged’ in any way?”

      I think Rossi fudged some of them, for example by making the flow rate exactly 36,000 kg. But other people did not fudge them.

      “. . . taught me to trust no one without verification . . .”

      Then why do you trust Rossi?

      “‘IH says’ seems like a load of bull . . .”

      Since I do not cite IH or use any of their numbers, you should have no problem with my analysis in that case.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Jed,

        Please stop quoting 36, 000kg. What Rossi said was an averaged daily flow of 36^3 meters of water, which could have been 35.5^3 to 36.49^3.

        Or any number from 35, 500 to 36, 499kg/day.

        To repeat, Rossi never said 36, 000kg, you said that.

        • JedRothwell

          To repeat, Rossi’s data shows 36,000 kg. Exactly. For several days. You don’t believe me? Ask him! Have him send you several days of data.

          He may have said that is an approximation, but it is not listed as an approximation in his data. I sorta kinda doubt his instruments showed exactly that amount, but you will have to discuss that issue with him. I am just telling you what he said. He can try to justify it, with his usual excuses, tap dancing, denial, and fake umbrage. That would be fun to see. You should ask him.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            I have never seen Rossi use 36,000kg. What I have seen is 36^3 mtr.

            Likewise I have never seen you use 36^3 mtr but only 36,000kg.

            Using 36,000kg implies a very much higher accuracy than does 36^3 mtr.

            I don’t believe any engineer would use 36,000kg when referring to an averaged daily flow of 36^3 mtrs.

          • JedRothwell

            “I have never seen Rossi use 36,000kg. What I have seen is 36^3 mtr.”

            He does often say that, yes. Although his data lists 35,000 kg, as I said. But, you know what? 36^3 meters of water weighs 36,000 kg. It is the same thing! Not only that, but the volume is 36,000 liters. What a coincidence! Who knew?

            Did you miss forth grade by any chance? Because that’s where I learned those things.

            “I don’t believe any engineer would use 36,000kg when referring to an averaged daily flow of 36^3 mtrs.”

            It is hard to believe, isn’t it? That’s one of the reasons I do not trust Rossi’s data. Rossi says all kinds of unbelievably sloppy, stupid, half-assed things. You should not believe him.

            Oh, and if you don’t believe me when I say that’s what his data shows . . . You should ask him. Ask him for data! Go ahead.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed who wtote:
            “Did you miss forth grade by any chance? Because that’s where I learned those things.”

            I have worked hard to keep our discussions about the data, the numbers and the physics. Never have I taken it personal. Shall we continue that process?

            What you have shared so far is that you have what you claim is Rossi data but you did not obtain it from him, so don’t know it’s validity and that the data covers several devices.

            You also claim this data did not come from IH or any IH associated source

            Plus you claim to know the instruments and installation positions in the 1 year test but this data is not from IH.

            Is that correct?

            If so as your data source is not directly IH nor Rossi, who then is feeding you data and what is their agenda?

            Care to share who is feeding you private proprietary data?

          • JedRothwell

            “I have worked hard to keep our discussions about the data, the numbers and the physics. Never have I taken it personal. Shall we continue that process?”

            Well, here is a personal question. What the hell were you thinking when you said “I have never seen Rossi use 36,000kg. What I have seen is 36^3 mtr.” What is that supposed to mean? Did you somehow overlook the fact that 36,000 kg and 36^3 mtr are the same thing?

            That was a spectacularly inane comment. What was the point? Were you just trying to pick an argument?

            “What you have shared so far is that you have what you claim is Rossi data but you did not obtain it from him, so don’t know it’s validity and that the data covers several devices.”

            No, I said emphatically and repeatedly I have 100% assured proof that it came from him. Eyewitness proof, from people who saw the data being collected, and other kinds of proof. Stop putting words in my mouth. You can say I am lying if you like, but do not claim I said I “don’t know it’s validity.” I am certain of it’s validity.

            “Care to share who is feeding you private proprietary data?”

            If I wanted to share that, I would have already. I am giving you more information that Rossi ever has. Take it or leave it.

  • INVENTOR INVENTED

    What was it that apparently worked? Was it a full scale 1 megawatt reactor?

    • Mats002

      No it was a milliWatt reactor that could not be economically substantiated. How come you ask?

      • INVENTOR INVENTED

        I want a livable planet.

    • JedRothwell

      Yup, that’s the one. The I.H. motion to dismiss says there are other reactors. I don’t know anything about them, but other people might.

  • sam

    He did not say he did not read the contract.
    He said he did not read it CAREFULLY.

    • JedRothwell

      That’s true. I did read it. My eyes glaze over reading legal documents. I would rather spend all day looking for a bug in assembly language code than 10 minutes reading legal documents.

      (Assembly language is awful. But not as bad some some BASIC interpreters circa 1972. Ugh! COBOL . . . is actually pretty darn good in some ways. It got a bad rep.)

  • JedRothwell

    “He has, in plain English, and without any ambiguity, clearly confessed to the fact that he HAS NOT EVEN READ THE CONTRACT!!!”

    Yes. As I explained several times, I do calorimetry, not legal contracts or court cases. I do science and technology only. I am sure Rossi’s data shows no excess heat on the 1 MW scale he claims.

    The contract has no relevance to thermodynamics or calorimetry. It is of no use whatever in my analysis of Rossi’s data.

    I suppose it is possible the court will order I.H. to pay $89 million even though the device does not produce any heat, and even though Rossi’s customer is fake, just because Penon said it works. I expect any licensed HVAC engineer will say it could not have worked, which I suppose would counter Penon’s report. Based on my experience in business, I doubt this contract is enforceable. However, these issues pertain to the law and the courts, about which I know nothing.

    I would never venture an opinion about the law, opera, baseball, or some other subject I know nothing about.

    • actually without understanding the terms of the contract your ability to gauge/interpret what has happened is limited and flawed. you saying the contract terms don’t matter doesn’t make it so

      • JedRothwell

        actually without understanding the terms of the contract your ability to gauge/interpret what has happened is limited and flawed.

        Explain to us how a contract affects calorimetry. What other laws of physics or engineering are subject to legal contract law? I did not realize the laws of nature must obey U.S. courts of law.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Jed,

          According to the contract IH were responsible for approving every instrument, where they were placed and how the data was collected by their agent, the ERV.

          Yet you blame Rossi for incorrect instrument selection, incorrect placement and incorrect data collection.

          Jed the contract defines the ultimate responsible party was IH. So why not place any blame at their feet as they are responsible?

  • Mats002

    No it was a milliWatt reactor that could not be economically substantiated. How come you ask?

  • LuFong

    >Others here have concluded that what is behind that door has zero bearing on whether the plant worked or not

    What if the customer opened up their operations and showed industrial activity requiring 1MW heat? Wouldn’t that support the claim for 1MW 24/7 claim which is being demonstrated? On the other hand, what if the customer opened up but showed industrial activity significantly under the 1MW 24/7 claim? Wouldn’t that create doubts on other measurements? What if there were no actual customer and the operation was a radiator?

    Why did Rossi call for a ‘customer’? The license agreement does not call for it.

    In a perfect world the ERV’s measurements should be enough. But this is not a perfect world and IH is disputing the ERV’s measurements so the customer’s activity absolutely is relevant and there is no plausible reason that the IH was not allowed to witness the customer’s operation.

    • sam

      I feel the same way you do but according to A.R
      this is what they agreed on.
      May 20, 2016 at 5:07 PM
      Sebastian:
      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,
      A.R.
      After the test started IH were working with a stressed out inventer working 16 to 18 hours
      a day 7 days a week concentrating solely on the Ecat.
      He also seems to be a person who believes
      in sticking to the agreement and not flexible.

      • JedRothwell

        You wrote: “I feel the same way you do but according to A.R this is what they agreed on.”

        If AR tells you it is hot in summer and cold in winter, you better get independent confirmation before believing it.

        He also seems to be a person who believes in sticking to the agreement and not flexible.”

        To my certain knowledge, he has grossly violated his agreements with every company and nearly every group he has worked with him since 2011. They hate his guts! One group of people he worked with told me “if Rossi ever shows up in town again, one of us will beat the crap out of him or strangle him.” He was exaggerating, but not by much.

        • sam

          If what you say is true then IH should be made to pay $89
          million to research on cancer for stupidity.

      • LuFong

        This is a different issue than what I addressed, which was the relevance of knowing what the customer operations was about.

        If there was an agreement, which we only know from Rossi’s statement, then that’s fine — IH could not cross that line (and evidently didn’t) but that still does not diminish the reason for knowing what the customer did.

        Evidently Rossi was exempt from this restriction because IH (via DW) says Rossi had access and used this access to the customer area. On the other hand Rossi says he also signed the agreement which would be strange if he wasn’t restricted.

        This whole thing stinks of fraud.

        • Engineer48

          Hi LuFong,

          Rossi has stated the Customer was a potential UK customer who decided to become the IH customer to give the 1MW plant a good test before buying 3 for their UK operations.

          As for the access restrictions agreement what I understood was the Customer employees could not go into the IH reactor area and likewise IH employees could not go into the Customer’s production area.

          Rossi could go into either area.

          • LuFong

            That’s what Rossi says. Rossi also says he signed the agreement and in the context of what he was addressing means he also had no access. But IH (via DW) says Rossi had a key and access to the customer side. We’ll get more information, if it gets that far, in the trial.

            Rossi sure made a big deal about “the customer of IH’ and making money etc. Unfortunately there is nothing verifiable about these statements and parts of this are outright misleading if not incorrect. (Yes technically IH sold them heat.)

            I tend to believe IH but I cannot believe that they were so incompetent. This would never fly in a commercial or military contract.

  • JedRothwell

    Yup, that’s the one. The I.H. motion to dismiss says there are other reactors. I don’t know anything about them, but other people might.

  • JedRothwell

    “I seriously doubt that would resolve anything if the data measurements on the plant side were already deemed to be faulty.”

    Why wouldn’t it? The measurements on the plant side would have nothing to do with the measurements on the ventilation at the customer site. They would be totally independent, which is the beauty of it. This would supersede the controversy, and make it unnessary for Rossi to improve his instruments to convince I.H. This measurement would employ a different set of instruments and techniques. It would an industry standard HVAC procedure, which is done thousands of times a day in Florida. Any HVAC engineer can do it with 100% confidence.

    The result is imprecise by the standards of laboratory calorimetry, but it is accurate. There is no way you could mistake 20 kW for 1 MW.

    This web page has a nifty video of a guy demonstrating how to measure the heat flow in a vent:

    http://www.trutechtools.com/Measuring-Airlfow-with-a-Hot-Wire-Anemometer_c_1001.html

    Highly recommended! This is how a real engineer does it. By the numbers, with great technique, and meticulous attention and care. If Rossi had done a positive test remotely as good as this, he would have the $89 million in the bank.

    “. . . I can understand why Rossi would not allow the inspection. His hands were tied . . .”

    That is pure bullshit. Rossi owns the company. The company has no employees, does no business, has no equipment (or no legally inspected equipment) and emits no heat. His hands were not tied. He was in and out of the pretend company often. And if the company were real, he could have the I.H. expert sign an NDA not to disclose the company’s business. With $89 million at stake, do you think he would not do that?

    • LuFong

      That’s only $350K which is next to nothing compared to $89M they would pay or the $billions if not $trillions they would reap if Rossi’s technology was ready to go (which the GPT was supposed to demonstrate).

      • We all know there was a lot at stake during the 1 year test. Of course if I was running IH I wouldn’t have ever bothered going ahead with the 1 year test unless I was absolutely sure the technology worked reliably in many, many other, smaller tests. Nothing else would make sense.

        • LuFong

          The way I see it, IH was buying Rossi’s tech and rights. If Rossi had something that could run at industrial levels and reliability, i.e., 1 year 24/7 at 1MWh/h , then Rossi gets an extra $89M. If not then no $89M and IH would have to work with Rossi to try to get there which may not happen. That’s why it was called a General Performance Test. For Rossi it gave him another year to work on his E-Cat and of course $89M.

  • GiveADogABone

    Conclusions first:
    1: The key variable in the one year, 1MW E-cat test is the superheat margin. It is this margin that at all times proves that the latent heat of vapourisation was being transferred from E-cat to customer plant.
    2: Inadvertently running the water/steam system completely flooded, without noticing, is so improbable it can be discounted.

    ================================

    CoP = Energy Out / Energy In

    Energy In is electricity input per unit time.
    Energy Out is measured by the enthalpy difference between the input and output of the E-cat water/steam system per unit time.

    CoP = (Hout – Hin)/Ein

    Rossi has stated that he has given away the enthalpy change required for heating water/steam, either before or after boiling. The enthalpy change per kilogram is therefore the latent heat of vapourisation at the internal pressure of the E-cat (close to zero bar gauge and therefore close to 100C temperature).

    The latent heat is a number supplied in steam tables (2265kJ/kg at 100C/0bar gauge to 2225kJ/kg at 112C/0.5bar gauge). Lower safety valve pressure setting is 0.5bar gauge.

    There is an assumption that the mass flow in is equal to the mass flow out.

    There is also an assumption that the output steam is slightly superheated and therefore dry. The assumption is justified by outlet pressure and temperature measurements that show whether or not the outlet is superheated steam. This guarantees that the enthalpy transfer is 2265kJ/kg or higher.

    CoP = 2265 * m / Ein

    Given the assumptions, there are only two variables that determine the CoP. The mass flow rate of water/steam, measured at the inlet and/or outlet, and the electrical power.

    Each assumption can be challenged :-
    1: mass flow in equals mass flow out;
    2: output steam is slightly superheated (hotter than 100C at 0bar gauge to 112C at 0.5bar gauge).

    All measured variables, electrical power, mass flow, temperatures or pressures could be inaccurately recorded.

    ==================================

    Opposing views state that the CoP could be 50 or 1.

    If superheated steam is produced in both cases, then m/Ein must vary by a factor of at least 50. Either the Ein rises or the m falls or a combination of both.

    If superheated steam is not produced in both cases, then the CoP=1 case is likely to be arguing that the E-cat output is 100% water. If the m/Ein ratio remains as in the CoP=50 case, then the enthalpy change must drop by a factor of 50 (2265/50=45kJ/kg).

    Specific heat water – 4.187 kJ/kgK
    Delta K = 2265/(50*4.187) = 10C
    With inlet water at 80C and full mass flow, the E-cat outlet water would be at about 90C.

    For the E-cat to produce 100% water :-
    1: the water level must be out of the top of the gauge glasses;
    2: the high water level alarms must be disabled;
    3: the water level control system must be disabled;
    4: the outlet temperature must be at 100C or less at 0bar gauge (112C at 0.5bar gauge);
    5: delivery of heat to the process plant would be about 45kJ/kg (cf. 2265kJ/kg or more).

    My personal view as a power station engineer is that conditions 1: to 5: would be highly visible to the E-cat plant engineers. It is inconceivable to me that you could run the plant for a full year without noticing some or all of these obvious fault conditions.

    ==================================

    Safety Valve setting 0bar gauge
    Saturated Steam Temperature 100
    Latent Heat of Steam 2256.47

    0.1bar gauge
    Saturated Steam Temperature 102.633
    Latent Heat of Steam 2249.5

    0.2bar gauge
    Saturated Steam Temperature 105.101
    Latent Heat of Steam 2242.91

    0.3bar gauge
    Saturated Steam Temperature 107.406
    Latent Heat of Steam 2236.72

    0.4bar gauge
    Saturated Steam Temperature 109.572
    Latent Heat of Steam 2230.87

    0.5bar gauge
    Saturated Steam Temperature 111.614
    Latent Heat of Steam 2225.31

    • Engineer48

      Hi GiveADogABone,

      Well done. Nicely stated.

      • GiveADogABone

        What is IH’s version? Flooded or superheated. In either case they need to get all the engineering data to tie up.

        • Engineer48

          Hi GiveADogABone,

          From my readings of IH’s official statement, they just say “can’t substantiate” Rossi’s claims. This of course totally discounts all of the unofficial claims made by Weaver & Rothwell.

          Clearly, for the 1 year test, the reactor was designed to deliver superheated steam.

          • GiveADogABone

            I thought there was a deduction that IH had to get the CoP below about 2.3 to avoid any liability to pay under the license agreement. Over CoP=6 required full payment of $89M.

            There is that whinge in the footnote in the MTD about the measuring kit which points to a coming attempt to claim a lower CoP. I am interested in what you have to do to the data to make a lower CoP stack up and be completely consistent.

    • JedRothwell

      You wrote: “2: Inadvertently running the water/steam system completely flooded, without noticing, is so improbable it can be discounted.”

      Says who?

      • GiveADogABone

        1: Me, after 25 years working in steam plant boiler rooms and control rooms.

        2: http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/04/new-fulvio-fabiani-e-cat-photo/
        Take a look at the picture of Fulvio. I can see the water level in the first gauge glass from where I am sitting. He just needs to turn his head and the gauge glass is about a foot away from his eyeballs.

        3: Check the control system drawings for the E-cat to see how they work. Good luck with the Italian.

        4: http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/12/quarkx-news-watch-thread/
        Another photo of 1MWt reactor with gauge glasses labelled.

        5:http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/06/domestic-heater-e-cat-photo/

        6: Any engineer who has ever driven a steam locomotive. Search on ‘steam train gauge glass’.

        7: Any steam plant engineer will tell you that you never, ever let the water go out (up or down) of the boiler gauge glass. It is just plain dangerous and modern plant has control systems, trips and alarms to prevent it, as does the E-cat.

        I did it once when manually charging catapults in an aircraft carrier; just for a few seconds. The charging drops the boiler pressure which makes the water swell with steam. Rightly, I got an immediate bol*****ng for it. I should have banged the extra burners on sooner and faster, together with winding up the steam driven boiler fans. Nothing like full manual control of a boiler room at sea to teach you what matters.

        • JedRothwell

          Thanks. I will look into this.

          Prof. Dave Nagel, retired from the Navy, described similar experiences “losing the bubble.”

      • Steve Swatman

        Thats all you got? 😉

  • Engineer48

    Just received an email from Rossi, when I asked him about Jed’s supposed Rossi data:

    Jed has no data at all, they are trying to make me give data that can be disclosed only in Court.
    You can simply respond that Mt Rothwell is an imbecile who talks of data that he has invented.
    Thank you for your help,
    Warmest Regards,
    Andrea

    • JedRothwell

      Well, if the ERV is disclosed in court, or by some other means, you will see whether I am lying, or whether Rossi is lying. Look at the flow rates and pressure: 36,000 kg and 0.0 bar.

      I suggest you wait and see. Do not take sides when you have no information.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Jed,

        I have never seen Rossi mention 0.0 bar nor 36,000kg. BTW please use either 0.0 barG or 0.0 barA as just writing 0.0 bar means nothing as you have not inducated the reference point.

        • JedRothwell

          “I have never seen Rossi mention 0.0 bar nor 36,000kg.”

          Good grief! What is with you? Are you still saying that “36 cubic meters per day” of water is not the same as 36,000 kg? Are you really an engineer? That’s the nuttiest thing I have read in a long time.

          1 dozen = 12
          100 cm = 1 m
          100 pennies = $1
          36 cubic meters of water = 36,000 kg

          Do you dispute this? If not, why do you keep saying this???

          As I told you, his calorimetry data lists it as 36,000 kg. But IT IS THE SAME THING, for crying out loud.

          The 0.0 bar is in his data, not in the Lewan interview. Ask Lewan if Rossi disclosed that particular gem to him. Oh, and ask Rossi why he changed the pressure data.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed.

            Rossi has only mentioned an averaged daily flow of 36^3 mtr, which could be from 35.5^3 to 36.49^3 and be rounded to 36^3.

            It is you who insist the value was 36,000kg, when in reality it could be anywhere from 35,500kg to 36,499kg and still be the rounded 36^3. Note he did not quote 36.0 but quoted 36 which can be rounded as I have shown.

            BTW Rossi has claimed you have no ERV data, which I suggest means if you do have ERV data, then you obtained it outside legal channels, which may come back to bite you.

          • JedRothwell

            “Rossi has only mentioned an averaged daily flow of 36^3 mtr, which could be from 35.5^3 to 36.49^3 and be rounded to 36^3.”

            Do you speak language? As I said, time after time after time, HIS DATA SHOWS 36,000 kg. Exactly. For several days.

            Look, you don’t believe me. I get that. I understand. But just say: “You’re lying! Rossi is telling the truth!” Don’t tell me I did not say what I just said. And said, and said and said. Don’t be tiresome.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            I’m trying to help you to understand an averaged flow of 36^3 mtr per day is not exactly 36,000kg. Sure converting 36^3 mtr to kg gives 36,000. My point was the 36^3 is a whole / integer number and as such, the real decimal value could be from 35.5 to 36.49 and still round to 36 as an integer.

          • JedRothwell

            “I’m btrying to help you to understand an averaged flow of 36^3 mtr per day is not exactly 36,000kg.”

            And I am telling you, for the umpteenth time, that it is shown in the data a exactly 36,000 kg for several days running. Nowhere is it described as an average.

            Besides, even if it were an average, how the heck would the machine achieve exactly the same average every day? And if it were not the same average, why would anyone use it for calorimetry instead of using the actual instrument reading?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            I gave you the data sheet for the pumps. They are very high accuracy computer controlled pumps designed to deliver a very constant flow.

            Simple for the control system to maintain a very repeatable highly accurate daily flow. Just dial in a number, say 1,500 ltr per hour, and that is what you get.

          • JedRothwell

            I considered that possibility, but there are some aspects of the data that decisively rule out the hypothesis that the flow rate was so constant. It would not fit with the other data. There is also no chance this data is accurate. It has to be hugely wrong, given this instrument and configuration, and what the other instruments show.

            Sorry I cannot be more specific. I did give that hypothesis serious consideration. I did not dismiss the possibility that the flow rate was 36,000, say plus or minus 5%. But it couldn’t have been.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Unless you share your source data, why should anyone here believe what you claim is real?

            No disrespect but it is Show & Tell time.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed who write:
            “HIS DATA SHOWS”

            I thought the data IH gave you and you have made comments against was the ERV’s data from the 1 year test and not Rossi’s data from some other test?

            If you also have Rossi data, was it IH that gave you his data?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            I have no problem converting 36^3 mtr of water to kgs.

            My point was 36 is an integer, which could have started out life as a real between 35.5 and 36.49.

          • Bruce__H

            You seem to think that 35.5 vs 36.49 has some significance for the larger discussion here. It seems unimportant to me but perhaps you have some reason for bringing it up. May I ask why you are asking people to focus on this?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            Seems you have joined Jed as his tag team member. Did Jed need some help battling those who understand the engineering & physcis?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            My statement stands, Rossi never mentioned 36, 000kg. It is only you that quote 36,000kg and as you will not reveal your data, well Rossi averaged daily 36^3mtr stands as what Rossi quoted.

        • Karl Venter

          I would like to see somebody pump 36000 litres at 0 bar
          It wont go anywhere
          How are you going to get it to flow in the pipe — pipe losses are real

          • Engineer48

            Hi Karl,

            Steam expands approx 1,700 times. Assuming the outlet steam pipe is designed & constructed properly, the expanding steam will drive the dry/superheated steam down the pipe to the heat exchanger.

          • Karl Venter

            Hi Engineer

            Just one more question
            In these steam boiler you have where is the highest pressure in the whole system?

            Two options

            A.At the pump feeding the water into the boiler system
            B. In the heating area of the boiler somewhere

          • Engineer48

            Hi Karl.

            I assume the pressure, (max expansion) is when the just boiled very wet steam is further heater, dried & made superheated as that is where the max energy is inputted.

  • Engineer48

    Just received an email from Rossi, when I asked him about Jed’s supposed possession of Rossi data:

    Jed has no data at all, they are trying to make me give data that can be disclosed only in Court.
    You can simply respond that Mt Rothwell is an imbecile who talks of data that he has invented.
    Thank you for your help,
    Warmest Regards,
    Andrea

    • Chapman

      “IMBECILE” That was the word I was looking for!!!

      See! Rossi displays his superior intellect yet again! And it just proves again, that when in doubt, just go to the source.

      God, I really do LOVE Dr. Rossi!

      • Engineer48

        Hi Chapman,

        So if Jed does have ERV data and he did not get it from IH or Rossi by the front door, who gave it to him and us it accurate?

        Or Jed has no more data than what Weaver has posted on LENR-Forum.

        • Mats002

          He got it via internet, email or chat or what can it be?, most probably email.

          See his response to me just a little below.

        • JedRothwell

          You wrote: “Or Jed has no more data than what Weaver has posted on LENR-Forum.”

          I hope you cannot tell the difference. I hope that I have not revealed anything that Weaver has not already revealed.

          Some of the things he says are not supported or refuted by Rossi’s data, so I try not to repeat them.

          As I said, my policy is to say nothing beyond what I.H. or Rossi have revealed. That is frustrating for me. At times it must come across as rude to the readers here. I apologize for that. It is a shame. If it were not for this lawsuit, I probably would have gotten permission to publish everything by now. Before the lawsuit, I was expecting that permission. The lawsuit came as a surprise to me.

      • sam

        AR could have been displaying his temper.

    • JedRothwell

      Well, if the ERV is disclosed in court, or by some other means, you will see whether I am lying, or whether Rossi is lying. Look at the flow rates and pressure: 36,000 kg and 0.0 bar.

      I suggest you wait and see. Do not take sides when you have no information.

      Let me add that I would be pretty stupid to lie about this data when I post specific numerical data you will be able to check if you get a copy of the report. Rossi has made only vague assertions that would be defensible (sort of) even if the report is published. The report does support his conclusions, after all, if you believe his calorimetry. He can keep dodging and dancing, whereas you will see instantly whether I am lying or not.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Jed,

        I have never seen Rossi mention 0.0 bar nor 36,000kg. BTW please use either 0.0 barG or 0.0 barA as just writing 0.0 bar means nothing as you have not inducated the reference point.

        • JedRothwell

          “I have never seen Rossi mention 0.0 bar nor 36,000kg.”

          Good grief! What is with you? Are you still saying that “36 cubic meters per day” of water is not the same as 36,000 kg? Are you really an engineer? That’s the nuttiest thing I have read in a long time.

          1 dozen = 12
          100 cm = 1 m
          100 pennies = $1
          36 cubic meters of water = 36,000 kg

          Do you dispute this? If not, why do you keep saying this???

          As I told you, his calorimetry data lists it as 36,000 kg. But IT IS THE SAME THING, for crying out loud.

          The 0.0 bar is in his data, not in the Lewan interview. Ask Lewan if Rossi disclosed that particular gem to him. Oh, and ask Rossi why he changed the pressure data.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed.

            Rossi has only mentioned an averaged daily flow of 36^3 mtr, which could be from 35.5^3 to 36.49^3 and be rounded to 36^3.

            It is you who insist the value was 36,000kg, when in reality it could be anywhere from 35,500kg to 36,499kg and still be the rounded 36^3. Note he did not quote 36.0 but quoted 36 which can be rounded as I have shown.

            BTW Rossi has claimed you have no ERV data, which I suggest means if you do have ERV data, then you obtained it outside legal channels, which may come back to bite you.

          • JedRothwell

            “Rossi has only mentioned an averaged daily flow of 36^3 mtr, which could be from 35.5^3 to 36.49^3 and be rounded to 36^3.”

            Do you speak language? As I said, time after time after time, HIS DATA SHOWS 36,000 kg. Exactly. For several days.

            Look, you don’t believe me. I get that. I understand. But just say: “You’re lying! Rossi is telling the truth!” Don’t tell me I did not say what I just said. And said, and said and said. Don’t be tiresome.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            I’m trying to help you to understand an averaged flow of 36^3 mtr per day is not exactly 36,000kg. Sure converting 36^3 mtr to kg gives 36,000. My point was the 36^3 is a whole / integer number and as such, the real decimal value could be from 35.5 to 36.49 and still round to 36 as an integer.

            I’m sure as a programmer you understand integer rounding.

            BTW I’ve written a few too many lines of assembler in my life. Well written, assembler can be easily readable.

          • JedRothwell

            “I’m btrying to help you to understand an averaged flow of 36^3 mtr per day is not exactly 36,000kg.”

            And I am telling you, for the umpteenth time, that it is shown in the data as exactly 36,000 kg for several days running. Nowhere is it described as an average.

            Besides, even if it were an average, how the heck would the machine achieve exactly the same average every day? And if it were not the same average, why would anyone use it for calorimetry instead of using the actual instrument reading?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            I gave you the data sheet for the pumps. They are very high accuracy computer controlled pumps designed to deliver a very constant flow.

            Simple for the control system to maintain a very repeatable highly accurate daily flow. Just dial in a number, say 1,500 ltr per hour, and that is what you get.

          • JedRothwell

            I considered that possibility, but there are some aspects of the data that decisively rule out the hypothesis that the flow rate was so constant. It would not fit with the other data. There is also no chance this data is accurate. It has to be hugely wrong, given this instrument and configuration, and what the other instruments show.

            Sorry I cannot be more specific. I did give that hypothesis serious consideration. I did not dismiss the possibility that the flow rate was 36,000, say plus or minus 5%. But it couldn’t have been.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Unless you share your source data, why should anyone here believe what you claim is real?

            No disrespect but it is Show & Tell time.

          • JedRothwell

            I did share my source data. You are looking at it. 36,000 kg of water per day. Pressure 0.0 bar. That’s what the data from Rossi says.

            You are saying it did not come from Rossi. How do you know that? And how can I prove to you that it did? If I upload a table and say, “see, this came from Rossi” you will say I typed the table myself. Electronic data can originate anywhere.

            You will have to ask Rossi for data, because you only trust him.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed who write:
            “HIS DATA SHOWS”

            I thought the data IH gave you and you have made comments against was the ERV’s data from the 1 year test and not Rossi’s data from some other test?

            If you also have Rossi data, was it IH that gave you his data?

          • Mats002

            It will bite whom who sent it…

            Unless Jed signed a NDA which I do not believe, Jed is not a part in the business deal I presume.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            I have no problem converting 36^3 mtr of water to kgs.

            My point was 36 is an integer, which could have started out life as a real between 35.5 and 36.49.

          • Bruce__H

            You seem to think that 35.5 vs 36.49 has some significance for the larger discussion here. It seems unimportant to me but perhaps you have some reason for bringing it up. May I ask why you are asking people to focus on this?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            Seems you have joined Jed as his tag team member. Did Jed need some help battling those who understand the engineering & physcis?

          • Bruce__H

            I just didn’t understand what you were trying to get at. Not sure what the point of 35.5 vs 36 vs 36.49 is in the larger argument.

            I am not an engineer or physicist. I am a neuroscientist specializing in elecrophysiology. So I would certainly benefit from clarifications on the physics and engineering. In particular I have become convinced that the most important unanswered question in regards to the 1 year test is where the 1 MW of generated heat went. Without a good answer to this question I think that everyone has to conclude that the heat was never generated. Do you still believe that supplying heat to an endothermic industrial process can account for this scale of energy usage? Can you produce some sort of order-of-magnitude calculation that would put this in the realm of possibility? I can’t. I think that the heat generated by a 1 MW reactor is massively larger than can be consumed reasonably by endothermic reactions.

            So where did the heat go? That is a nice engineering/physics question that I am seeking help with.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            My statement stands, Rossi never mentioned 36, 000kg. It is only you that quote 36,000kg and as you will not reveal your data, well Rossi averaged daily 36^3mtr stands as what Rossi quoted.

        • Karl Venter

          I would like to see somebody pump 36000 litres at 0 bar
          It wont go anywhere
          How are you going to get it to flow in the pipe — pipe losses are real

          • Engineer48

            Hi Karl,

            Steam expands approx 1,700 times. Assuming the outlet steam pipe is designed & constructed properly, the expanding steam will drive the dry/superheated steam down the pipe to the heat exchanger.

          • Karl Venter

            Hi Engineer

            Just one more question
            In these steam boiler you have where is the highest pressure in the whole system?

            Two options

            A.At the pump feeding the water into the boiler system
            B. In the heating area of the boiler somewhere

          • Engineer48

            Hi Karl.

            I assume the pressure, (max expansion) is when the just boiled very wet steam is further heater, dried & made superheated as that is where the max energy is inputted.

  • Engineer48

    Hi GiveADogABone,

    Well done. Nicely stated.

  • JedRothwell

    You wrote: “2: Inadvertently running the water/steam system completely flooded, without noticing, is so improbable it can be discounted.”

    Says who?

    • Steve Swatman

      Thats all you got? 😉

  • Engineer48

    Hi Chapman,

    So if Jed does have ERV data and he did not get it from IH or Rossi by the front door, who gave it to him and us it accurate?

    Or Jed has no more data than what Weaver has posted on LENR-Forum.

    • Mats002

      He got it via internet, email or chat or what can it be?, most probably email.

      See his response to me just a little below.

    • JedRothwell

      You wrote: “Or Jed has no more data than what Weaver has posted on LENR-Forum.”

      I hope you cannot tell the difference. I hope that I have not revealed anything that Weaver has not already revealed.

      Some of the things he says are not supported or refuted by Rossi’s data, so I try not to repeat them.

      As I said, my policy is to say nothing beyond what I.H. or Rossi have revealed. That is frustrating for me. At times it must come across as rude to the readers here. I apologize for that. It is a shame. If it were not for this lawsuit, I probably would have gotten permission to publish everything by now. Before the lawsuit, I was expecting that permission. The lawsuit came as a surprise to me.

  • sam

    AR could have been displaying his temper.

  • Bruce__H

    I believe that one of the most important pieces of information to come from Jed Rothwell on this thread is that IH, as part of keeping track of the year-long 1 MW test, began to wonder at one point about where all the heat generated by Rossi’s invention was going.

    A lot of heat is being generated and it has to go somewhere. According to Jed it is illegal to send it down the drain into the sewers so it must be vented from the company side of the Florida building as hot air or steam. I wonder if anyone can provide for me a picture of what such venting would look and sound like. As a sort of maximal estimate for steam venting I picture a water flow of 36 m^3 per day (a bit like a home faucet turned on full) being instantaneously turned into steam and vented through the roof. I think this would have to be an enormous noisy rushing geyser erupting from the roof 24/7. I think that would be pretty obvious. But maybe my picture is wrong. Can anyone supply a more sophisticated picture?

    For venting of hot air … well is even possible to do this? How many vents of what size would be needed?

    Apparently IH couldn’t find heat commensurate with 1 MW generation 24/7 being given off from the building. This argument obviates all the the others about contracts and measuring instruments and so on. If the heat is being generated it must be dissipated somewhere. If you can’t find it then it was never there. Can anyone help Rossi and IH find the missing heat?

    • JedRothwell

      “According to Jed it is illegal to send it down the drain into the sewers . . .”

      Not so much illegal as impractical. The upper temperature limit for PVC is 60 deg C. Other plastic drains max out at 82 deg C.

      http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/plastic-pipes-operating-pressure-d_1621.html

      So Florida laws say drainage cannot be hotter than 60 deg C. You would have to use a tremendous amount of water to cool down 1 MW. I estimated it would be roughly 3 times the average Florida “large industrial” customer: ~3 * 1910 ccf, from this table:

      http://www.tampagov.net/water/info/rates-and-fees/average-monthly-usage-table

      “I wonder if anyone can provide for me a picture of what such venting would look and sound like.”

      Steam would be awesome! I have seen a 60 kW steam generator exhaust at a carpet factory. It was a tremendous plume, and a terrific noise. If you handled it wrong, it would kill you. My late father was a fireman in a steamship constructed around 1910. Those engines produced about 1500 kW (2000 HP) which I guess means around 4.5 MW of steam. If a major pipe ruptured, that much steam would instantly kill everyone in the engine room. I think even 1 MW would. You get a sense of the power from this time-lapse video:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCej2OQSKnY

      Rossi’s device may not have been under intense pressure, but a megawatt scale boiler is a very dangerous thing, even if it is only for hot water.

      Air ventilation is less dramatic. Somewhere in the Engineering Toolbox I found a table showing that 1 MW of heat removal calls for about a 22″ vent and a gigantic fan. Of course it depends on air temperature, velocity and other factors. I can’t find the table now. . . . Ah. Here we are. Scroll down to: Chimney Vent Capacity Chart – Btu/h and kW

      http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/chimney-sizing-d_175.html

      You gotta love this website!

      • Bruce__H

        I believe you may have underestimated the size of the vent needed to eject hot air from the “behind the door” side of Rossi’s test facility. I know that on the engineering toolbox site you linked to it suggests a vent size of 22″ for a 1000 kW boiler but this is for a different situation. This is when the boiler is being used for heating a structure and I assume that when the correct inside temperature is reached the boiler will shut off through a thermostat action. The only reason for the venting is to carry away flue gasses during operation not heat. In the Rossi case heat is supposedly being generate 24/7 and it is this heat that needs to be vented.

        I have made some rough calculations. I am rounding because I am after order-of-magnitude information only and I am making conservative assumptions.

        The beyond-the-door customer side is 600 m^2 in area. Let’s be conservative and say it is 10 m high so that the volume of the room is 6E+3 m^3. How quickly would such a volume of air be heated by a 1 MW reactor? Using an air density of 1.2 kg/m^3 and specific heat for air of c_p = 1E+3 J/kg*degreeC I calculate the temperature change in the room due to a 1 MW reactor shedding heat for 1s is …

        delta_temp = 1E+6 J / [1E+3 J/kg*degreeC * 1.2 kg/m^3 * 6E+3 m^3]
        = 0.14 degreeC

        So 1 MW is capable of heating the customer side 0.14 degrees per second. It would take only 72 seconds to raise the temperature on the customer side by 10 degrees C and double that time to send the temperature from 20C to 40C!

        So it looks as though the entire volume of air in the room needs to be vented to the outside (and replace by fresh air) every 144 seconds or else the inhabitants will boil. To be conservative let’s say the air only needs to be replaced every 5 minutes.

        The question now becomes how big a vent do you need to exhaust 6000 m^3 of air in 5 minutes? If we assume a maximal air velocity of 10 m/s I get a vent size of 20 m^2 which is massively larger than the 22″ air vent you posited.

        Please check my numbers. The IH engineers must have gone through an exercise like this too. I wonder what they got.

        Edit: The foregoing assumes that heat is vented only 10 degrees above ambient so that it is difficult (but certainly not impossible) to detect via heat signature. If heat is concentrated and vented at, say, 40 degrees above ambient then the vent area would be correspondingly smaller at 5 m^2. It would be a lot harder for IH to miss this though.

        • JedRothwell

          My response to this message disappeared. I hope this was a glitch and not deliberate.

          Anyway, I just pulled these numbers out of a hat. They are for a chimney over a fire, which is an enclosed point source of intense heat.

          Your analysis is correct. This would be heat dispersed over the entire area. I suppose it would be conducted out of the room with hoods, such as the ones used in factories or restaurant kitchens over stoves. These are less efficient than chimneys and they have be much larger to remove the same amount of heat.

    • JedRothwell

      Ah, here is the Florida statute limiting drainage temperature to 60 deg C:

      http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/free_resources/2010Florida/Plumbing/PDFs/Chapter%207%20-%20Sanitary%20Drainage.pdf

      See section 701.7

      It also says you are not allowed to exhaust steam into the drainage system.

      • Bruce__H

        Wow. Thanks. You are an awesome resource!

    • Mats002

      Many knowledgable people discuss that below this article: http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/29/photos-of-1mw-plant-address/comment-page-1/

      • Bruce__H

        Many thanks!

        The importance of Jed’s information on this thread is that during the test IH was surveilling the premises from the outside trying to find the emission of heat commensurate with 1 MW of heat production 24/7 and having no luck.

        I wonder if they also kept track of delivery and trucking away of materials. If the heat was used to drive an endothermic reaction to produce some product then there would have to be lots of delivery activity.

        • wpj

          Mats Lewan said that some visitors that he had spoken to had seen production activity. It is claimed that they were making “sponge metal” catalysts (a registered trade mark!).

          These are made by leaching aluminium from an alloy with nickel at between 50 and 90C for many hours. Depending on the catalyst being made, the process may have to be repeated (so called “double boil”) which is extremely power intensive.

          Clearly, the heat would not be used all the time and excess would have to be vented to air. This is possibly why visitors were told that the energy usage was 10-20 times less that would be expected, rather than the 50 COP claimed by Rossi (ML’s copy of the electricity bill had COP 24 written on it).

          The catalyst production really only needs the single reactor with the leachate being put into a plastic caged container and shipped off site. The caustic is a 40-50% solution in water. Similarly, the product is dumped into a barrel over water as it is highly pyrophoric.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Clearly, the heat would not be used all the time and excess would have to be vented to air.”

            In any industrial process, including any endothermic one, nearly all of the process heat has to vented. Only a tiny fraction is absorbed by the process. Therefore, if there were 1 MW of process heat going into the facility, almost all of it would be coming out, all of the time, whether production was under way or not.

            “The catalyst production really only needs the single reactor with the leachate being put into a plastic caged container and shipped off site. . . .”

            Do you seriously believe that Rossi’s company JM Chemical Products was engaged in this kind of production? Without a license or inspections, without informing the state of Florida? They were doing manufacturing of potentially dangerous chemicals, with megawatt-scale process heat, in a building zoned for warehouse use and not industrial production? Really?

            I am disappointed that Mats Lewan would believe such nonsense.

          • wpj

            He was only communicating what his contacts, who had visited the plant, had seen when the door was left open.

            As for the claimed production, this was from a presentation given to Darden and his visitors by the production manager. If the production was a hoax Darden was happy to accept the “stella” performance to get money out of the investors.

          • JedRothwell

            Do you have a link to Darden’s comments?

          • wpj

            The product/production was from Mats’ contacts.

            The Darden comments were via Rossi, though he claims that it was all on video, so unless he has hired a few actors for the video shoot it ………..

          • Bruce__H

            Is the production of raney nickel hugely endothermic?

          • JedRothwell

            I do not think any industrial process is so endothermic it could hide 1 MW of process heat. That is, make it look no larger than ~20 kW. All endothermic processes produce waste heat. They just produce less of it than processes which do not no absorb heat.

            A typical endothermic process listed in many elementary textbooks is baking bread. This absorbs some heat, changing the chemical bonds in the loaf, but a bakery is still a hot place. Just not quite as hot as it would be if you were baking rocks in the oven.

          • Bruce__H

            Bread vs rocks is a good illustration. I on’t think the possibility of endothermic reactions soaking up all the heat and storing it as chemical bonds was ever introduced a seriously practical suggestion.

            I am surprised that the force of the “where is the heat” argument is not more influential on this and other threads involving the 1 year test. Unless someone can come up with a reasonable suggestion about where all the heat went we must conclude it was never there. Simple as that. It is the first really convincing case that I have seen that Rossi is a fraud. It should be number 1 on the list of questions people have about the test because until this is answered everything else is detail, including the ERV report.

          • JedRothwell

            “Bread vs rocks is a good illustration. I on’t think the possibility of endothermic reactions soaking up all the heat and storing it as chemical bonds was ever introduced a seriously practical suggestion.”

            As far as I know, all endothermic industrial processes resemble baking, in that they produce lots of waste heat. There are endothermic chemical processes that absorb heat only, such as instant cold packs. See:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_cold_pack

            I do not think making spongy nickel is endothermic.

            (Spongy nickel, or Raney nickel has been used in cold fusion. As far as I know, the first person to suggest this was Martin Fleischmann.)

          • Bruce__H

            I have been thinking about this and also trying to disinter my old knowledge of physical chemistry. Please check me here.

            My understanding, for an endothermic process what you are calling “process” heat corresponds to the enthalpy of formation. This is the energy that will be absorbed by the reaction. And the “waste” heat you refer to is the heat needed to raise the temperature of the reactants enough that the Gibbs free energy becomes negative (which will drive the reaction froward). Is that right?

            Do you know where I can look to find out more about these issues in industrial settings?

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “It should be number 1 on the list of questions people have about the test because until this is answered everything else is detail, including the ERV report.”

            Rossi refused to address this issue. He adamantly refused to allow anyone into the customer site. As he told Lewan in the interview: “At the end of the test, an expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where the water came from and where it was used. The ERV explained that this had no importance.” It wasn’t only the ERV Penon who “explained” this. Rossi also did.

            It was clear to me why the I.H. expert felt it was important to see where the heat went to, and how much there was. The reason is exactly what you just said: to measure the heat balance.

            Also, as I said earlier, because Rossi’s calorimetry is wretched, it is difficult to measure the heat balance in the reactor room. When an engineer performs routine maintenance on a boiler, and measures the heat balance, he does not need to follow the hot fluid and find out where it goes and how much there is. The boiler room is equipped with a set of instruments in a configuration according to the safety codes. By following mandatory procedures, you can measure the heat balance with high confidence. You cannot do this with Rossi’s reactor because the instruments and configuration were not up to code, so the I.H. expert had to take extra steps. Rossi did not allow him or anyone else to do that. However, as I mentioned, I have heard this problem has been addressed by other techniques.

            Many people here and elsewhere have insisted that you don’t need to look further than the boiler room to measure heat from a boiler. Normally, that is true. In this case, it was not. In the original plan agreed to by I.H. there would have been no need to leave the boiler room, but Rossi removed essential instruments and re-arranged the others, making it impossible to do calorimetry correctly.

          • Bruce__H

            Hi Jed,

            One way of getting rid of heat is to use it to drive endothermic reactions and then haul away the products of the reactions. I am currently attempting to understand how much needs to be trucked away.

            Trucking it away, however, might need many trucks. Do you know whether there was a great deal of trucking activity to and from the building next door to Rossi’s ECAT setup while the reactors were supposed to be producing heat at the rate of 1 MW?

        • JedRothwell

          You wrote: “The importance of Jed’s information on this thread is that during the test IH was surveilling the premises from the outside trying to find the emission of heat commensurate with 1 MW of heat production 24/7 and having no luck.”

          I have not heard that they did it continuously or anything like that. I have heard they did this, and they also examined the vents. I do not have written proof of this. This is just what I heard. It seems like a sensible thing to do, so I don’t doubt it.

          I do have written proof of Rossi’s claims, written by Rossi or Penon (I cannot tell who).

          • Bruce__H

            I believe that the presence or absence of heat being emitted from the building is the single most important thing to understand in this whole mess.

            I have been working on the assumption that there is 1 MW production 24/7 for large stretches of time. Even if it is less, the heat that is produced still has to go somewhere. From what I have heard, though, emission does not match production. And that is a big problem for anyone who holds that this was genuinely a 1 MW reactor being tested.

            There are possible ways out of the discrepancy between claimed production and heat being dissipated. But they don’t seem likely. One is to use enormous amounts of water for cooling (you mentioned this too), another is to truck in tons of ice per day and melt it then send the melted water down the drain, and another is to use the heat to enable a hugely endothermic reaction. I haven’t heard anyone be very persuasive on the subject of endothermic reactions however.

            The importance of the “where is the heat” argument is that it obviates all arguments about what is in contracts, or where sensors are placed, or what the flow is, or why certain actors would behave in certain ways. This physical argument takes precedence over all the others. I’m sure the IH technicians must have had the same thoughts.

  • Kevmo

    In this case, replication is what makes someone decidably PHOSITA, and lack of replication is what makes someone non-PHOSITA.

    • Bruce__H

      Hi Kevmo

      The patent office needs to define what is or is not a valid patent. One of the criteria is that the device or process specified in the patent can be made to work by a person skilled in the art who follows the instructions as laid out in the patent application.

      If “skilled in the art” simply means a person who can make the device work, then how do you recognize an invalid patent? What if the instructions are wrong, a step has been missed, or it is a deliberately false invention that just doesn’t work? There would be no way to recognize this as an invalid patent because every time someone failed to make it work you would just say “Oh they are non-PHOSITA”. And having no way to recognize an invalid patent on this ground then why would the patent regulations use the “skilled in the art” language at all?

      • Kevmo

        You are missing the point. This isn’t about a patent application, it is about a legal contract. Using the PHOSITA example is simply appropriate to generate the point that the contract was fulfilled.

        • Bruce__H

          OK. Thanks then.

  • JedRothwell

    “According to Jed it is illegal to send it down the drain into the sewers . . .”

    Not so much illegal as impractical. The upper temperature limit for PVC is 60 deg C. Other plastic drains max out at 82 deg C.

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/plastic-pipes-operating-pressure-d_1621.html

    So Florida laws say drainage cannot be hotter than 60 deg C. You would have to use a tremendous amount of water to cool down 1 MW. I estimated it would be roughly 3 times the average Florida “large industrial” customer: ~3 * 1910 ccf, from this table:

    http://www.tampagov.net/water/info/rates-and-fees/average-monthly-usage-table

    “I wonder if anyone can provide for me a picture of what such venting would look and sound like.”

    Steam would be awesome! I have seen a 60 kW steam generator exhaust at a carpet factory. It was a tremendous plume, and a terrific noise. If you handled it wrong, it would kill you. My late father was a fireman in a steamship constructed around 1910. Those engines produced about 1500 kW (2000 HP) which I guess means around 4.5 MW of steam. If a major pipe ruptured, that much steam would instantly kill everyone in the engine room. I think even 1 MW would. You get a sense of the power from this time-lapse video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCej2OQSKnY

    Rossi’s device may not have been under intense pressure, but a megawatt scale boiler is a very dangerous thing, even if it is only for hot water.

    Air ventilation is less dramatic. Somewhere in the Engineering Toolbox I found a table showing that 1 MW of heat removal calls for about a 22″ vent and a gigantic fan. Of course it depends on air temperature, velocity and other factors. I can’t find the table now. . . . Ah. Here we are. Scroll down to: Chimney Vent Capacity Chart – Btu/h and kW

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/chimney-sizing-d_175.html

    You gotta love this website!

  • JedRothwell

    “you failed to realize that the contract stipulated that IH and the ERV had control over, and responsibility for, the data acquisition protocols, choice of instruments and their position.”

    You mean that nitwit Penon. Yeah, yeah, sure I have heard that nonsense. I am sure Rossi was in charge. Rossi makes all the decisions in Rossi’s lab. He may have picked Penon to be his puppet, but no one other than Rossi could come up with a test as bad as this. Not even Penon.

    “. . . then you tried to cover your butt by claiming that Rossi nefariously switched out instruments and otherwise deviated from the agreed to plan.”

    That wasn’t me. I.H. said that. I am sure they are right, because no sane person would approve of the final configuration.

    “All in all, worst FUD campaign ever, imo.”

    Fear, uncertainty and doubt. Who, exactly am I frightening? Where is this fear of which you speak? Uncertainty? You are incapable of it, just as you can’t even see that Rossi is putting you on when he says there is no need for anyone to go into his pretend customer site. Doubt? When have you or Rossi felt one nanogram of doubt? You are impervious to facts, logic, engineering and common sense.

  • JedRothwell

    Ah, here is the Florida statute limiting drainage temperature to 60 deg C:

    http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/free_resources/2010Florida/Plumbing/PDFs/Chapter%207%20-%20Sanitary%20Drainage.pdf

    See section 701.7

    • Bruce__H

      Wow. Thanks. You are an awesome resource!

  • wpj

    Mats Lewan said that some visitors that he had spoken to had seen production activity. It is claimed that they were making “sponge metal” catalysts (a registered trade mark!).

    These are made by leaching aluminium from an alloy with nickel at between 50 and 90C for many hours. Depending on the catalyst being made, the process may have to be repeated (so called “double boil”) which is extremely power intensive.

    Clearly, the heat would not be used all the time and excess would have to be vented to air. This is possibly why visitors were told that the energy usage was 10-20 times less that would be expected, rather than the 50 COP claimed by Rossi (ML’s copy of the electricity bill had COP 24 written on it).

    The catalyst production really only needs the single reactor with the leachate being put into a plastic caged container and shipped off site. The caustic is a 40-50% solution in water. Similarly, the product is dumped into a barrel over water as it is highly pyrophoric.

    • JedRothwell

      You wrote: “Clearly, the heat would not be used all the time and excess would have to be vented to air.”

      In any industrial process, including any endothermic one, nearly all of the process heat has to vented. Only a tiny fraction is absorbed by the process. Therefore, if there were 1 MW of process heat going into the facility, almost all of it would be coming out, all of the time, whether production was under way or not.

      “The catalyst production really only needs the single reactor with the leachate being put into a plastic caged container and shipped off site. . . .”

      Do you seriously believe that Rossi’s company JM Chemical Products was engaged in this kind of production? Without a license or inspections, without informing the state of Florida? They were doing manufacturing of potentially dangerous chemicals, with megawatt-scale process heat, in a building zoned for warehouse use and not industrial production? Really?

      I am disappointed that Mats Lewan would believe such nonsense.

      • wpj

        He was only communicating what his contacts, who had visited the plant, had seen when the door was left open.

        As for the claimed production, this was from a presentation given to Darden and his visitors by the production manager. If the production was a hoax Darden was happy to accept the “stella” performance to get money out of the investors.

        • JedRothwell

          Do you have a link to Darden’s comments?

          • wpj

            The product/production was from Mats’ contacts.

            The Darden comments were via Rossi, though he claims that it was all on video, so unless he has hired a few actors for the video shoot it ………..

        • Steve Swatman

          it would appear to me Jed, that if all your comments disappeared no one but yourself and Bruce_h would give a damn.

          So all your data is unsubstantiated,

          Your claims are unsubstantiated.

          Your informants are unsubstantiated.

          I think that sums it all up them, you were given some unsubstantiated data from an unsubstantiated source, and you are spending hours everyday attempting to give unsubstantiated information and data some substance.

          What a waste of time and effort. even if you are right, even if your data is real, even if your interpretation is real, surely you can find something more substantially rewarding to do?

      • JedRothwell

        I do not think any industrial process is so endothermic it could hide 1 MW of process heat. That is, make it look no larger than ~20 kW. All endothermic processes produce waste heat. They just produce less of it than processes which do not no absorb heat.

        A typical endothermic process listed in many elementary textbooks is baking bread. This absorbs some heat, changing the chemical bonds in the loaf, but a bakery is still a hot place. Just not quite as hot as it would be if you were baking rocks in the oven.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Jed,

          Sorry wrong. The steam exits from the top of JM’s reaction chamber and will dissipate as stated.

          BTW are you saying Rossi’s lawyer has purgered himself to the court as below?
          http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3885/7420/original.jpg

          If not please stop making statements that there is no UK patent for the IH thermal heat customer. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/28b5168ce905966ad9e131cbdc5524aa0955c12d78b42113c629c4203ceb6483.png

          • Steve Swatman

            I am pretty sure that was covered by a number of people when this argument first came into the blogosphere, in fact, if I remember correctly there were a number of people pointing out that ventilation at the facility was capable of venting upto 1 MW of heat without too much difficulty, and of course there is the sewer.

            I am not an engineer or scientist, but I assume (knowing that assumption is mother of all f#@%ups) if the return water is at 65c then the waste heat and consumed heat is not anything near the full 1MW you are claiming should have dissipated.

            Of course I am just an ignorant layman, with no idea about such things.

            I do like to believe that the E-cat worked, and do not readily accept people only looking for the negatives when the positives (and there appear to a few of those) should be investigated first.

  • JedRothwell

    You wrote: “The importance of Jed’s information on this thread is that during the test IH was surveilling the premises from the outside trying to find the emission of heat commensurate with 1 MW of heat production 24/7 and having no luck.”

    I have not heard that they did it continuously or anything like that. I have heard they did this, and they also examined the vents. I do not have written proof of this. This is just what I heard. It seems like a sensible thing to do, so I don’t doubt it.

    I do have written proof of Rossi’s claims, written by Rossi or Penon (I cannot tell who).

  • I woke up this morning with an idea that might fit some of the “facts”
    of this bruhaha. As I was washing my face into my brain popped the
    idea that Rossi at one point during the 1MW test period claimed
    (probably more than once) that his data, the ERV’s data and IH’s data
    all jived. That implies that they all made separate measurements.

    And if I’m not mistaken Rossi also said all three entities, namely
    Rossi, Penon and IH, employed their own data collection instruments.

    Now Jed has repeated said that the data from the 1MW test that he’s
    seen is a “laff riot and wouldn’t fool anyone”. He’s particularly hung
    up on this idea that Rossi repeatedly recorded exactly 36000 kg/day in
    his flow rate data column. To Jed this is highly suspicious and clear
    evidence of fudged numbers.

    Jed also made reference to the idea that Rossi used old school
    instruments to measure data. Jed wrote: “These are old fashioned
    instruments with face plates and numbers displayed. Not your modern
    invisible electronic gadgets.” This goes against the notion via a
    “Rossi says” that the data points were counted in the many millions.

    So here is my theory. Perhaps Rossi had installed his own “old school”
    instruments that he trusted so he could independently and continually
    assess if the plant was performing as it should in a rough, ballparky
    kind of way and at the same time, IH and the ERV relied on their own
    instruments as well. We know Rossi and IH agreed that only the ERV’s
    numbers mattered as far as the contract goes. And certainly the ERV’s
    “official” instruments were of course the more modern kind with state of
    the art electronics and automatic data logging. Rossi, not needing to
    be too precise, only had to approximate the water flow measurement for
    his own “peace of mind” calculations as they were never going to be used
    to validate the 1MW plant’s performance. This could be the data that
    Jed has appropriated.

    Of course Jed has been screaming from the mountain tops that he’s
    absolutely sure Rossi is a fraud. But Jed is clearly exhibiting a
    long-lived anti Rossi bias. He made that crystal clear. So given ANY
    possible evidence that Rossi is doing something improper he’s going to
    jump on it and milk it for all it’s worth.

    Jed has repeated many times that Rossi allegedly almost killed people
    with his carelessness. And Jed’s sympathized with people that “hate
    his [Rossi’s] guts! One group of people he worked with told me “if Rossi
    ever shows up in town again, one of us will beat the crap out of him or
    strangle him.” He was exaggerating, but not by much.”

    So I think Jed, with his strong anti Rossi bias jumped to some very
    negative conclusions based on Rossi’s non ERV, not official data. And I
    doubt Jed is a paid for shill for IH. I think his dislike of Rossi is
    genuine. He’s simply an unwitting pawn of IH, and please forgive the
    expression a “useful idiot” for the IH driven, anti-Rossi machine.

    Remember, Jed, when pressed, doesn’t seem to have insider knowledge
    direct from IH but often refers to PRs and court related statements from
    IH as gospel to defend his hardened position against Rossi. “In the
    Motion to Dismiss they say the reactors are inoperative, and the
    instruments “flawed” and “unsuitable.””

    Of course anything that IH claimed in the MTD, with their backs against
    the wall and not much hope of winning the lawsuit imo could be deemed
    desperation talk more than anything. Of course to someone like Jed, IH
    never fibs or exaggerates or fails to do the right thing, while Rossi
    is always a careless fraudster.

    • JedRothwell

      You wrote: “Jed also made reference to the idea that Rossi used old school instruments to measure data. Jed wrote: “These are old fashioned instruments with face plates and numbers displayed. Not your modern invisible electronic gadgets.” This goes against the notion via a “Rossi says” that the data points were counted in the many millions.”

      That does not follow. Nowadays, most instruments with face plates and displays also have computer interfaces. Perhaps you are thinking of really old fashioned analog instruments such as bimetallic dial thermometers.

      “Jed has repeated many times that Rossi allegedly almost killed people with his carelessness.”

      You mean Jim Dunn, Mike Nelson and the others. They were a lot more upset than me! If you think this was “alleged” and it may not have happened, I suggest you talk to them.

      “So I think Jed, with his strong anti Rossi bias jumped to some very negative conclusions based on Rossi’s non ERV, not official data.”

      I am 100% sure it is official ERV data. There was only one set of instruments on the machine, and I heard from various people who saw the readings. The numbers in my sample data are the same ones Rossi gave Lewan. No eyewitness disputes that these were the numbers displayed on the instruments. (Most of them, anyway. Some numbers are disputed.) If you take these numbers at face value, Rossi did get ~1 MW. However, the experts from I.H. assert that you cannot take them at face value because the instruments were flawed and unsuitable. I think so too. Of course, the I.H. experts and I could be wrong about that.

      People have said it is impossible to mistake 20 kW with 1000 kW. That is not true. It is possible to get a drastically wrong answer. Most of the time, people do this by accident. I have done it by accident. Some people do it deliberately.

      To get a sense of how kilowatt-scale calorimetric instruments can be completely wrong, read Gamberale’s description of Defkalion’s tests:

      http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

      I am not suggesting Rossi had the same problem with his flow meter. I do not even assert that he cheated, although I think he probably did with the fake customer site. I am just pointing to this as an example of what can happen when instruments are used incorrectly.

      In the case of Defkalion, I believe they deliberately set up the flow meter incorrectly, on purpose. See the part where it says: “DGT did not allow DE to use such measurement in any of the tests of their technology. As a further improvement we added a second flowmeter upstream of the water system in order to verify the behavior of the main flowmeter during the measurement of the excess power but also in this case the added flowmeter was readily removed by the DGT technicians forbidding us to make any verification. . . .”

      “Of course to someone like Jed, IH never fibs or exaggerates or fails to do the right thing, while Rossi is always a careless fraudster.”

      I.H. plays no role in my analysis. I have not looked their data, and I do not take their word for anything. My analysis is based on Rossi’s data only. I would reach the same conclusions even if I thought I.H. is a band of liars run by the ISIS.

    • JedRothwell

      You wrote: ” But Jed is clearly exhibiting a long-lived anti Rossi bias.”

      I hesitate to mention this, but I wrote a strongly pro-Rossi statement in Lewan’s book. That wasn’t so long ago. My anti-Rossi opinion is based on a close look at sample data from the 1-year test. I never had a chance to see his work up close, so I did not realize how appalling it is. Mea culpa.

      Here is what I said, quoted by Lewan”

      “Rossi often exaggerates about his business and other personal things, but as I have often said, when it comes to technical claims, he tells the truth. Also, he does what he says he will do. He said he would make a 1 MW reactor and by golly he did. (…)

      “If that 1 MW gadget was fake, it was the most expensive and elaborate fake in the history of fake energy devices. Most fake devices are small, cheap and thrown together. I’ve seen many of them.

      “Despite his flamboyant personality and his irritating habits, Rossi is a force to be reckoned with. I think it is foolish to dismiss him, or make fun of him, or assume he is a fraud. I can see why people fall into this trap. As I have