Rossi Responds to IH's Motion to Dismiss in Court Case (Update: IH Responds)

UPDATE (Jun 28, 2016). Industrial Heat has responded to Andrea Rossi/Leonardo Corp’s response to IH’s original motion to dismiss the court case that Rossi started against them. I’m not sure how long this back and forth over the Motion to Dismiss can keep going on, but as one might expect, it does put the actual lawsuit on hold. IH’s responses to Rossi can be seen at this link:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/678-D-E-19-Reply-In-Support-of-Motion-to-Dismiss-pdf/

Thanks to an alert reader for informing me about the appearance in the court docket of the Rossi vs. Industrial Heat et al case Andrea Rossi/Leonardo Corporation’s response to IH’s motion to dismiss the court case.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/11135976/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al
The document can be read here: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0018.0.pdf

It’s 26 pages long and needs some analysis to digest it.

  • Curbina

    I don’t know if Rossi had To answer the MTD, I thought that was the judge who had To decide. Anyway Rossi’s lawyer took the task To review jurisprudence and counterclaimed each point of the MTD with a similar case.

    • Ged

      Also, seems IH will now have to respond by the 27th. I am liking that the deadlines are getting shorter with each volley.

    • wizkid

      The MTD action in the docket states that Rossi need to reply by 6/20/16 in this statement. “Attorney Christopher Martin Lomax added to party Industrial Heat, LLC(pty:dft). Responses due by 6/20/2016”

      Rossi invites Cherokee et al to respond to his rebuttal by 6/27/16 in the docket in the section: “FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi. Replies due by 6/27/2016. (Annesser, John)”

      The rebuttal seems to be crisp, complete, and effective to me, but I am not a legal professional. As a friend of Rossi, I would call his rebuttal a knockout, allowing Cherokee to either pay Rossi or get a public hanging in additional court actions.

      • Ged

        I think the MTD was just a delay. It allowed IH to respond to the lawsuit within the time limit (that Rossi already gave them an extension on by allowing their waivers), without actually responding to the suit. Once this phase is over and it’s on to the discovery phase, IH will actually have to respond to the lawsuit then.

        • What remains to be seen is if delay is Industrial Heat’s reason for being or if this was just a fairly typical step in court cases like this.

          One would think they’d be eager to prove that Rossi is a fraud and to just get on with it if they are so sure of themselves.

          • Ged

            Yeah, that is very true… Worst yet is how completely hamfisted the MTD was now that I compare the quality of this response document to the MTD. They didn’t even try, so I can only interpret it as an attempt to stall rather than a serious request.

  • Brokeeper

    Is there a Legal Aid among us to summarize this response?

    • Pweet

      I’m not legal aid but it looks like Rossi’s lawyers refute all the grounds of IH’s motion to dismiss, point by point, and presumably want to proceed to the execution. I suppose there’s no harm in that providing Rossi maintains the right to drop the case before it actually goes to court.
      If he misses the last stop and ends up in court I think he could get into some serious trouble, specially if the court asks him to prove by way of court appointed testers, that he has what he claims, and that is, a device which produces energy with a COP of six.
      We live in exciting times.

      • Ged

        Got a bit of implicit bias showing there ;).

        It’s interesting the pages of case precedence references in the document. Rossi et al. are very serious about their suit, but at the moment the court is just sitting back and watching the lawyer mud fight. You are very right about at least that one point: matters will truly get interesting once the court actually gets involved.

        • Gerard McEk

          Yes, it’s to late for dropping the case. Rossi has also filed a request to undo the contract they had, to avoid that IH can ever (mis)uses the IP, because the final payment has not been made.

      • Brokeeper

        It does appear ARs hopes is to settle outside court. Thanks! PWEET.

        • Ged

          IH would only settle if AR is right and they stand no chance in court, obviously.

          • Kevmo

            IH thought they were buying a technology. Their contract shows they were paying for a demo with an independent 3rd party report.

            The fact that IH can’t ‘substantiate’ Rossi’s claim means that they have to pay Rossi to be there so they can replicate the result. And Rossi knows that PHOSITAs like Parkhamov can replicate just from his published materials, so he’s in the clear on that legal point. So IH will have to pay through the nose for Rossi to hold their hand until they can replicate. That’s gonna cost well more than $89M.

        • How does filing a counter to a MTD indicate that he hopes tho settle out of court?

          • Brokeeper

            The comprehensive response leaves little wiggle room for IHs rebuttal.

          • radvar

            Going to court can be the riskiest course of action for both parties. Everything is exposed to public record (including questionable behavior, which can affect reputations), and the judgments can be extreme. Settling out of court is much more controllable. So the threat of going to court can impel the parties to settle.

            For Rossi “do nothing” is not an option; he needs to change the relationship with IH. That’s why he brought the suit. Unless it is settled, it will go to court.

            I haven’t done the detailed analysis, and have no legal expertise, however, based on the interpretations here, it looks to me that Rossi is more confident of winning and prepared to do so.

            IH’s MTD is seeming like a standard “of course” legal tactic, throwing up smoke and attempting to delay.

        • kdk

          I don’t see why he would want to settle outside of court, now that he has a new partner and product, and the ability to get more favorable terms with anybody he wishes to sign with in the future.

          I mean, it sucks to be Woodford who invested money trusting IH. Heck IH might end up getting sued by more people, depending on what the agreement and information shared prior to investment was.

          Personally I hope IH or whoever was behind them and the tactics of stalling world saving technology bites it hard and goes down in history as what they are.

      • Steve Swatman

        I would think, that Mr Rossi would be quite happy to bring this to court with a full understanding that he may be required to show a working model and have it tested by court appointed testers, what better way to have the product proven.

        Even better if it proves to have a COP higher than 6, 10, 20… exciting time indeed.

      • So in your universe Rossi filed the complaint just for appearances and is going to drop (or settle for next to nothing) just before any damaging discovery takes place?

        He’d have to be unhinged to take that approach. And if he’s that unhinged he’d be just as likely to proceed to the trial, thinking he’s going to win.

        • radvar

          I don’t see the “settle for next to nothing” in Pweets remarks.

          • Ged

            If Rossi has nothing, IH would not settle for any meaningful sum. LENR G is simply extrapolating the obvious argument (the alternative to dropping that still follows that narrative of Pweet’s).

      • cashmemorz

        Or to prove that Rossi has a solid theory for how the E-Cat works if the jury requests such definition to satisfy IH term “substantiate”.

        • Kevmo

          No one has a verified LENR theory yet, just like no one has a verified theory of gravity yet. No judge would disallow evidence of gravity just because there isn’t a universally accepted theory of gravity in place.

  • Jag Kaurah

    The document contains the following as part of the reason to dismiss IH application
    “E-Cat Unit has satisfied andlor exceeded each and every minimum performance criteria set forth
    in the License Agreement”

    • Steve Swatman

      That sounds far clearer than “cannot substantiate’.

  • peacelovewoodstock

    A quick review shows, not surprisingly, that Rossi’s lawyers are able to demolish IH’s central argument, that Leonardo failed to meet the terms of the extended test (as stipulated in the first Amendment) because the 2nd Amendment (extending the start date for the test) was invalid due to lack of signature by AmpEnergo. In my opinion, the IH MTD hinged on that (frivolous, facetious) contention and thus is going nowhere.

    There is another interesting back and forth on the question of whether Rossi has a claim for actual fraud, vs. a claim for breach of contract. I think it is fair to say that in general, courts approach fraud claims with skepticism, they are frequently seen as simply an attempt to leverage punitive damages from a defendant (in addition to actual damages). Rossi’s lawyers effectively (IMHO) point out that in their MTD, IH argues strongly against one form of common law fraud while conveniently ignoring the other.

    In contrast to their original complaint, Rossi’s lawyers provide numerous citations to Florida and other jurisdiction case law, statutes, and etc. Whereas Rossi’s original complaint appeared to be a bit of a “rush job”, this response reflects careful, methodical legal work.

    I believe Rossi’s arguments will prevail and that the MTD will be denied.

    As a disclaimer, and again, this is based on a very quick reading of parts of Ross’s opposition to MTD .. also, while I do have a JD degree (2006, w/Highest Honors), I am not a practicing lawyer.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I came away with a clear feeling of disgust at the behavior or Cherokee. I have no idea if their actions are fraudulent but they certainly come off as sleazy and untrustworthy to me.

      • radvar

        Corporate intentions tend to be distorted by the adversarial perspectives of their lawyers. At the same time it’s not hard to imagine Cherokee principals being “sharp dealers”, since they are an investment fund.

        From what I’ve read about Darden, he comes across as really too much of a nice guy and idealist relative to that industry. As such he probably makes an excellent front man for other people whose interests are more heavily weighted toward ROI versus DGT (Do Good Things).

        Imagine Darden in front of a city council meeting explaining why tax breaks for a brown-field restoration would be a good deal, compared to some of the other Cherokee players we are aware of.

    • Ged

      Thank you for your knowledgeable and thoughtful analysis, it is very appreciated.

  • Ged

    Reading the document, it seems far more professional than the IH dismissal one with a lot more direct references supporting the points, oddly enough (I say oddly considering the legal firm IH hired). Page 2 also lays out a powerful counter from the very onset using precedence from the Florida court itself. I don’t see how the Motion to Dismiss stands a chance, but likely it was only ever used by IH as a stalling tactic anyways (that’s usually how it’s done in these matters, so no surprise). Shall be interesting see what comes by or before June 27th.

    It’ll be most useful to hear the opinions of those in the legal profession, as Brokeeper states below.

  • wpj

    Interestingly, it says that the license agreement was prepared by IH, which may explain why it was so favourable to them!

    ….. The License Agreement which was prepared by Defendants included all parties to the agreement as to most of the terms, but suspiciously omitted IH from the portion of the confidentiality agreement relating to the E-Cat IP……

    • Ged

      It would be quite the coup if Rossi can prove that IH wrongly gave Brillouin confidential E-cat trade secrets within the terms of the license agreement.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Ged,

        It is my understanding it was more than IP.

    • Curbina

      That remark, Unfortunately for Rossi, only proves that he signed the document without carefully studying it.

      • wpj

        Or his lawyers…….

      • Engineer48

        Hi Curbina,

        Interesting that Weaver has claimed Rossi created the License agreement.

        • Curbina

          Weaver says a lot of things that don’t add up and that only leave room To the possibility of Either part not telling the truth. I really dont know what will the judge do regarding the MTD. But I was refering To the text about the “suspiciously omitted”. That is practically admitting you signed It without being fully aware what you were signing. I have some (mostly bad and educational) experience with legal cases and you rarely win with argumenting intentions and/or ill will. “Good” (meaning expensive) lawyers reduce everything To due process. I hope this goes To trial with jury, where, hopefully, arguments about intentions should be much more taken in account.

  • Following LENR developments was a lot more fun when it didn’t require reading 20 page legal documents on a beautiful Saturday morning.

    • Ged

      It is seriously gorgeous today. I hope you can get some time in the great outdoors!

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Frank Acland June 17, 2016 at 9:45 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    You have stated that during the recent QuarkX testing that the
    reactors did not run in self-sustain mode. Is it possible for them to
    run in SSM like the e-cats used in the 1MW plant?
    Many thanks, Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi June 18, 2016 at 2:16 AM
    Frank Acland:
    When you consume half Wh/h making 100 Wh/h you are basically in permanent SSM. Better than this is impossible.
    You need anyway a drive.
    Disclaimer: the results need to be verified.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    • Axil Axil

      I predict that one QuarkX could activate 15 drone reactors in SSM mode whereby .5 watts of input power would generate 1000 watts of output power. The amount of LENR activation radiation coming off the QuarkX is huge.

    • Omega Z

      Rossi has always supplied power to the E-cat reactor even in selfsustain. The 1MW test plant required between 10KW and 14KW electric power when in selfsustain.

      The 3rd party test team were aware of this with the Hot cat tests both in Ferrara and the Lugano tests. What they weren’t certain of was the exact amount going to the computer controls and how much to the reactor. During SSM, a 110 watts was consumed. They speculated that 100 watts went to the computer and 10 watts somehow feed to the reactor. (EM? or RF?)

      • Mark Underwood

        “Rossi has always supplied power to the E-cat reactor even in selfsustain. The 1MW test plant required between 10KW and 14KW electric power when in self sustain.”
        Thanks! For some reason I never knew that. Learn something new every day.

        • Omega Z

          It is something that I even forget on occasion. There is a lot to keep track of and easy to lose focus.

        • Pweet

          The strange thing about that was, when the video was being made, the camera panned around a bit and recorded the genset providing the power for the test. The plant was supposedly in ssm for the whole test, but a few frames of the genset showed the exhaust flap open at an angle which indicated it was operating at quite high power levels. It appeared to be far greater than the supposed seven to eleven kilowatts required to run in ssm. The audio also indicated a high power setting. A genset of the size used should have been very lightly loaded while putting out eleven kilowatts.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pweet,

            The plant was not operating in SSM mode all the time. Please provide your reference.

            The gen set had both voltage & amp meters which did indicate the low power usage during the SSM demo.

            Power was used by the water pumps & the big fan on the heat radiator inside the wooden walled area.

          • Pweet

            I recall Mr Rossi said the secret military customer insisted that the test be done completely in ssm, and that’s why the output power level was only 447kw (or thereabouts) instead of the 1MW nameplate specification. The average output was well short of 1MW. I don’t remember if this info was given in the videos or in the blog.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pweet,

            Here is Mats report on the 1MW plant test, which ran in non SSM mode for the 1st 2 hours.

            http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/span-style-color-red-tv-span-half-a-megawatt-e-cat-in-bologna-6419223

            This is how the test was done

            According to the report the plant consisted of 107 modules. Ny Teknik, however, counted 52 modules inside the container, and 64 additional modules mounted on the container roof – a total of 116.

            Two pumps supplied the modules with cooling water which was heated to boiling and the steam was led out to four large fan-cooled heat dissipators. The water was then returned to the pumps through a water tank.

            The customer’s controller, Domenico Fioravanti, measured the temperature of the steam at the outlet outside the container and the inlet water temperature. Andrea Rossi measured in addition to this temperature of a large number of the modules.

            According to the controller Fioravanti, power from the genset was switched on to the heating resistors in the modules around 10.30, with an initial power of 120 kW, which was gradually increased to 180 kW.

            At 12.30 began self sustained mode, which means that the power to the resistors which are used to “ignite” the process was shut down. The plant then ran without any energy input other than the fans and the pumps for five and a half hours.

            The total energy released between 12:30 and 18:00 was calculated from the amount of water heated and evaporated. The water flow was measured with two water meters, and according to the controller’s report the energy amounted to a total of 2635 kWh.

            Subtracting the energy for pumps and fans, amounting to 66 kWh, this equals a net energy of 2569 kWh, which corresponds to an average power of 467 kW.

            Subtracting the energy supplied during startup, about 320 kWh at an average power of 160 kW, the net energy would still be 2249 kWh. In this case the energy output during startup should also be estimated and added.

            According to measurements of radiation made by David Bianchini from the University of Bologna no radiation above background level was registered.

          • Pweet

            Thanks for that. I’m happy to say it’s pretty much consistent with my recollection.
            I also recall that the part of the test which was of interest to the supposed secret military customer was the self sustain mode and the figures for that part of the test. That’s why it was supposedly left in self sustain mode for the whole of the period from 12.30 to 18.00. Normally one would expect over a period as long as that it would have been cycled in and out of ssm many times. Mr Rossi used that to explain why the output was lower than the claimed 1MW rating for the plant. The figures you give above would equate to an output power of 409KW for the majority of the test, which is close to what I recall.

            I would have to say, I was highly doubtful that plant ran in ssm with the output claimed for anywhere near the five and a half hours claimed, but also as I said soon after, there was nothing I could point to which supported that belief other than a few weeks prior to that, the test of the 5kw module was clearly flawed due to the grossly incorrect placement of the critical thermocouple on the hot side of the heat exchange. Had that test been performed without such an obvious fault I would have been more inclined to accept the results of the 1MW plant, but consistent with most things in life, an established precedent can usually be a reasonably accurate indicator of future performance; not a guarantee, but a good indicator.
            Sadly, that has continued to be the case. All tests and demonstrations have had serious flaws, and those flaws are always in the direction of inflating the supposed performance figures. That consistency indicates to me it is neither coincidental nor accidental. But then since that is only my opinion, I’m sure we disagree on that point.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pweet,

            I would have to say, I was highly doubtful that plant ran in ssm with the output claimed for anywhere near the five and a half hours claimed

            Highly doubtful? Based on what information? There was NO power applied to the ECat heaters during those 5.5 hours, yet steam was continually produced.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Amos June 18, 2016 at 1:21 AM
    Dear Rossi,
    How long do you think the fuel mix would last if the Quark X is allowed to run indefinitely?
    Amos

    Andrea Rossi June 18, 2016 at 2:13 AM
    Amos:
    1 year.
    Warm Regasrds, A.R.”

    • Ged

      Interesting point is he always says 1 year, which suggests the amount of fuel has not changed (or he always thinks it’ll be a year and doesn’t actually know yet), and can fit in the size of the QuarkX? Given the dimensions, I guess we can estimate how much fuel in grams there is, and compare with MFMP and the like.

      • Steve Swatman

        1yr makes a great picture in the mind, “drop it in, it runs for a year, a guy pops around and drops in another” even if the old one is still working, who cares, once a year!

        The old one is taken away, cleaned up and sent out for another year, and another, and another…great business model.

      • The amount of fuel mix must change as core size changes, but as the total amount of energy available from any given weight of mix is presumably constant, it will be emitted at a rate that is directly proportional to size.

        I.e., a ten gram core has exactly ten times the total energy available than a 1 gram core, and it emits it at (on average) ten times the rate – net result being that all cores last for roughly the same time.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Artefact,

      Which means the power and energy density for a single QuarkX reactor is the equivalence of:

      Power: 424kW/ltr
      Energy: 3.7GWh/ltr/year

      To produce 10kWe at 20% would require 500 QuarkX reactors or about 0.12 ltr plus produce 40kWt of heat to instant heat water, provide space heating & cooling. Excellent results from 1/2 cup of QuarkX reactors!

    • DrD

      Don’t forget the 1MW reactors lost power towards the end and we don’t know by how much or if the Quark will be the same. His guarantee so far was a predicted 6 months. Probably conservative.

  • radvar

    Off topic, but I have to say, and not to take this as skepticism, but the Quark X is starting to look like sci fi.

    A suitcase of Li-Ni-H-X warming your tea water is one thing.

    A ball point pen powering your house is another thing entirely.

    • Omega Z

      ->A ball point pen powering your house is another thing entirely.”

      I would agree, but you take the Quark out of context. it will require 100 to 1000 Quarks to do that depending on individual residential demand and the season.

      Nuclear power plants also use “Many” very small fuel pellets all placed within a fuel rod. Many fuel rods are then packaged into large bundles. Then many large bundles placed into the reactor chamber. Depending on total required output, it may then comprise many reactors.

      • They (uranium fuel rods) don’t all have to be wired to supply/control systems though – only the (separate) boron control elements need to be adjusted.

    • Ivan Idso

      I agree with radvar. A ball point pen size puts out 1kw, so if it runs continuously for 24 hours you have 24 kwh produced. You should have a battry backup to adjust for demand, but I currently use only 10 kwh per day for electricity which would leave perhaps plenty of additional power to heat and cool my house if it is a well insulated house.

      • Omega Z

        You would need substantially more to heat your home. Most hair blow dryers use much more then 1KW. You can’t heat your home with a blow dryer.
        Well, Unless you live in the desert.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Radvar,

      Nuclear power & energy density is millions of times denser than any chemical energy source we have ever experienced.

      The QuarkX power density is 424kW/ltr and energy density is 3.7GWh/year/ltr.

      Of course a litre of QuarkX reactors is a lot. Your house will need a LOT less.

  • Bob Greenyer

    not necessarily if the 0.5 watts is the power dissipated in electronics/system maintaining a HT or magnetic field or maintaining a glow discharge – and it is this that keeps the device operational.

  • Bob Greenyer

    When I started actively contributing to the public knowledge of LENR – I never expected to learn so much about the US legal process.

    • MUCH more to come I suspect (Patent law).

      • Chapman

        You are so right!

        Patent Law – Now there’s a complicated mess to wade through! That is coming, and it will be ugly. This current issue, and Contract Law in general, is routine and a well choreographed legal dance, while Patent Law is a Mosh Pit at a speed metal concert.

        Here’s the difference:
        Patent Law is complicated because it Involves Intellectual Rights, while Contract Law is simplified because the court Rightly assumes no Intellects are Involved!

  • Dr. Mike

    Chapman,
    I also have read the document and agree that it is extremely well written!
    Dr. Mike

  • Ophelia Rump

    How about two of them driven by a rechargable battery, powering fifteen of them powering 150 of them powering your 1500?

    • cashmemorz

      Not allowed by Rossi says. That is recycling like a snake eating its tail. Safety reasons. Maybe sometime in the future but not now.

      • Rene

        He changed his mind, or more likely, the original answer was based on a misunderstanding of what was being asked. He last comments were that of course power can be extract, conditioned and used to drive itself or others.

        • cashmemorz

          Missed that point. Or forgot it. Thanks for the refresh.

      • Ophelia Rump

        If that were the case we should expect entire neighborhoods to experience catastrophic failure on the first blackout. That reasoning is either nonsense or a dire warning.

  • Omega Z

    MTD is standard in these lawsuits.

    Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, all immediately file a MTD to any legal claims. If the Plaintiff is serious, there’s also always a rebuttal to any MTD. It’s quite simple. Legalities are expensive. Each is trying to see how serious the other is. Cherokee/Darden now have an opportunity to rebut the rebuttal.

    With the big boys this back and forth process can go on for months, even years running up legal costs. Then when it finally makes it to Court, it only lasts a few weeks to settle.
    ——————————————————————
    To all those who claim, The Court could order a test for conclusion. Be prepared to be disappointed.

    https://media.giphy.com/media/9Y5BbDSkSTiY8/giphy.gif

    The Court will look at the presented evidence. The expertise of the ERV, The collected Data, The measurement devices, What was agreed to by the interested parties. And if as Rossi has indicated, A video of Darden and his actions. An uncoerced statement by myself on video carries a ton of weight in court like a confession.
    ——————————————————————
    Note
    In Leonardo’s Lawsuit, The claims need to be addressed in order. Before corporate conspiracy and fraud can be answered or determined, breach of contract must 1st be determined. Each claim thereafter follows in order. Thus, some of Darden/Cherokees MTD to some claims can’t be entertained until other claims are determined.
    ——————————————————————
    From a former discussion elsewhere on the net.

    I believe it was Weaver or someone that asked, How can you obtain COP>50 when some reactors are down. The Data shows a steady state when some reactors are down. How can that be???

    The great questions we can ask when cherry picking data. Here’s a great answer.

    That 1 of the 4 reactors is temporarily down, does not effect the COP of the other 3 reactors. It would only effect the overall output of steam.

    • Ged

      That and the plant was built with redundancy and backups precisely to handle a reactor being down. So why is he surprised when things went as they were designed to do?

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      Please, someone console the little baby!

    • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

      Nice post.

      And if a jury gets involved in this, then the behavior of the two parties would be a key factor to know wich one is lying.

      And here we have some facts.

      -IH built the reactor
      -IH tried to appropiate Rossi’s IP
      -IH failed to pay the 89M after the test ended.
      -IH agreed with Penon as the ERV and they were the ones wich hired him for a previous report.
      -The measuring methods were agreed by both parties.
      -The report clearly shows COP 50
      -The only statement to pay the 89M was the final COP of the test.

      So, they have to properly explain how on a reactor wich they built, with a measurement method wich they, the ERV and Rossi found as proper, after a year without complaining so, when the time to pay comes, then suddenly they say that the method was improper.
      I dont know wich methods used to check the COP but I find really strange that they could be wrong with all these people checking them.

    • Or of course the reactors may normally run at say 70% of safe capacity and the remaining three could be temporarily cranked up to compensate for a failed unit, while the latter is isolated and replaced or repaired.

      • Ged

        The more Dewey tightens his grasp, the more straws slip through his fingers.

      • DrD

        And in any case, the COP>50 was an average.
        Meaning that even if it did affect the instaneous COP (which I agree it obviously wouldn’t) then it only means that the COP for the rest of the time (when all 4 were working) was a little higher.

  • Jag Kaurah

    Has to back it up with evidence acceptable to the court too!!

    • cashmemorz

      Acceptable to the court may depend on how science savvy the court jury members are. If I were on the jury I would look at “substantiate” being satisfied by meaning requiring a theory to show how the E-Cat works.

      • Kevmo

        If I were on the jury and saw that Rossi had demonstrated the capability of the device, had an independent 3rd party report of it, and that Parkhamov was able to replicate his results just from such reports, that would seal it for me. If IH isn’t capable to replicate it without Rossi present, that is IH’s problem and not Rossi’s. Parkhamov did it.

  • cashmemorz

    Many would like to see the E-Cat powering itself. but: Not allowed by Rossi says. That is recycling like a snake eating its
    tail. Safety reasons. Maybe sometime in the future but not now. T

    • Chapman

      I know what you are saying, and I understand what Rossi has been saying.

      People have repeatedly suggested that SSM could be demonstrated by running an E-Cat up to its operational state, the shorting it’s output power to it’s input to power itself, But Rossi keeps saying you can’t do this. But he is not saying the output would not sustain the E-Cat. He is saying that the E-Cat requires active control, and any failure in the output would mean you have no way to apply the active control signal to dampen the reaction and safely power down the unit. He is not saying it could not be done, but that it would be unsafe, unwise, and foolhardy.

      On the other hand, when the time comes when 90 percent of the grid power is E-Cat generated at multiple remote power stations, you would still be using the electricity from one to control the output of another. It is a question of dependability and constant supply.

      He has recently conceded that the output power could be used to maintain a large battery array or UPS, and that that power source could be used to control and feed the reactors, but it would place a storage cell between the output and the input control circuitry, which would be a lot different than just hot-wiring the output back to the input with a jumper wire and a couple of alligator clips!!!

      Bottom line: wherever the input/control power comes from, it HAS to stay on when the reactor starts to go to hell! (or bad things will go bump in your night).

    • Engineer48

      Hi Cash,

      Andrea has now stated closing the loop is possible but not by directly feeding electrical output back into the reactor.

      What he has said (my understanding of it) will work is to:

      1) use a battery which drives

      2) an inverter producing 240vac 3 phase (I assume each reactor uses phase to phase 415vac power) and

      3) to use the reactor electrical output to charge the battery.

  • cashmemorz

    THis may put Rossi at an advantage . However this introduces another party into legal proceedings thus extending the time for more legal disputes etc into a farther time then otherwise. A Pyrrhic victory of sorts.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Perhaps another party without deep pockets that will have to find a source of funds for the lawyers. More lawyers, more money spent.

  • Rene

    I think we have to separate the use of ‘power’ which has certain (secret sauce) aspects that drive the reaction versus the ‘power’ that the reaction induces, whether heat or electrical current. I doubt the drive power is only some DC or constant AC waveform. It is likely some specific ED or EM impulses injected into the reactor – some patterns enhance the reaction, other patterns quench the reaction.
    Yes, there has been speculation and hints that some other unspecified radiation from an e-cat stimulates others (the cat& mouse), but it has not been disclosed other than by metaphor.

  • cashmemorz

    So the exact workings of the E-Cat, according to law, is insignificant or irrelevant.
    Then the court has a short and uncomplicated mandate. Seems from this perspective it is to be an automatic process to end the whole legal process. Just that the legalities seems to be extendible by other means rather far into the future.

    • clovis ray

      The first complaint has to be settled first and it was breach of contract.
      when that is concluded, then Leonardo corp. will fill patent violation, And take everything cherokee has, i hope they cherokee are smarter than that,,
      but when looking at the pure dumb ass operation of darden, i would think their whole operation will go down like the titanic.
      Gee, what a mess, when it didn’t have to be this way,, their greed, was their downfall, but what would you expect from a VC.
      if they want to survive, they had better come to terms with Leonardo corp. Dr. Rossi is a fair and honest man with lots of integrity.

      if they come to him,and submit and honest appraisal, of how this all started, and apologize for any miss competitions, and return his ip agreement, and swear they will get out of this business,and not try to re enter in any form, he might, mind you, might, release them to continue on in their VC business. this is only my opinion.

  • bfast

    I wish I had enough legal expertise to concur. What qualli do you have in this matter?

  • akupaku

    I took a cursory look at the document. Not understanding the legal paraphernalia but I noticed the following:

    The word “conspiracy” appears 20 times.
    The word “fraud” appears 24 times.
    The word “fraudulent” appears 7 times.
    The word “misrepresentation” appears 5 times.
    The word ” improper” appears 19 times.
    The word “unjust” appears 10 times.
    The words “breach of contract” appear 13 times.

    I rest my case. ;o)

    • And that’s the cleaned-up ‘legalese’ version…

      • clovis ray

        i agree buddy,have not studied law, but to an amature,this stinks to high heven. just because jones/day is a big law firm doesn’t mean they get to sidestep the law, now if it were in some other country, money buys whatever you want, but not in america, we have the prisons full of such men that think their above the law.

        • That’s true up to a certain level, and Darden isn’t at that level – but some of his associates might be.

        • akupaku

          Does not seem to apply to the Big Boys like Wall Street and the Big Banks who have been caught in recent years in gross market manipulation, fraudulent business practices and even financing terrorism and although paying hundreds of millions in fines nobody ever goes to jail. If you are big enough you can pay yourself out of prison even in america.

  • Roland

    When your client has repeatedly violated the provisions of the disputed contract, and your worthy opponent has extensive, voluminous documentation and a list of credible witness to substantiate that his client has complied with every provision, to the letter, of his obligations under the contract it is quite difficult to mount demonstrably serious counter arguments; we are doing our best to explain this, to all those around the table, at the increasingly frequent meetings.

    When your client is trapped this deep in a hole, one almost entirely and luridly of his own making, you’re down to looking for misplaced commas and blowing lots and lots of multihued smoke; and, so far, when the screaming matches break out we are continuing to do our diplomatic best to maintain some semblance of cordiality, sunny optimism and common purpose.

    At the end of the day it’s all about our very pricy billable hours, especially in the certain knowledge that ‘someone’ around the table has seriously deep pockets that are going begging to be mined; so the show must, and assuredly will, go on and on.

    • Bob Greenyer

      In short, Lawyers like to keep the show going because every hour is billable.

  • Barbierir

    FYI: Dewey continues saying that IH holds all the aces and much more is coming. His last quote is: “He apparently forgot or somehow thought he could ignore the heated side
    flow measurement. What you don’t know is that is one of the many fatal
    flaws in Penon’s ERV report”.

    • Weak legally, weak scientifically and lacks credibility.

      Legally: as explained eloquently in earlier posts, as a legal matter the ERV is like a binding arbiter in the agreement between IH and Rossi. The ERV’s word will stand except under extraordinary circumstances if the case goes to trial.

      Scientifically: IH agreed to the testing protocols with temperature and pressure being measured continuously at various points in the system. This sounds like an attempt to cherry pick one unmeasured segment of the system and claim 50x anomalies there. Good luck with that.

      Credibility: Steam temperature. Tampering with instruments. Inadequate flow meters. Authorities about to swoop in. Customer secrets. If you’ve got mud, Dewey will be happy to throw it at the wall to see if it sticks. Don’t take what he says at face value. He has an agenda.

      • Barbierir

        I don’t trust Dewey and I found inconsistencies in his and IH claims. If one were to believe him, they have caught Rossi red-handed, the report is absolute trash and blah blah blah… I wonder why they don’t publish it if it’s so damning for Rossi?
        However I don’t agree that the report is absolutely binding, it isn’t if IH can actually prove one ore more of the following: 1. The ERV deviated from the agreed upon protocol 2. The ERV produced a fraudulent report in cahoot with Rossi 3. Or the ERV committed some other blunder that invalidates the result. Of course in such cases they don’t have to pay.

        • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

          It wont be as easy to IH to blame on the ERV.
          Because the measurements are the key here. Do you really think that the ERV made wrong calculations? IH would need to dismiss the report using the same measurements. Stating that they are innapropiate probably wont pass the filter as they were able to check them for 1 whole year.
          Mark my words – I dont believe at all that there is anything in the measurements wich could set them as wrong. The only choice for IH is claim fraud or improper methods (i bet the last one) and they would be forced to prove that really these are wrong methods of measuring.
          I dont know wich exact methods were used but knowing them we would know where IH would want to hit to win the case

    • Ophelia Rump

      You can’t power a factory for a year off fake numbers. In this instance the electric meter is also a lie detector.

    • Ged

      Dewey has some issues with the idea of conservation of mass. Water doesn’t stop existing, and what goes in -must- come back out at the same mass flow rate once at steady state. The guy really has basic science deficiencies.

  • BillH

    It is often informative to examine what was omitted from a statement rather than what was explicitly stated. The rebuttal to the MTD clearly concentrates on the alleged misappropriation of IP which is the central tenet of AR’s case. Many of these problems stem back as far as 2012-2013, agreements, amended agreements, tests, payments. Given this it is very surprising that this association ever got this far(2016). It may be very difficult to prove that while misappropriation of IP was attempted by IH that it actually succeeded, Little mention was made of the year long test and it’s results. IH may eventually concede that some of their attempted to patent were inappropriate and maybe they will offer some compensation in this respect. They may still refuse to pay out the $89M on the basis that the test was in some way unreliable and that they never had a plant that they could market. If all this proves to be inconclusive IH may still retain the exclusive rights in their allocated markets until such time as AR can demonstrate a working plant to the court.

    • Ged

      Well, it’s not too surprising since the MTD does not talk much about the 1 year test, so neither does the rebuttal beyond the statement about the E-cat meeting and exceeding all minimal parameters. But, it sounds like you’ve probably nailed it on what IH will try (and has been trying) to do. That seems like a pretty likely direction for them to attempt, so it’ll be interesting to see what their next counter says–we should definitely be on the lookout for what you’ve analyzed.

  • artefact

    OT: some things from me356

    “Progress with my reactors is on the good way. Now it is not that easy to
    melt it and even if it happen, the outer shell will survive.
    I have also found new directions where to go. Observed phenomenons are
    so strange that I can’t understand, how something like this is possible.
    Well, I understand it now, but with logical thinking it is not easy. Similar as that you can park submarine in a matchbox.
    So I am very amazed. Some things related with LENR are looking like a cheating in physics.
    Also I can observe transmutations even by optical analysis now. So I
    will send some fuel for lab analysis, although I am perfectly sure what
    it is. I can’t tell the details, although I would like to share my excitement.

    In some experiments, with a certain materials and in a certain
    conditions, one can establish a transfer channel. It can be considered
    as “a black hole”.
    This mean, that in just few miliseconds even 1L of hydrogen can just
    “disappear” and is irreversibly transformed to other kind of energy
    (including neutron radiation).
    We can completely exclude lithium or similar compounds that can create a hydrides.
    This behavior can be performed repeatedly, if correct conditions are set.
    Enormous COP can be achieved (100 and more). ”

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3225-me356-Reactor-parameters-part-2/?pageNo=34

    • Private Citizen

      “I can’t tell the details”

      ECat got your tongue?

      • Ged

        It’s like some sort of Pirate Curse that befalls any who finds the secret treasure of LENR.

  • Frank Acland

    The MTD was without merit and they should answer the complaints.

    • Roger – also see Akupaku’s comment below!

  • BillH

    Again, this relates to what AR hasn’t said. There has been no suggestion that there will be any imminent launch in the US, and his retreat to the European market which has yet to be verified i.e. no products sold. AR knows full well any attempt to launch into IH’s licensed areas would result in an injunction regardless of his unilateral termination of the LA.

    • kdk

      Maybe, his new partner is willing to foot the bill for an injunction in order to have the markets for which IH was previously licensed.

      If an injunction is issued, how many reasonable people will ever believe IH was doing anything but delaying release of technology, after first claiming it doesn’t work or couldn’t be substantiated by the most basic math after 1 year of operation?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Contrary to the fears of some expressed in various forums, the continuous costs associated with the legal case may force, if at all possible, Rossi to build and sell devices to feed soon the legal monster in the interim.

    I had the pleasure to meet Andrew Ainsworth, the guy that fought Lucas Film and won over the rights to produce his industrial design – the Storm Trooper from, well, you know. The reason I had this chance is I had the original body armour moulds and a double faceplate mould – long story…

    …Anyhow, he told me that he had to fund the whole legal case by making props and selling them, something re-asserted in this BBC news story reporting his successful win.

    “The way we’ve funded it [the case] is to make the characters, which
    is the ironic thing about it, it’s really the empire striking back,” he
    explains.

    “During the period of the court case I’ve made about 2,000 and sold them around the world.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12910683

    • wpj

      Passed the shop many times while going to the Sussex Arms at Twickenham Green (highly recommended).

    • Pweet

      Above where Bob says;-
      “Contrary to the fears of some expressed in various forums, the continuous costs associated with the legal case may force, if at all possible, Rossi to build and sell devices to feed soon the legal monster in the interim.”
      That will only be of some benefit if the things work. At the moment IH is saying they don’t work and so refuse to pay. That’s what all the fuss is about.
      If other 1MW plants get into the market and the feedback is all the same, that wont help his case no matter how much he gets for them.
      Before that Aldo Proia said he could not get Mr Rossi to supply one for retail or even to supply any sales material.
      Before that It seems more than likely that the ‘secret military customer’ was unable to obtain even the first one, let alone a follow up order of eleven more, even though it was reported to have been delivered and working to specification.
      From all this I believe it is absolutely essential that an ecat of any description does not get into the open market for anyone to properly test. I also believe Mr Rossi knows this and that’s why he has never sold one to a real customer. There will always be a reason why delivery at this particular time is not possible. Just my opinion of course.
      This opinion can be reversed if ever a real 1MW plant is sold to a real independent customer and is operated by nobody connected to Leonardo Corp, and they report it an astounding success.

      • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

        You are wrong. IH statement is not that it doesnt work, but they cannot sustantiate it.

        And they are alleging that the report is wrong. So we have measurements and a report wich says it works.

        If no money were involved in it, i wont have any problem trusting IH, but with 89 M at stake, IH is the one wich has to explain why these methods suddenly became improper when the time to pay was reached.

  • If IH are going to press on (they will, I think), then involving govt. or State fraud investigators is probably the only card they can play (Dewey has strongly hinted – or threatened – that this is how it will be played). This could all get very dirty.

  • cashmemorz

    Darden or IH made a statement when Rossi decides to take them to court. That is where they stated they would not pay because the workings of the E-CAt one year test was “unsubstantiated”

  • Bob Greenyer

    Well – here is another snippit – I tried to auction the mould twice – near 10 years apart and both times before the verdict with AA/LA – both times LA asked E-Bay to stop the auction.

  • Engineer48

    Hi LookMoo,

    IH purchased nothing.

    They were granted the conditional right to use of Rossi’s IP. Part of the conditions was IH continually obliged every condition of the contract binding on them.

    Under that IP grant arrangement, any default/breech by IH killed their grant & further rights to use the IP.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Chapman,

    Yup. Cut and dry.

    Onky way out for IH is to prove to the jury, the ERV they hired, agreed to his measurement protocol and paid his invoices, provided an incorrect COP report and that the real COP was 2.6 or less.

  • bfast

    Chapman, you certainly write like someone who knows what they are talking about. Do you have qualifications to back up your analysis?

    I do find it interesting that you see each legal team analysing the quality of response from the other. Seems more like a game of poker than like a bunch of guys trying to get at “the truth” or “what is right”.

  • Engineer48

    Hi LookMoo,

    IH “Purchased” a conditional use License to the IP, which requires them to continually observe and be bound to ALL the conditions of the License Agreement. Break any of the terms & conditions and IH will have no further right to use the IP.

    It is not a “Sales Contract”.

  • sam

    I still can not figure how I.H. they
    agreed on $89 million without
    there own EVR report.
    Even if there EVR report said
    it had excess heat pay say
    half of the $89 million and
    the rest when a customer
    beside test customer was
    satisfied with the Ecat.
    A.R. Should have realized
    there was potential problems
    with the agreement.

    • DrD

      Who’s ERV was he then?

      • Hi all

        He was the one they agreed to.

        Kind Regards walker

        • Pweet

          It would be a huge coincidence that the ERV ‘chosen’ by IH just happened to be a previous associate of Mr Rossi, who had previously given a complimentary assessment of a previous version of the ecat, unless Mr Rossi had recommended him and wouldn’t settle for anyone else. I’m sure there were lots of good reasons put forward why Penon was the only person really qualified to perform the job and thus IH should agree to him being used. IH were hardly likely to have a list of suitable names to choose from and so were easy to coerce into accepting Penon.
          I think that was a serious mistake, and when it became known he was the secret ERV it was yet another loud alarm that the report was not to be taken seriously.
          Had IH and everyone else who looked at it then said it all looked impeccable in procedure, method and conclusions then I would have had to conclude I was wrong, but that’s not the case is it? A number of people who have seen the reports have come to the same conclusion I did, and them with the benefit of actually seeing the report and procedures. ( and I certainly did not.) More critically, some of those who criticize the report were previously strong advocates for both Rossi and lenr in general. Under these circumstances I find it impossible to conclude the ERV report and the procedures and methods used to establish the data are seriously flawed to the extent that they are not in any way a true representation of the operational specifications of the 1MW plant. If that is the case the it would be ludicrous for the court to insist the payment of 89 million dollars be paid just on the basis that it conformed to a previously agreed but later abused format.

          • Pweet

            oops, a small error in the above and no edit facility. One word missing. I meant;-
            “I find it impossible *not* to conclude the ERV report and the procedures and methods used to establish the data are seriously flawed to the extent that they are not in any way a true representation of the operational specifications of the 1MW plant.”
            But then you probably guessed that anyway.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pweet,

            “I find it impossible *not* to conclude the ERV report and the procedures and methods used to establish the data are seriously flawed to the extent that they are not in any way a true representation of the operational specifications of the 1MW plant.”

            Based on what data?

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            That is because they add the imaginary “fraud” (hidden cable/pipe/or whatever else they need to claim it doesnt work)

            As i said before, is like saying that you cannot be sure that it is raining because a man could be hidden in the clouds and dropping water.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Julio,

            As Rossi has stated, the reactor was mounted on wooden blocks, such that it was possible to view under the reactor, so to ensure there are no hidden, pipes, wires, fuel sources, etc.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            Yes, I know. I just was stating the absurd of the arguments to say that the ERV report is wrong because he used unsuitable methods.

            As far as we know the measurement methods were the standard for any steam plant.
            So they are basically saying that there was a leprechaun faking the results.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Julio,

            Measuring the inlet water temp & mass flow rate, plus the outlet temp & pressure is all that is required.

            The ERV can then calc the kJ/kg of the inlet water and likewise the kJ/kg of the outlet steam.

            Then the thermal energy gain of the reactor is calculated via

            KWt gain = (outlet kJ/kg – inlet kJ/kg) kg/sec mass flow.

            This is not rocket science.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            Hello Engineer, thanks for the info. My expertise is computers not phychis so each time any of you write that kind of info i learn a little bit more about something that i love and wich is “learn”

            The more I read the more that i distrust IH and the more i feel that the E-Cat works

          • Engineer48

            Hi Julio,

            Thanks for the kind words.

            There are those here and on other forums that seem to be trying to gain credibility by making suggestions that are outside the physics / engineering. What I try to do is to teach others how the physics / engineering works as a guide to helping to determine if the comments of others hold together, which most of the time they do not.

            So while a good understanding of the physics / engineering can help to understand what should be happening it can’t prove the ECat does work but it can disprove a lot of claims made by folks that seem to have an agenda not based on making statements based on the physics / engineering facts.

          • cashmemorz

            IH never said or even implied that fraud or other underhanded activity was associated with the one year test or the ERV or the report therefrom. The only word they used to indicate dissatisfaction with all that was “unsubstantiated”. In the real world without negative implications what that can mean is there is no generally acceptable and proven theory for how the E-Cat works. When they put in their rebuttal to Ar’s accusations, side issues that are not connected to the implication, as I see it, re theory, IH is avoiding the fact that IH could not do sufficient due diligence regarding the way the E-Cat works. IH has to avoid the fact that they were not able substantiate the E-Cat’ theory for two reasons at least. One is that they could not do check out the theory since there are many theories and none have been substantiated by experimental proof as being “the theory”. The second reason is that IH, although having performed due diligence to the point where they paid out the two installations for signing and demonstrating that the E-Cat works to their satisfaction, they third installation was not paid since the one year test just confirmed what the previous one week or month test showed, that is that it works, but lacking the final clincher of how it works. Without the theory it is unsubstantiated. I know I keep harping on this point but it avoids all that cloak and dagger stuff that makes IH look like a crook. I may be wrong in my assessment since I only have as many details about the E-Cat history available as anyone else in this peanut gallery. I just like to err on the side of optimism.

          • sam

            Do you know why it is so important that I.H. have the theory on how the Ecat works.
            Thanks

          • cashmemorz

            This point about theory is what I would want if I were in the place of Industrial Heat/ Darden. This seems to me a reasonable expectation of having the theory for something that appears to work. An ERV report is OK. However it takes you only so far. By “so far” I mean that if anything were to go wrong with the E-Cat during operation it would be much better to know, according to theory, what precisely is going wrong. This allows one to make more realistic and practical allowances and/or preparations in case the same problem comes up. This is a requirement that any large professional organization would want to insure stable operation. Having a unit that does work but is not known how it works makes the unit at more risk of instability if something goes wrong. With “the” theory as opposed to “some idea of how it “might” work” one has greater power over the ability to make correction in short order. Without “the ” theory the user can never know if something major negative will happen or why. Its a matter of assurance that everything is oK. or better than without a theory. Investors would prefer investing in something that is known how it works as opposed to it just working.

            The comparison of a just working unit with other existing power units such as “dangerously lethal kerosine heaters” and the like is a fine rebuttal if one is willing to live with partially understood energy producing, potentially dangerous machinery. But as ENG 48 has once stated in an answer to me, “do you want a NUCLEAR REACTOR in your basement” that no one knows how it works? Its a matter of feeling more safe than less safe if one can help it.

            I have ordered two domestic E-CATs. I don’t, similar to ENG 48, expect to get it until the certification body gives its blessing, when the theory behind it is put together, when it is considered safe for unattended operation, unlike an industrial unit that will have 24/7 care and control by trained personnel.

          • cashmemorz

            Edit: There is also the competitiveness of the unit that has solid theory behind it. Brillouin, for instance, claims to have a working theory for their version of LENR unit. I am certain that investors and potential buyers would prefer to look into Brillouin’s units over Leonardo’s units for just that reason. That Leonardo’s units have a higher COP means less under such competitive edge.

          • cashmemorz

            Edit: According to LENR G in reply to Engineer48 above

            “You should be able to make this argument to your clients:

            Definite
            knowledge regarding whether this technology works or not has value.
            That knowledge could be instrumental in deciding the client’s strategy
            and investments for the next 50 years. What is that value? Does it
            save money on investments that would be obsoleted? Does it position
            them to be a first mover and explode their profits and market share?

            Perhaps the value of this knowledge is in the millions or billions of dollars”.

            This comment by LENR G illustrates again the value of knowledge about a LENR device. Any knowledge, such as the theory behind LENR is valuable. The value is that it arms one against action on the part of LENR as more foreseen than unforeseen. A theory has predictive properties.

          • Kevmo

            In the real world without negative implications what that can mean is there is no generally acceptable and proven theory for how the E-Cat works
            ***This is baloney. Their legal documents do not hinge on any theory whatsoever, they hinge on delivery and demonstration. The ERV was both delivery and demo. There is no generally accepted theory of gravity, but that doesn’t stop courts from accepting evidence of its existence and the mathematical description & observation of how it operates (commonly known as the Law of Gravity).

            IH’s problem is that they cannot replicate Rossi’s results without Rossi helping them out. They are not PHOSITA. Parkhamov replicated Rossi’s results just from his public documentation, so Rossi can claim he gave IH everything they needed to keep the device working but they are incompetent. In such a case, IH needs to pay up.

            They thought they were buying a technology but instead they were paying for a demo. If they want the inner workings and IP, it will cost a helluva lot more than $89M.

          • cashmemorz

            I’m not talking about what Industial Heat actually wants. I’m talking about what I am assuming they “might” want, if one were to look it it all from a positive light. I am not getting into the legalities as such. That is something I am simply going to wait out to see where it takes this story.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Kevmo,

            I would suggest we understand it is only Weaver & Jed making the “it never worked” claims.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Cash,

            IH having an accepted theory is not part of the payment conditions, which is based only on the ERV reported COP.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            First. I recommend that you carefully read the response IH gave on the MTD.
            Second. I was talking about the skeptics and their arguments.

            Now, Focusing in what you said about IH.
            They stated about unsuitable methods of measuring the COP in the MTD and a lot more in the side note.
            They didnt exactly call fraud but they are impliying that the report is wrong at least or fake at most.

            And, the contract is clear. The final COP is what should determine the payment.
            There is a COP of 50.
            The “unsustantiate” as excuse for not paid because they are unable to understand what happens is a excuse to not pay. And also, it doesnt match with their statements at the MTD.

            Why I make express mention to this? Because IH behavior is more than suspicious.

            The only arguments that I hear to distrust Rossi is that he has a case of fraud in the past (Taxes fraud not business fraud)
            Also that Penon was hired by him (wich is false)
            The measuring methods were wrong (As far as we know they are the standard ones for these kind of measurements)

            It is at least curious that when we search through the verified data, there is nothing we can really use to say that the E-Cat doesnt work.
            The only real data we have is that it works.

            But always happens the same, someone says, the measurings are wrong, maybe there is a hidden power input, maybe this, maybe that.
            Too much maybe.

            You can distrust Rossi as much as you want. I dont personally know him and due to that i only use the facts to make my judgment.
            And with the facts we have more than a 95% chance that the E-Cat is real.

          • Pweet

            Yes FACTS. That’s what we need.
            Where are you getting your facts? I mean real facts. Provable facts.
            Facts verified by reputable people or institutions,
            or even by a number of people from different organisations.
            Do you have a secret source? (or sauce?)
            I would really like to see some.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            I wont start an absurd discussion, there are a lot of facts wich I stated before and they are on public domain.

            The biggest one is that the ERV shows a 50 COP. Rossi said that under oath – IH didnt refuse it – There are insiders wich say that the report is wrong but they admit that the shown COP is 50.

            So, this is a fact, you can think whatever you want, but the fact is there.
            And there are a lot more. Of course we cant be sure if the E-Cat works or not, but with all these facts (as i stated in previous posts) and the behaviour of IH (Aplying for a patent at Europe, outside their LA territory – Another fact). There are more chances of the E-Cat being true than false.

            Again, you can think whatever you want, but dont say there are no facts because that is a false sentence.

          • bachcole

            There are no such things a facts. There is confirmation and there is consensus. Consensus of logically negative statements (“There are no UFOs.” “LENR is impossible.”) is meaningless. Therefore, when encountering the completely new, all we have is confirmation. LENR has confirmation.

          • Pweet

            Eng48 “Based on what data?”

            That’s the problem isn’t it. We simply don’t have any data, so I have to base my whole argument on prior examples and extrapolate that to the present situation. Then the job is to determine if that’s consistent with the pattern and psychology as demonstrated so far. So far that approach has worked very well.
            In 2014 I confidently predicted the IH partnership would not last two years. I was out by only two months, and even that small error is probably diminished because it now turns out the wheels fell off a few months before it was finally announced.

            Using precisely this method, when a thread was started in January 2015 asking for predictions of what would be the developments in 2015, I wrote;-
            .
            “Well that’s easy.

            I confidently predict that by this time next year there will be no Rossi e-cat using lenr, available for public sale, operation or inspection.

            I think there will still be no conclusive proof of any significant excess heat produced by the e-cat.

            I also think there is a good chance that IH will have pulled the plug.(pardon the pun) on the Rossi e-cat investment. If not this year, then certainly by the end of the next. (end of 2016)

            I think Rossi will blame the break up on the non payment of promised monies for ongoing development at a critical time when big advances were right on the edge of being made.

            I think Rossi will carry on his game for as long as he can avoid legal actions, looking for new cashed up partners, with lots of money and little technical expertise.

            I think Rossi supporters will claim that IH have been ‘got at’ by ‘them’ and ‘they’ of the big business oil cartels, etc.

            I think sick children and cancer sufferers will not get the expected millions from this current lenr experience, as earlier expected by some.

            I think the MFMP will have failed to produce any confirmation of significant lenr effects, which could be attributed to anything more than measurement errors. I do appreciate their honesty in the reporting of what they actually observe, rather than claiming they saw what they would like to have observed. Well done.

            I think I will still be hoping for something to come of lenr from someone, but since this has been on a steady decline over the last three years, this will be probably be with a lot less confidence.

            I think this has little chance of getting through moderation. 🙂 ”

            end quote

            ( And even my last line proved correct. It died on the cutting room floor. 🙂
            Sorry mods, but I these things should be published because it proves a high degree of predictability based on previous non performance.)
            .
            Anyway, before people get too upset, note that, as can be seen, it has all turned out pretty much as per the script.
            So, in answer to Engineer48, unfortunately no specific data but lots of specific pattern. The data can be rigged but the pattern is now well established and predictable.

          • Steve Swatman

            So in actual fact, You did not make those predictions. because, well, you know, they were left on the cutting room floor, along with the proof that Mr Rossi is a fraudulent scam master and the e-cat consistently failed tests and pennon is an old time friend and scam master partner of Mr Rossi.

          • Pweet

            The formula given in the last line only applies if there is no phase change
            water->steam->hot water. If there is a phase change anywhere in the process then the whole thing becomes more diffuse and subject to manipulation. That is where the original ecat demos were seriously in error in that they claimed all the input water was boiled off as steam, whereas observations of the videos made it clear that it was not. Or at least, it was not until someone was known to be looking, and then it was. Since I’m not a great believer in the adage that a ‘watched pot never boils’ I can’t think of any physical process which could account for this, other than some controls must have been ‘accidentally’ manipulated.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pweet,

            The formula is correct.

            Once the boiled water has gone superheated, the kJ/kg jumps massively. To know if the steam is superheated / dry you need to know it’s pressure and temperature.

            At standard atmospheric pressure, 0.0 barG, a steam temperature above 99.9743C is superheated. Note the kJ/kg values for the superheated steam.

          • sam

            Makes sense but surely I.H. could have got another EVR
            without much effort.
            Probably were not coerced
            in accepting Pennon but just
            did not think things through
            well enough before agreement.
            Hind sight is 20 I20 I might add.

          • Pweet

            50/50 eh? That’s close to xray vision. Only superman has vision that good, and not in the presence of Kryptonite.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pweet,

            Again the assumptions:

            It would be a huge coincidence that the ERV ‘chosen’ by IH just happened to be a previous associate of Mr Rossi

            Where is your proof? Where do you get this stuff / why do you post it if you have no proof?

          • Roland

            1. There isn’t any.

            2. We make it up, at the office, as we go along. Lots a laughs and a really great bunch a likeminded guys.

            3. Everybody’s got to make a living.

          • Pweet

            Sorry about that. I thought I had read something from Rossi indicating Penon was previously known to him by way of a prior association. I don’t recall where I got that from so unless I look it up, I can’t say whether it’s fact or repeated gossip. Perhaps someone else might have a better recollection of where it was discussed. It was around the time of the Lugano test, or just after, when we were wondering who Penon was and how he got involved. Normally I get these statements from the Rossi blog because even though I don’t take it as being proven fact, at least it’s a starting point.
            The problem comes from the fact that we hear a lot from one side and nothing from the other. (IH). The blanks are filled in from all sorts of chatter on the blogs and after reading pages and pages of them, it’s hard to discern what is fact and what is constructed from blog chatter.
            I agree that I shouldn’t make statements based on shaky recollections because if later proved incorrect, it detracts from the validity of everything else I say. However, I notice it’s also very common on the ‘Rossi’ side of the discussion where much of what is presented as fact is just plain wrong. That doesn’t seem to bother most so they just go on to say something else based on the incorrect statement to come up with something which is equally wrong.
            In the end it makes little difference because world peace will not be decided on the utterances of old folk on an internet forum. Neither will the validity of the ecat. If it actually works it will take the world by storm, regardless of anything said here. “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”
            If it can be conclusively proven to work, saying it doesn’t will be just pithing in the wind. If it doesn’t work, it will be incessantly argued on internet forums. After five years of unproven promises, my feeling is, that’s where we are now.

          • Frank Acland

            Penon conducted a third party test of an e-cat in 2012 — details are here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/105322688/Penon4-1

          • Pweet

            Thanks for that. I remember now. The often quoted “Penon Report” of August 2012. And I think some time after this, when asked how Penon got involved, Mr Rossi mentioned he had a prior loose association with him in some way.

          • Ged

            Prove that “I think” speculation. As of now, you are unfortunately making stuff up based on informational brainwashing and not fact.

            And for whom was that 2012 test done? You guessed it, IH.

            The person you are confusing Penon with, as have others before you which is probably how you got tricked, is that guy whose name starts with a B who is indeed an associates of Rossi’s and tested the E-cat in 2011.

          • Frank Acland

            I think you are thinking of Domenico Fioravante, who Rossi had known some years before he conducted the testing on the October 2011 test of the 1MW plant in Bologna. Rossi did comment about that earlier relationship.

          • Engineer48
          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            All I can say: You must think IH and all their interconnected corporations are pretty stupid. I do not.

          • Ged

            Pweet, you are entirely misinformed on this matter. The ERV was never an associate of Rossi’s. He came aboard with IH, not a moment before, and is their testing guy, whom Rossi also found acceptible. Please do not perpetuate already disproven myths, it undermines your position and harms others understanding of the issues.

          • Omega Z

            We don’t know if Rossi had a previous association with Penon.

            The previous E-cat tests done by Penon were also done at the request of Darden/Cherokee. I.E., Penon may have been Darden’s selection from the start.

      • Engineer48

        Hi DrD,

        The ERV was jointly paid by IH and Rossi for his professional services.

        IH must have trusted him as they gave him the single deciding voice in the amount of the payment, based on his measured COP.

        If IH didn’t trust the ERV, why give him the single power to determine the payment amount required in 3.2c?

    • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

      It is a common mistake. Penon is a ERV chosen by IH since the first time he was hired.
      People usually thinks that was Rossi the one who contacted him first but that is not the case.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Julio,

        Just to clear the air here, Rossi did hire Penon to do the Black HotCat measurements in Aug 2012, which was before IH and Rossi signed their License Agreement in late Oct 2012.

        What is not clear is how much IH was involved with Rossi during this pre license signing test. I would suggest there is a very high possibility IH were doing due diligence on the Rossi tech well before the License Agreement signing and probably were very much involved, behind the scenes, during the July 2012 test.

        • IH was involved in testing at least from June 2012, right about when Penon entered the scene.

          Do you have proof that Rossi hired Penon and that IH did not bring him in? I have been trying to nail down Penon’s arrival on the scene, as the leading counter-scenario to a working E-Cat is a fraudulent conspiracy that must include Penon.

          If Penon was brought in by Darden/Cherokee that argues against fraud.

          If Penon was brought in by Rossi and/or has some previous association with Rossi, then that would be interesting too.

          Rossi has always spoken about Penon in a kind of detached, I don’t really know him kind of way. Just mainly recites his credentials over and over.

          And IH agreed to Penon as the ERV. That indicates some level of trust and may point to them NOT considering Penon to be in Rossi’s orbit (which would be true if they were the ones to bring him in in the first place).

    • DrD

      Hi Sam,
      Can you imagine the consequences of that :
      “My ERV is better than your ERV etc etc—– “.
      Your post would then become ” I can’t figure how they didn’t agree on an independant ERV”.

      • sam

        If your EVR is better than mine
        is fine with me as long as they
        both agree it works.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Sam,

          Except IH agreed for the ERV to have the single voice in how much IH was required to pay Rossi.

          So “What Ifs” have no value. Clause 3.2c is very clear and is binding on IH.

          To avoid the payment, IH need to prove the ERV report was faulty and the real COP was 2.6 or less.

          Rossi has made 2 very strong actions that the ERV data is correct:

          1) He sued IH for the $89m.

          2) He terminated their license for non payment of the $89m.

          This is not the action of someone who was engaged in fraud as if there was fraud, either action will eventually expose any fraud. It is however the action of someone who 100% believes he is in the right and has been wronged. Rossi can’t be any clearer on his claim and has taken the fight to the IH front door.

          • sam

            They should have had a clause
            in agreement that they work
            together in good faith.

          • Is that a haiku?

          • sam

            I never heard the word.
            No I am not a nerd.
            I am not good at poetry like Clay
            But I learned a new work this day.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Sam,

      IH agreed to this deal and they payed 50% if the independent ERV’s account.

      BTW this type of arrangement is very common in situations like this.

  • Robert Dorr

    I think the wrong view to take is to assume someone may be a scam artist with no proof of such. It doesn’t mean you can’t be skeptical.

  • Pweet

    Being as sure as you appear to be, I would have to assume you must have some inside information on what proof IH has that the ERV report is seriously flawed. From the little they have said, they seem to be sure the ERV report, be it a COP of 50 or not, is not an accurate report of the real performance. Now, I can appreciate Rossi’s lawyers will say that’s just their bad luck because they agreed to the appointment of the ERV and the format of the test. However, since the purpose of the test was to establish the validity of the technology and not the ability of one side or the other to hide the real performance figures, I would think a good lawyer for IH could have whatever the ERV said disregarded, provided of course, IH could put up a convincing argument why the ERV report was either rigged, or blatantly false, or gave no indication as to the real performance of the ecat, and then back up that conclusion with expert opinion.
    As I said quite early on, the result will depend on who throws the most money at this.
    IH have said nothing yet as to why they believe the ERV report is wrong. They were not free to address this point in the motion to dismiss because the accuracy and validity of the report was not mentioned in Rossi’s action. Specific claims were made by Rossi and only those claims were able to be addressed by IH. But, if this gets to court, I’m pretty sure it will be stated as the main reason IH have refused to make any further payment and IH will then state what the errors were and effect they had on the supposed performance.
    If it is claimed that it makes no difference whether the report was accurate or not, only that it conformed to the previously agreed format, then that means both sides were free to perform whatever skulduggery they liked, so long as it was done within the scope of the agreement.
    That would clearly be a ridiculous situation. For that reason I again state that if it goes to court, the matter of whether Mr Rossi’s ecat actually works or not will probably come out in the ensuing procedure. I don’t think he can afford to have that matter come out in public so I still doubt it will ever get to court. If it ever does, I think it will be dragged out so far into the future that the outcome will by then be made irrelevant on the basis of it being ancient history, in much the same way as the non existence of the 1MW plant sales to a secret military customer is treated by some as a matter of no relevance today.

  • Brent Buckner

    I suggest that you not use the term “sold”. The agreement was for licensing, albeit on what I also read to be very liberal terms for IH.

  • Brent Buckner

    You wrote: “The agreement does not give IH the permission to pass their rights to a third entity.”

    I suggest that you review your understanding of the License Agreement. Section 1 of the License Agreement ( http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf )”
    states:
    “Leonardo and Rossi further grant to the Company the right to grant sublicenses of any of its rights under this Agreement.”

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Engineer48: Have your clients and Rossi agreed to indemnification contract language that is acceptable so they can move forward to install the 50COP reactor?

  • cashmemorz

    When the many who look at those in power as better than themselves, stop looking at them that way. This mutually assured circulatory affect is at base of our primal instincts.

  • BillH

    If the case every gets to court, before a judge, there is one thing that is sure to come up which I don’t think AR has given a definitive answer to. Often during the 1 year test AR would claim to be IH’s Chief Scientific Officer, he seemed quite proud of that, as he confirmed it more than once. What are the implications of that and what where the exact terms under which this occurred? I’m sure this will be important and requires clarification.

    • Andy Kumar

      Here is a plausible scenario. IH deliberately let Rossi be the CTO and his buddy be the ERV, so the results would come out positive without IH getting their hands “dirty.” They let this go on until they had hundreds of million lined up in investments. Then they offered Rossi the option to keep the $11M and shut down the “charade.” Rossi refused as he wants share of the rest. If Rossi had played along, IH could invest the money in other proven clean energy projects like wind and solar, and everybody would have been happy. Now we have a big mess on our hands.

      • Doesn’t sound too plausible to me. You’re suggesting that IH was using Rossi in a ‘bait and switch’ scam in which the ‘come on’ was a novel clean energy source but the intention was to attempt to fob the investors off with conventional solar and wind. They would have been sued for fraud by the investors, the moment this became clear.

        It’s amazing how some people find almost any strange and unlikely scenario ‘plausible’, just as long as it excludes the possibility that Rossi actually has the goods.

    • Ted-Z

      After the first 8 hours of the day Rossi could put a hat of Leonardo Corp. abd be on his own. IH could would not have any rights to his “after hours” work.

      • BillH

        Unfortunately that’s not how it usually works, especially if you bring your own equipment to work and work on it in company time. Any computer programmer will tell you that any work done while in the employment of a company belongs to them, even if it was created or partially created outside normal working hours. That way ex-employees don’t walk off with a vital piece of code.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          Not necessarily. If the code is derived from an open source source, the code must be shared, depending on the agreement. Much of code developing these days relies on open source licensing.

          • billH

            The one thing that Ecat technology isn’t is Open Source. It’s the polar opposite in fact.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            And you have definite information that confirms this? Rossi NEVER used a bit of open-sourced code in his design?

          • billH

            My NDA would prevent me from telling you :-p

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I take that as “I haven’t he foggiest…”

      • Engineer48

        Hi Bill & Ted,

        We have no details of Rossi Chief Scientists contract with IH, so no point in speculation.

        • Roland

          In so far as Rossi spoke, fairly, openly about the Quark breakthrough within the time period that the 1 year test was still underway he was quite clearly making a statement to IH about what the stakes were as the end of the test period approached.

          Were Rossi bound by an employment contract that granted any and all IP generated by Rossi during the test period to IH even if IH failed to adhere to the general contractual provisions regarding payments and/or IP transfer to third parties this surely would have emerged by now.

          From this it’s fairly straight forward to conclude that the entire provisions regarding the IP generated by Rossi over the course of the business association with IH resides in the general contract between Leonardo and IH and not in a subsidiary employment contract between IH and Rossi; presuming that such a employment contract separate from the general contract even exists.

          Further to this; if an employment contract between Rossi and IH grants all the IP generated by Rossi, during the course of the 1 years test, to IH even if IH breaks the provisions of the general contract, such as the non payment of $89 million, why has IH failed to make a claim to this effect before the courts?

          All the deeper analysis here concludes that the body of E-cat derived IP is worth trillions of dollars over the next few decades yet the single entity that was in a position to acquire this IP for a paltry $89 million failed to act to secure this IP; the simple explanation (Occam’s Razor) is that IH, through their actions, had already excluded this possibility by knowingly breaching other contractual provisions before the test concluded, and the $89 million became due, and that no provision of some putative employment contract was going to remedy this.

  • Eyedoc

    so what would your theory tell us regarding the construction of a trial lenr reactor? and reactants ? necessary experimental conditions ? etc

  • Chapman

    That’s a Three-Pointer!

  • Adam Lepczak

    Engineer48: I am guessing that you are at a job of importance at your company – and comfortable enough with your position to be able to push forward “extraordinary ideas”. Thank you for giving this a chance and for keeping us informed. Perhaps your employer will be the that one client that Rossi needs. If this will work out – you’ll have a spot in history books.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Rossi has no background of fraud.

    If you have evidence to the contrary please present it.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    IH built the reactors in Raleigh & installed it in Miami.

    I think someone would notice holes being drilled through the container floor & wires /pipes running across the concrete floor the container sits on.

    So no the possibility doesn’t exist.

  • Alan Smith

    JED ROTHWELL ON LENR FORUM….. As I said, there was a test conducted in the U.S. when he (Rossi) 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.

    Apparently a 10-page report containing mostly pictures.

    • Amazingly, the views of the two camps are diverging wildly. There are now two distinct views of reality and they are not even on the same planet. We have Planet Rossi, to use the favorite term of the Industrial Heat defenders, and we have Planet Zero, where nothing worked ever, nobody’s behavior makes sense and where there is never any generated energy despite hundreds of prototypes, dozens of tests and millions of dollars changing hands.

      Every now and then a transient wormhole spontaneously appears and joins the two camps. Here word of yet another test, independent of Rossi while he was in Italy, by unspecified persons that apparently shows a working reactor. A ten page report of mostly pictures and charts reported by a citizen of Planet Zero, but an honest one who fearlessly travels the expanse between the two worlds.

      What to make of this?

      It can only be done by Industrial Heat or someone acting on their behalf, right? Who else could have access?

      • Steve Swatman

        Well there are guys that IH gave access to Rossi’s secret documents.

        • Wouldn’t it be rich if McKubre and Godes were given access to the beast while Rossi was away and were actually able to confirm it!

          Anyway seems like it worked does not equal unable to substantiate. Once again we are faced with a logical improbability. As if we needed more.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            If that happened, Leonardo would probably sue them, IH and Brillouin for patent infringement if anything about the Brillouin HHT was proven to relate to the Leonardo IP.

          • Kind of what is happening, though not exactly.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Alan,

      Link please.

      I’ll see what I can turn up.

      Thanks

        • Engineer48

          Hi Lenr G,

          Thanks.

          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

          So IH did not want the results published.

          As for it looks like it worked, what kind of engineering is that? Either it worked or it did not.

          At these thermal energy levels, doing the measurements and maths is not hard.

          It should be noted that when Rossi had the HotCat tested, it was encased in a very black cylinder, which would leave little doubt about the thermal emissivity. So why then did IH supply a bare HotCat core that stirred up controversy on the emission of the casing material?

          • Engineer48

            Rossi’s HotCat and IH’s HotCat. Which do you think has the better capability of having the most accurate thermal emissivity measurement?

            Looking at the images, I wonder if IH setup the Lugano test to be mired in emissivity doubts?

            What Rossi did is how you do the build to get good emissivity data.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9cf90e9341b403667d4ad5413e480e2b06962775e1197fb95a39fc62ac7a1697.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/be1046f505263dc80c706f51f04a9b4eaca3470ddfd5159501347ec6b54319fe.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ba17cdbf6dc595079af49ab5d9b95c582dbe9f984fa05fa395a0961252956bad.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d361920fb985a20a8dd92531a267419ff7cc320b36e99c1aa66bc00551208621.jpg

          • Engineer48

            More data, including detailed construction images here:

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

            This is how I would build a BlackCat and test it. What IH did with the reactor they supplied to Lugano is, to me, not a legitimate way to test a thermally radiating in the air HotCat reactor.

            Likewise I do not understand why MFMP and other HotCat replicators do not replicate the Black HotCat and instead follow the difficult to measure bear bones whitish IH HotCat reactor build and test procedure.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            One of MFMP’s aims was to check the emissivity issue which had been described by TC and others. As a result, they have confirmed that the Lugano thermometry was most likely wrong. In their own attempts to find excess heat they are using correct emissivity settings, though. Therefore, no problem.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Andreas,

            Unless MFMP has an IH built HotCat reactor to test, I really would suggest they have no basis for that claim as they are, with respect, just making guesses.

            The way to eliminate this issue is for MFMP to put their Dog Bone reactor inside an enclosure as described in the Sept 2012 report by Penon. OK not low cost but it does eliminate the potential error plus provide shifted long wave IR feedback to the reactor core. Just maybe that missing long wave IR feedback is why they are failing to measure any significant COP?

            Were I to replicate, I would follow the build as described in the Penon August 2012 report. Why reinvent the wheel? Old engineering saying. KISS.

          • Bob Greenyer
          • Engineer48

            Hi Bob,

            While I don’t claim to be a thermal emissivity expert, I have been fooled by thermal scanners and thermal cameras way too many times. I learned you can’t use your eye not anybody charts and to apply a known flat black coated metal square to the desired measurement spot and to wait until it heated up to equilibrium before taking and non contact readings. Even them I would, if possible, take a thermocouple reading.

            So sorry but I have learned the hard way to not trust non contact temperature measurement and only use it as a last resort.

            I mean you have looked at ALL the other HotCats builds other than the IH manufactured Lugano reactor? They are all encased in high temp steel.

            Sure building a BlackCat is more complex and expensive but just maybe the wavelength shifted and folded back IR has a benefit you guys are not capturing?

            Look I’m not trying to tell you how to do your business. Far from it. Just making a suggestion based on my observations of what has gone before.
            .

          • Bob Greenyer

            Please look at the video from here

            https://youtu.be/0DY4TJmCJS8?t=2h56m47s

          • Bob Greenyer

            This is the paint (840CM) we used

            http://www.aremco.com/high-emissivity-coatings/

            It is quite likely that Rossi used something similar.

            One of our principle goals in Dog Bone week was to determine the emissivity of a Lugano reactor analogues surface which was determined by Lugano team to be made from pure Al2O3 – our aim was not to determine if a black body was a black body.

            The reason is obvious, a wrong emissivity would produce wildly different results.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bob,

            Thanks for the link. Will check it out.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks Andreas for the short version.

          • Bob Greenyer

            If you look at the work we did live during Dog Bone week, where we proved conclusively that the right value for emissivity was around 0.95 as we subsequently found was detailed on page 42 of the Optris manual supplied in the instrument packaging and available online, you will know that you can confidently use an Optris PI160 if one reads and applies the instructions. There is no need to average data from a time before modern instruments became available to estimate the value to use.

            We established this by way of a K-Type, B-Type, Williamson dual band spot pyrometer (an $11,000 instrument recognised by the heat treatment industry as the benchmark way to assess alumina temperature) and a matched and calibrated Optris PI160 with same lens as used in Lugano and a stuctural analogue of the Lugano reactor.

            In addition we used a high emissivity black refractory paint manufactured for the exact purpose, in the correct way as detailed in the Optris manual. You only need use a small area, which we did. These paints degrade over time over 1000ºC so you use it as a reference to set the emissivity of the areas not covered with it – and low and behold, the emissivity setting needed and experimentally determined was what the optris manual recommended – presumambly, Optris had used this process in development of their product to make there emissivity tables up.

            We have used this experimentally determined value in concert with calibrated thermocouples in our *GlowStick* experiments where via calibration and by null side comparison we have observed apparent small excess additionally supported by the Optris PI160 data, most recently on both front and backsides of the reactor in GS 5.3 – When considering less than half the power is applied to the active, then it is more than twice the value – but considering it is still in the low two digit % it is not big enough to call given the method used and nowhere near the value claimed by Rossi. Of course, due to it being a self replication, there was no attempt to capture/reflect/thermalise etc. heat to extend the potential effect.

            It is likely that if there was anything, it was in the 1.1 – 1.2 range and no more than 1.25. This level of excess would be far more believable if attained by mass flow calorimetry.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I do think it should have been backed up with mass flow calorimetry. All that would have been needed is a blower, some ducting, two thermocouples and a good flowmeter. Measuring airflow in ducts is a straightforward process. making a temperature measurement is also pretty straight forward, provided you use a mixer ahead of the measurement. Any HVAC contractor has the goods to make the measurements.

            In your IR measurements, is there any correction for heat loss due to convection? The larger diameter black pipe would have increased the surface area in contact with a convection-induced air stream.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We do not consider convective losses in our *GlowStick* COP determinations.

            HUG built an air flow calorimeter – and it wasn’t trivial – though it was designed for Celani cells.

            We needed to keep the same approach to have comparable results in our self replication of GS 5.2 – and we will need to do the same when we enrich with 62Ni.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I suggest you look at ASHRAE_93-2003 or equivalent for test ing solar thermal arrays. It discusses how to set up a measurement system for solar thermal air heaters. A diagram for the test setup is attached. No need for the heater or solar pyranometer.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Ooops! That image is for a liquid. The image below is for air.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Our MFC that Mathieu built operates at far higher temperatures, it is a shame he lost his lab space right at the time it was running its first tests.

            The main problem is the temperatures involved.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I think that you could surround the device under test with a cylinder made to absorb the IR radiation and convert it into a larger area heat exchanger that would then transfer the heat to air. As a first approximation, a finned aluminum heat sink with the fins facing out and the flat side coated with IR paint and surrounding the device under test. Air would cool the heat sink so that the temperature would not be an issue. The device under test would not be in the airstream, so it could run quire hot.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This is what Mathieu has done in his MFC – only the thermal transfer is done by fluid.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            As I recall, Parkamov also used fluid transfer — though he boiled off water to estimate the thermal output.

            I wonder what the convection effect is for cooling. You mentioned that you did not correct for convection. Did you measure the air temperature above and below the device while testing?

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Checking on-line at “Engineer’s Edge”, a simplified calculator for convective heat transfer yields a heat loss that is significant (311 Watts). I just estimated the area as a cylinder that is 30 cm long by 2 cm in diameter. Results below..

            Disclaimer: Convection is very sensitive to the actual shape. The estimate is simply that. I do not know what method they used to calculate the convection.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Not a bad suggestion for GS 5.5 Thomas.

    • Ged

      It’s hard to trust Jed anymore after he got IH mouth pieced. Is he talking about the QuarkX test, or another? Without independent confirmation, I just can’t trust him no matter what he says until he re-establishes credibility.

    • Fedir Mykhaylov

      Black night, black testers measured black cat Schrödinger.

  • BillH

    That Cat is well and truly out of the bags, I’m sure at some point it will need to be explained.

  • DrD

    I found it very strange that Bill Gates recently said something like “a new energy source will be discovered in 15 years”. As if he knew something that we don’t, like the E-CAT will not be mass produced soon.

    • Omega Z

      Al Gore also indicated 15 years.
      I believe he also mentioned LENR/Cold Fusion.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    If the, “large publicly traded owner and operator of many thermal power plants” is able to see the “unproven technology” with their own eyes and prove with their own engineers and still will not commit to a pilot plant: IH has won in the US, the technology will not be implemented until IH and their partners, including stock shorters, say it can be implemented. It will be implemented in China.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Bernie,

      I can’t speak to why my potential client has decided to wait out the court proceedings. However please don’t make unsupported assumptions on their intentions.

      As for myself, I have started the process to purchase 3 x 10kW QuarkX reactor systems, which will be used to build battery operated remote / disaster power units.

      I can assure they will be on the market ASAP and probably a lot faster than QuarkX thermal boilers will be on the market.

      • Ooh. This is good news.

        Is Rossi receptive to selling the QX’s already? I would have expected a stiff arm and an F8 while they work out the kinks.

        • Engineer48

          Hi LenrG,

          Rossi has said commercial availability in 2016.

          Ok sure the order process is NOT open but I trust my emailed intention to order is at the start of the queue.

          • Well, Rossi has had a queue for domestic E-Cats pre-orders since 2011 now with thousands of potential customers.

            Let us know when you get to the escrow and test with our own engineers stage. Then it gets interesting.

          • Pweet

            I don’t believe there will be any commercial availability in 2016 . Mr Rossi qualifies his statement with “I hope”. People will interpret that in various ways but so far, in relation to commercial availability, it has meant “no chance”.

          • DrD

            Yes, it seems that way.
            It’s a great shame that he hasn’t progressed the qualification and manufactureing of the older Cat’s more than he is doing because it’s becoming clear that the QuarkX’s need a lot of “knocking into shape” before they become, even industrially saleable products, never mind domestic. In contrast, the 1MW units are already just about available (in theory) for industrial use.
            Engineer48’s customers could have made a big impact and a big statement if only they could have gone ahead right now.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        To what “unsupported assumptions” are you referring?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Bernie,

          If the, “large publicly traded owner and operator of many thermal power plants” is able to see the “unproven technology” with their own eyes and prove with their own engineers and still will not commit to a pilot plant: IH has won in the US, the technology will not be implemented until IH and their partners in crime, including stock shorters, say it can be implemented

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Engineer48, I respect and agree with most of what you are doing and say, but you said I made “unsupported assumptions”, they came from your post, talking about your client you said, “They will not be moving forward until ALL the legal issue are resolved”, I am saying that is too bad, even if they believe in the technology, they will not move on it, because “ALL” the legal issues will not be settled for years, which is exactly what IH and their partners in crime want to happen. We agree on the important issue, we want to see this technology hit the streets of the US as fast as possible.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bernie,

            You wrote:

            If the, “large publicly traded owner and operator of many thermal power plants” is able to see the “unproven technology” with their own eyes and prove with their own engineers and still will not commit to a pilot plant

            Neither you nor I know if they will do as you suggest they will, so please no more about the possible future intentions of my potential client.

            I should add that for their engineers to gain access to the plant, they need to execute an MOU with Leonardo, which is basically a conditional purchase order. They are not ready to make that step, so their engineer’s will never get to visit the plant and the scenario you suggested could never happen.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Engineer48, Well, that is news you did not tell us before, “they need to execute an MOU” I can now understand why your clients are reluctant. So it is not only the legal action as you stated before.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bernie,

            I did mention the MOU several times.

            Basically you can’t be a “tyre kicker” and get invited to see a working 1MW reactor. You need to be a genuine purchaser, who needs to visit the plant to complete your due diligence before inking the Sales Contract.

          • Roland

            Actually it has come up before; as have other aspects of due diligence, on both sides, as a precursor to depositing the contracted price in escrow, all of which is precursor to an actual hands on plant inspection/trial run leading, possibly, to the actual purchase, under the contractual provisions agreed to, of 10 1mW low temp steam plants for the purposes of evaluating the state and quality of the engineering employed in the current iteration.

            All of the above, and more, are standard procedures and expectations encountered by any entity operating in the power business; all the i’s dotted all the t’s crossed every step of the way through a forest of industry expectations, international regulations and financial terms is normal.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Roland,

            Yup, don’t I know it. Dragon gate keepers everywhere.

          • Roland

            They (power utilities) are not really allowed to fail their customers in the first world; on top of which utilities as a whole, in the first world, are investment grade financial entities that are expected to produce stable dividend yields in an otherwise uncertain world.

            Enron demonstrated how the system could be gamed in the absence of a systematic approach that places reliability at the top of the hierarchy of values both by regulation and by corporate culture. It sunk in that functional electricity on demand is the bedrock of our civilization when it stopped working in California in the wild west Enron era.

            Drought in Venezuela is demonstrating this afresh as a broader heads up regarding a shifting hydrosphere and the accelerating phase change to water from ice at the heads of many critical river systems.

            Peabody Coal is in bankruptcy, as are the other two next largest US coal companies.

            As pressures mount long term technical reliability within the context of a viable financial structure that does not externalize the environmental consequences of operation will drive innovation in the industry; E-cats should be at the sweet spot right around the time everybody gets serious about civilizational life expectancy.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Roland,

            Yup.

            It is called arriving at work, unzipping the fly, putting the family jewels on the table, ready to be cut off if the supply fails for what ever reason.

            Tends to create very hard nosed, ultra conservative engineers.

            You seem to talk from personal experience in the power industry, as I do. Me distribution side.

          • Roand

            I’ve been interested in the systemic aspects of power distribution, particularly electricity due to its unique nature, for decades and have had the luxury of discussing the issues in depth with various knowledgable professionals on both the engineering and financial sides.

          • Roland

            P.S. Love your emergency set-up. Might I suggest the ability to scavenge water directly from air as an option for deployment to arid regions (and as a general tool to fight desertification).

            At slightly larger scaling such a system, as you describe it, would be of enormous benefit in enumerable villages that the modern age has bypassed; fulfilling Rossi’s vision at a cost that the poorest of the poor could access and be uplifted by.

            A WiFi via uplink for education and micro finance to kick start the process of marrying agrarian lifestyles and culture to the modern age, in a fashion that brings the best of both worlds to the fore, could transform the lives of billions of people.

            Obviously not gonna happen tomorrow but the potential for instigating useful change is emotionally compelling.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Hi Roland, thanks for the information. This is why China will be the first country to utilize this new tech in the Power industry.

  • You should be able to make this argument to your clients:

    Definite knowledge regarding whether this technology works or not has value. That knowledge could be instrumental in deciding the client’s strategy and investments for the next 50 years. What is that value? Does it save money on investments that would be obsoleted? Does it position them to be a first mover and explode their profits and market share?

    Perhaps the value of this knowledge is in the millions or billions of dollars.

    The opportunity cost of waiting years for the legal situation to be completely settled (which may take decades, speaking big picture) may be very high.

    Buy one. Go through the process. Kick the tires.

    End the mystery.

    • Engineer48

      Hi LenrG,

      As I have shared, I have started the process to purchase 3 x 10kWt QuarkX reactors to be used as the heart of a remote area / disaster power unit.

      That unit will be on the market ASAP and much before any fossil boiler replacement unit.

      • What a great first use of LENR technology that would be!

  • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

    Thanks for your compliments.

  • Alan Smith

    An inventor from Italy
    Reflected quite bitterly
    On the day he signed up with IH
    He built them a machine
    That’s remarkably green
    With a COP of round about 8
    The row is about
    The energy out
    (It was measured by his best mate)
    Now they’re taking the piss
    With a request to dismiss
    And a judge will decide Rossi’s fate
    It’s a sad little tale
    For if he should fail
    Clean heat will just have to wait.

    • Fedir Mykhaylov

      My shirt in tears from such sad poetry

  • Engineer48

    Here we see Darden (3rd image down), In Rossi’s Italian factory testing a Black HotCat, which is how it should be done as there is just one thermal emission source as the metal enclosure converts all visible and IR wavelengths into emissions based on the black body radiation at the bodies surface temperature.

    With the Lugano reactor, there were emissions from the core, from the resistors and from the Alumina coating, all producing different wavelength emissions. What a mess to try to measure.

    Question is why did IH ship the Lugano team a very hard to measure bare reactor core, while all other HotCat testing images show the HotCat encased in a metal enclosure?

    Sorry but this really smells, like the Lugano test was setup by IH, the manufacturer and supplier, to be mired in emissivity conversity, which was relativity easy to eliminate by putting the reactor inside a flat black (becomes an ideal black body radiator) metal enclosure as seems to be the standard Leonardo test method.
    .

  • DrD

    Yes, I know.
    but if we are correct that AR will have LENR distributed around the world in only a few months, (I give it about 30, to start to have an impact) then BG will have been very wrong.
    That is because, a new (revolutionary) energy source was already discovered when he made his 15 year prediction. Maybe he doesn’t care at being proved so wrong, or, like I said, maybe he knows something we don’t, like it won’t be allowed to happen.
    Note he didn’t just predict it would be in use in 15 years, he only said “discovered” which has already happened (some of believe).

  • Roland

    The presence of one particular entity is key; if they’d thought this through properly they would have stayed well away from the limelight.

  • Pweet

    I totally agree. Aussies are tough bastards and I know that because I am one. Oh, and also an engineer. And further more, I have a feeling Eng48, almost the same age as me, and who recognized a comment I made some weeks earlier, probably sat in the same lectures with me back in the 1960’s. Gee that would be funny wouldn’t it?
    I do confess though, I did not go into power generation, but I have a reasonable knowledge of how it all works, or doesn’t work in some cases.
    Back to the formula above; it is only accurate if you can accurately determine the kJ/kg, and that is only easy if the output fluid is all water or all steam. If the output fluid is claimed to be all steam and it turns out to be half water and half steam, (i.e. wet steam) then the formula is inappropriate because the energy content per kilogram will be variable and difficult to accurately determine on a continuous basis. It will be variable depending on what the ratio of water to steam is.
    If it is all assumed to be steam when in fact it is not, the energy output will be greatly overestimated.
    If the temperature is well above the boiling point at the particular pressure,hat is superheated steam, then it is reasonable to assume it will all be steam and the energy content in kJ/kg will be easy to determine from charts, but if it is close to 100 deg C and at atmospheric, that assumption will most probably be incorrect. There will be some hot water and some steam, thus the kJ/kg will be indeterminate.
    For that reason, I believe the original ecat tests which show boiler temperature readings very close to 100 deg C were certainly in error. I think that is why Mr Rossi sat “at the controls of his reactor” staring at the temperature readouts, (and that’s all they were, nothing more), to make sure the water was at the critical point where it was possible to pump through hot water at boiling point, but not above boiling point, and claim it was all steam.
    Now you might like to discredit this argument in some way but I have to inform you, it cannot be on the basis that I am not an engineer and am not aussie, because I am both, be they it tough or otherwise.
    Yours truly, Aussie engineer, Pweet.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Pweet,

      If you measure the steam pressure and the measured steam temperature is at or above min superheat temperature then it is dry superheated steam.

      At 0.0 barG pressure, steam at 99.9743C is superheated dry steam. At that pressure (1 standard atmosphere) if the measured steam temperature is below 99.9743C then the steam is a mix of wet & dry steam.

      See attachments. Site here:
      http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/superheated-steam-table.html

      Enjoy.

      • Pweet

        Yes, but in the early tests, none of that was measured was it. The output was simply piped into a bucket or into a hole in the wall, where both would have to be at atmospheric pressure, and then told, it was all dry steam. And then the calculations were done on the basis of the entire water input being converted to dry steam. I don’t believe for a second that it was dry steam, and I am not alone in that belief.
        So the accuracy of the tests depend on whether or not you trusted the person claiming the results. Initially many did. By now most don’t.
        As to how this applies to the last 1MW test, we really don’t know because almost nothing on it has been published. Temperatures, pressures, where the measurements were taken, and what were they were, etc.
        However, someone who does know (IH) have shown their lack of enthusiasm by running out the door. If ever this gets to court, we shall see what promoted them to do this rather than stay on to reap billions in manufacturing and licensing rights.

  • Pweet

    The accuracy of the early tests, (and probably the 1MW plant test, but we don’t know yet because no data) depends on the output being dry superheated steam. If it is (was) then the formula is appropriate and there is no problem.
    The matter of whether the output was dry superheated steam or not is hotly contested. I firmly believe it was not for reasons I have stated many times before, and therefore any results which assume the output was all superheated steam are seriously in error.
    Because this point was commented on by so many, in the later test of October 6th, 2011, this problem was supposedly removed by using a heat exchange and a fixed flow rate of water through a heat exchange.
    This technique should have produced an accurate and reliable result if done properly, but it was not. The placement of the output temperature probe on the hot side of the heat exchange, coupled then with the ridiculously high flow rate of coolant water, made it possible to concoct whatever COP was desired. The test and subsequent results were thus also seriously flawed.
    This had nothing to do with errors enthalpy, entropy or dry steam, wet steam, or anything else overly technical. It was basic high school physics procedure. If you want to know the temperature of the output fluid you put the thermometer IN the output fluid. What could be more simple than that? But it wasn’t done. When the error was later pointed out, it was still not done, because Mr Rossi says he knows his reactors are good. That’s not science and it wont stand as proof to anyone other than himself.
    And now it doesn’t matter because it’s all superseded and obsolete?
    The recent 1Mw test on which depends the payment of 89 million dollars is the same technology, according to Mr Rossi. Since errors in procedure were required to make the early tests work it seems more than probable there were errors in procedure in the latest 1Mw test. IH seem to think there were. Even without seeing the data and results, I tend to agree with them.

  • Pweet

    I don’t have time to reply to all points, and even if I did, I would only be re-ploughing old ground.
    But re the last point, I was not referring there to the 1MW test; I was referring to the original ecat demo given to Mats Lewan where there was only one reactor operating and Mats was wandering around the office looking at various things while Mr Rossi was sitting looking at his computer monitoring the temperature. It’s all in one of Mats’ vids. Look it up because it reveals a number of serious anomalies. The most obvious one here is the 5Kw output from the reactor was being dumped into a 9 litre bucket with about 3 litres of water in the bottom. When Mats first walked into the room there is no steam bubbling into the bucket. When he directs the camera into the bucket, some steam starts to bubble and you can then hear it. However, in spite of the supposed fact that the reactor has been pumping out five kilowatts for at least half an hour or more, the bucket shows no sign of the water being anywhere near boiling. No mist of steam or steam or anything, just water. How is that possible? Five kilowatts would boil the whole bucket in five minutes. And it can’t be because the reactor is unstable because when Mats then asked how it was going, Rossi answers, “Stable,.. is stable.”
    Also note that when Mats walks back into the reactor room where Mr Ross is, you can still hear the steam bubbling, which we never heard in any of the time when he was earlier in the same room.
    My conclusion from all this is that all the time which Mats was earlier in the reactor room supposedly watching all the input water being converted to dry steam, it was simply pumping hot water into the bucket and either no steam or very little steam at all. It certainly was not enough to boil the bucket or make an audible sound, which it did after Mats went to check the output. Surely that must be taken as a clear indication that something was not as it was claimed to be.
    I also note later tests were modified to remove the detection of this major anomaly by putting the output hose directly into a drain hole int the wall. Even then, there was never any indication of steam billowing out of the drain hole which would indicate either Italian drain holes don’t have water traps, or there was no steam or very little steam.
    What is clear to me is that at no time in the demonstration there was anywhere near the claimed 5 kilowatts of steam being generated.

    I could answer all the other points you raise but it would serve no purpose. We are just going around and around, and,.. always coming to the same end, which is, there is something seriously wrong with all these tests and demonstrations.

  • akupaku

    Maybe their pockets were not deep enough or they were not one of the Big Boys gang. I am not privy of the inner workings of the power structures, just contemplating what I read in the news and the one thing about big economical crimes that strikes me odd is that fines are paid but nobody goes to jail.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Stay

    • sam

      Looks like they are leaving.

      • Bob Greenyer

        What can you conclude from this?

      • Bob Greenyer

        2nd EU referendum petition https://goo.gl/L13UF5

        830,000 signatures since this morning

  • Bob Greenyer

    Parkhomov shows how to build a mass flow calorimeter in your kitchen on a shoestring.

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/

    Sees COP 1.1-1.3 for around a month.

    “The integrated operating time of excess energy in the reactor, worked for 38 days, about 100 MJ (30 kWh)”

    • Thomas Kaminski

      And to calibrate the mass flow:

      0). Start a timer., weigh and record the weight of two buckets.
      1). let the outflow run into a bucket
      2). when full, switch to an empty bucket
      3). weigh the first bucket, record the measurement.
      4). Dump out the bucket. Now you have an empty bucket.
      5). Repeat at step 2 until you decide to quit.
      6). Stop the timer and record the time.
      7). Add up all of the mass from the water (full weight minus the weight of the bucket)
      8). Divide by the time : Answer => Average Mass Flow.

      A good scale is very accurate. Timers are accurate too.

      Did the result match what your multi-thousand dollar flow meter says?

  • Buck

    I just saw Andrea Rossi comment on IH’s offer to sell back their license to Leonardo Co.

    Assuming the truth of this offer, it easily promotes the theory that IH is very motivated to stay out of court. This further suggests that IH has a losing case . . . they simply will not win in front of this judge. Of
    course, this points to the ERV report being substantially correct and valid . . . . the E-Cat supported a COP>=50 for the one year test.

    It also points to the theory of bringing Brillouin into the case so that the court can prevent Brillouin from using E-Cat IP.

    What is interesting is speculating on whether Rossi’s testing of the QuarkX suggests that he can ignore Brillouin as they hypothetically are working with obsolete E-Cat technology . . . thereby promoting the path of an out-of-court settlement that strips IH of all rights related to E-Cat technology and IP.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Andrea Rossi

    June 23, 2016 at 5:05 PM
    Ruby Shale:

    As usually, the guys of Industrial Heat are ready to sell what they do not own: now they are offering us to buy back our license, the license that they do not have anymore ( see the press release made few weeks ago from our Attorney John Annesser). I wonder if they will try to sell the Colosseum of Rome as well.

    IH has no more any license related to out IP and whomever is interested to us in North America, Central
    America, South America, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Emirates must contact exclusively:

    http://www.leonardocorporation

    info@leonardocorporation.com

    I have received other comments asking me what I think of the proposal made today by IH and this comments answers to all the others. I will not comment further issues to be discussed in Court.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • kdk

      “I wonder if they will try to sell the Colosseum of Rome as well.”

      I’m still wondering what was going on in the heads of the guys at IH. Are they going to try to claim that Rossi’s devices are unsafe and that Brillouin’s are safe or are Brillouin destined for the same treatment Rossi got?

      • Buck

        I’m like you . . . I am at a loss to understand IH/Darden. They had the rights to a “once in a thousand years” type of invention in a territory covering about 60% of the world economy. It is overly simplistic of me to say that they apparently were not working with a full deck. They blew it big time when they completely underestimated Rossi as being the resolute competitor.

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        If abstracting on trial. Imagine a reactor consisting of two parts. The central part of the reactor BRYULLOVN call it a mouse, and peripherals such as a nickel-lithium reactor Russia acts as a cat. It looks very progressive.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Well, so far we see IH stating that signatures etc. we’re not done correctly for agreeing to start of the test – they thus feel so they don’t have to pay the 90 million.

        And they thus state they still own IP rights. So it would seem the wiggle room is in regards not to IH challenging the ERV report but in that signatures etc. we’re not obtained for the start of the test. However, not objecting to the test and paying (half) to the ERV over period of 1 year would suggest they went along with the test. It not clear if lack of signatures in this regards gets IH off the hook.

        So far, it looks like IH is not challenging the ERV report, but issues surrounding them agreeing to the test.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Robert Dorr

      I read the same thing on Rossi’s blog but what is interesting is I don’t see the question from Ruby Shale that he is responding to. I wonder what is said she said. This is a very interesting development.

      • Buck

        Robert,

        I agree . . . very interesting. I went back to the original JONP and did a search for Ruby Shale and could find nothing.

    • Fedir Mykhaylov

      Brillouin not working reactor technology Rossi. They do not use lithium in its reactor. The excitation system is also completely different from the reactor E-Cat.

  • Alan Smith

    Off topic- and apologies if this has been posted elsewhere…but according to MFMP’s FB page, Aleksander Parkhomov has presented positive test results in Sochi today.

    https://goo.gl/s1n8nj
    “Flow calorimeter manufactured with a computer registration flow and temperature at the inlet and outlet. The calibration measurements have shown that the heat capacity measurement error does not exceed 3%
    This calorimeter tested six reactors with fuel based on nickel and lithium aluminum hydride. One worked 38 days.
    Excess capacity was in the range of 20-65 watts. The excess capacity of the heat capacity of the electricity consumption varied between 5 and 20%.
    Attempts to increase the power led to the destruction of reactors.”

  • Buck

    I am not aware of Rossi returning the $10M.

    It would be my guess that as the lawsuit has not been resolved and as there has not been an out-of-court settlement, money won’t change hands until there is a legal resolution. I’m sure there are many points Rossi would like to have in a binding arrangement regarding the E-Cat IP, licensing rights, IP shared, non-compete, etc. with IH/Darden and potentially Brillouin given the complaint of inappropriate IP sharing.

    Due to this, I would suggest keeping the money until all has been resolved, unless legal council suggests otherwise.

  • DrD

    Well the ballance wasn’t payed when due so that is very debatable.

  • Bob Greenyer

    English translation (By Bob Higgins) with corrected reactor image supplied by Alexander Parkhomov.

    https://goo.gl/Pxo0FE

  • Bob Greenyer

    62Ni experiment is next in Santa Cruz – we want better neutron detection in place

    via the contact form at Quantumheat.org

  • Frank Acland

    No, sorry, I don’t know anything regarding the dates. Court proceedings are all rather mysterious to me.

  • Chapman

    Incoming!

    They filed a reply. It is on the Pacer site now.

  • Alan Smith
    • Legal ping pong.

      What would be really annoying is if the case gets dismissed and we never get to the heart of the matter: the ERV report and the 1 year test.

      I hope the judge has some leeway and rules based on the spirit of the agreement and does not let Industrial Heat get away with its dodgy behavior unexamined (signing but not signing, not facilitating the agreed upon 1 year test, copycat patents with random co-inventors, leveraging for investment but then refusing payment, attempting to nullify based on technicalities like number of cylinders used and starting date ambiguity, etc)..

  • It means the plaintiffs and defendants disagree, as a matter of law, on the applicability and correctness of almost all of the terms of the agreement that they signed in 2012.

    The judge must make a ruling, eventually, on which specific complaints are allowed to proceed to trial and which get thrown out because they are invalid in some way.

  • executive summary ….

    * not enough signatures, so a working MW reactor doesn’t matter. It came too late.
    also they argue that they knew from already when the 2nd amendment was (not) signed that the MW test did not matter … [is that malicious or what?]
    * IH can distribute IP as they wish … [because of malicious wording in the license]
    * IH can file patents as they wish … [because of malicious wording in the license]
    * IH can raise money as they wish since raising money on claims of owning IP (ie. lying) is not the same as selling products … [something for Woodford to think about]
    * and a lot of text aimed at keeping Darden, Vaughn and Cherokee out of the lawsuit (this seems REALLY important)

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/jones-day-lawyer-drones-on-repeat-in-another-mtd-however-again-showing-the-malicious-intent-of-ih/

  • Gerard McEk

    No doubt AR attorney will disagree with this and as Frank says this all just delays the LENR rollout, at least in the US. Apart from these technicalities the real dispute has still to come. What a waste of time!

  • Whom to believe?

    Mats Lewan says people (more than 1 at least) close to the ERV report indicate that its calculations are solid and the only way the plant failed to deliver is if the report is fraudulent.

    Jed says that he has seen Rossi plant data (does he mean ERV data?) and that the measurement techniques were laughable. No excess heat at all.

    Rossi files a lawsuit to get his money, fearlessly bares all to public scrutiny. Another genius scam maneuver?

    Dewey says Rossi is in big trouble, the authorities are circling. Darden gave Rossi every opportunity to prove himself and then when things didn’t work out, to gracefully exit. Darden is a prince.

    Woodford invested circa $50M in Industrial Heat (or its holdings) and claimed, unambiguously, in depth due diligence… partly as a result of Darden singing the praises of the 1 MW plant, on location.

    Vaughn says Rossi does not appear to be credible to government authorities.

    Fulvio Fabiani claims the plant, which he observed for a full year, worked and the E-Cat X developments were astounding.

    Industrial Heat claimed due diligence at time of purchase after circa four months of testing and an independent validation but now claim an inability to substantiate.

    The Lugano team reported excess heat and massive isotopic shifts and transmutation. Only fraud can explain the latter, if not true.

    Alain now believes the narrative put forth by Dewey and Jed of a late Industrial Heat conversion; that Rossi never had anything and they were fooled for a while but eventually caught on and have been trying to extricate themselves.

    me356 claims working reactors giving unambiguous excess heat and byproducts; Greenyer vouches for the individual but not yet results. To be revealed soon. Clean Planet, Brillouin, Lenuco, Nichenergy, Nanortech all claim working LENR in various stages of development.

    Mary Yugo laughs at the idea that Industrial Heat would walk away from a trillion dollar working plant, ergo the plant did not work.

    Parkhomov publishes more positive results. Other Russian scientists see the effect also and publish too. Chinese scientists also publish positive results. MFMP sees neutrons and possible excess heat.

    Penon says it worked, multiple times.

    ————–

    Scorecard:
    Positive:
    1 journalist, for whom objectivity is part of the job description.
    1 eccentric investor with a dubious history.
    1 UK investment fund.
    1 engineer with direct involvement; associate of Rossi but also contractor for IH
    1 IH at time of agreement and many months after
    7 European scientists.
    1 semi-anonymous experimenter vouched for by a member of an open science organization.
    5 companies.
    3+ Russian and Chinese scientists
    1 well-educated Italian nuclear engineer with certification experience
    1 live open science organization

    Negative:
    1 LENR librarian with inside information and a sharp eye for calorimetry errors
    1 associate of Darden/investor in IH
    1 VP of IH
    1 IH since late 2015, when the bill for $89M came due
    1 LENR follower, previously strongly positive
    1 tireless poster convinced of fraud since the early days

    ————

    Whom do you believe?

    • Engineer48

      Hi LENR,

      I believe in the hard data, the use of suitable measuring instruments, proper location and how the data was collected.

      Science tells no lies.

      As it appears IH can legally release the ERV report but has the ability to block Rossi releasing it, well to me that says heaps.

      • Hi all

        But IH cannot stop the courts demanding the ERV report and with so many IH people having seen it, one is bound to leak it.

        Kind Regards walker

        • It’s amazing we haven’t seen it yet. Or at least Lewan or Ackland being allowed to read and return it for background.

          C’mon insiders… throw us a bone so that we may not play with the bones of others! ; )

      • Science offers up the facts but for us there is always a middleman; one which we have to judge based on all relevant information.

        I don’t think IH can block or is blocking Rossi from releasing the ERV report. Rossi is not releasing it based on the advice of his lawyers, and it is probably very good advice.

        • Engineer48

          Hi LENR,

          The contract says IH and block Rossi releasing data as he needs their consent.

          Imagine the opinion of the Judge, if it is shown in court that IH knew the ERV data was correct and supported a COP > 50. He just might be a bit unset at IH for wasting the court’s time.

          I feel IH needs to get this dismissed on some non engineering data technicality, such as the missing signatures on amendment 2 not extending the time to complete, or they may be in trouble.

          • Can you cite the specific place where the agreement says that? Not doubting you necessarily, just want to look at the source.

        • Barbierir

          The fact the Rossi can’t legally release the report was claimed by mr. Dewey on lenr-forum, so it should be true or it’s another one of his inconsistencies.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Barbierir,

            Please read clause 16.4 as attached.

            Especially the last part where Rossi is severely restricted in what info he can release without IH approval. Very one sided to say the least.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b84fa321ae34a832fc54d73c641cd0be38983dc7b3c2e2230e50255095f7fc66.jpg

          • Kind of went out the window when he published the agreement itself don’t you think?

            Also, would you characterize the ERV report as E-Cat IP? I don’t think I would — at least not a summary of it. Maybe.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LENR,

            Sadly only a court and a lot of lawyer fees can settle that. 🙁

        • Ged

          And Rossi can’t block IH from releasing the report, but they aren’t doing so either. Probably, again, due to the lawyers.

    • Rossi can make all the claims that he want, but isn’t the credibility of Fulvio Fabiani, the mutually paid ERV at stake here?

      • The mutually paid ERV was Penon, not Fabiani… but yes his credibility is at stake here.

        If the ERV report says what we’ve been told it says then for IH to not pay they would have to persuade the court (if it gets that far) that the report was either an intentional fabrication or that the 12 month long measurements using pre-approved instruments and techniques were hugely erroneous and thus that Penon is grossly incompetent.

        I imagine he’s not in a great mood these days. Or maybe he is because he may be one of few people to know what is actually going on here and if he’s not a complete tool then he knows he’s part of something amazing, and likely enriching.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I believe in you. LENR G. The rest will need to prove themselves.

      • That is the correct answer. We have a winner!

        j/k

    • Gerald

      In the december 2015 report from woodford there is a number 1,8% from the total invested in Industrial heat(unquoted). Total fund is about 750 M. Maybe it in GBP zo max investment is 20 M in dollars(roughly calc). So did they invest in an other part from IH, because in the report you can’t see every investment only the top one’s IH was 19 or did they already cut their losses in the end 2015 or am I calculate wrong? My calculating is normaly better then my writing. 😉 But I’m far from a money guy.

    • Josh G

      Nice summary. Notice the new offensive on LENR forum attacking Mats’ objectivity.

      • In order for their certainty about a non-working plant to be true, Mats must be wrong about the ERV report. Therefore he must be biased and easily duped by agents of ‘Planet Rossi.’

        Nothing in my reading of Mats’ publication and comments suggests that he is anything but an excellent journalist, interpreting facts as he sees them and primarily interested in telling the truth to his readers.

        • Mark Underwood

          I agree. Mats seems refreshingly neutral to me ; the problem is, in the context of so much negativity, neutral takes on the appearance of a positive bias.
          If Rossi turns out to be a fraudster or a hero, Mats will report it, and well.

      • Let them attack. No problem.
        One thing that I cannot help noting, however, is that IH/Darden never contacted me. Ever. (Except for one short email after ICCF in which Darden offered me to interview him whenever I wanted, after which he never answered any approach from me — emails or phone calls). But they were in contact with Jed, who contacted me (February 20), before he started posting things, advising me to contact IH. Which I did, but again, they NEVER answered. Never ever.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Mats,

          That statement is a KEEPER.
          Bookedmarked for future use.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          Mats,

          Very informative. I also do not like the misinformation being spread about the measurements that you made on Rossi’s device. As I recall, your measurements, though not perfect, were made in a professional manner as best you could with limited instrumentation.

        • SG

          I admire your fortitude and honesty. Will be an interesting next few months.

        • Josh G

          Thanks for the clarification. I did not mean to add legitimacy to their attack, but only to call it out for the transparent propaganda that it is. Perhaps Darden et al. decided early on that they could not spin you the way they wanted…

        • psi2u2

          ” IH/Darden never contacted me. Ever. (Except for one short email after ICCF in which Darden offered me to interview him whenever I wanted, after which he never answered any approach from me — emails or phone calls).”

          Hmmm….

          “But they were in contact with Jed, who contacted me (February 20), before he started posting things, advising me to contact IH. Which I did, but again, they NEVER answered. Never ever.”

          Oops. T.D.’s credibility takes another big hit.

          • Curious isn’t it.

            Presumably they recognized Jed as an expert in LENR and something of an expert in calorimetry and they wanted his take on a portion of the results.

            Their standoffishness with Mats is quite annoying though. If there had been free communication between Lewan and Darden this whole mess could have been avoided.

          • Pweet

            I would read that as meaning; all the time they did not want to talk to Mats was coincident with the period they were aware the ecat did not perform as per the claimed specifications. They would not want to report that to Mats and have it published far and wide because they were in the process of offloading their liability onto others. This would mean in any discussion with Mats, if they continued with the line that everything was working just great, it would come back to bite them when the truth finally came out, as it appears to be now.
            Had everything been going just great then I would expect IH would have been pleased to talk to all and sundry, including Mats, so that the good news could be published far and wide, thus making their investment worth more and thus be a more salable product.
            It is worth noting that even though they did not want to tell Mats about how well it was going, or otherwise, it appears it did not stop them talking up the technology to prospective clients in order to offload their liability, and it seems they were happy to pass on the impression that everything was going just great. That’s not a very good look, but I suppose they would say it’s just good business. I wouldn’t agree. I think it’s shonky, and for that reason, if true, they deserve everything they get. (or lose) All just my opinion of course and since they say nothing, it could all be wrong.

          • Pweet, “offloading their liability” as you call it would be out and out fraud if they knew or believed that Rossi had nothing all along and went ahead anyway and used the plant as part of their pitch for serious investment money.

            An explanation that makes more sense to me is that Industrial Heat had a late 2015 change of heart.

            In any case, wherever you want to put down the marker when IH changed from E-Cat enthusiasts to doubters, I think it’s safe to say that it was after their Jan 2014 press release, in which they were not shy about saying they had validated the technology.

            Point being they had ample time to be talking with Mats Lewan when the skies were blue and yet they did not. I don’t understand why they didn’t. Even today they could provide Mats information on background. All it would take is for Mats to publish something along the lines of “I’ve received more detailed information than I had previously from a reliable source and I am now ready to concede that scenarios involving fraud are quite possible or even likely…” They don’t need Rossi to be credible at this point; their finances are independent and they are the ones who have tanked his credibility.

    • SG

      Great capture of the current state of affairs. The absurdities keep me coming back for more.

    • georgehants

      LENR G, on this subject of continuous repetition, on your Scorecard you have omitted to add, ——-
      I scientist who after five + years still refuses to publish an open repeatable recipe to prove even the most basic of his claims for a commercially viable Cold Fusion, even for the purpose of a patent.
      It is not closed-minded or over skeptical to ask for a sensible scientifically exceptable proof of claims.
      Not to take this into account is not reasonable (I think)

      • Buck

        Your critique defies the simple reality of patent law and the practical requirements for protecting one’s IP.

        Not taking this into account is absolutely unreasonable . . .

        • georgehants

          Buck allowing for your reply, my comment still clearly stands as Factual and accurate.

          • Buck

            We simply disagree on this point.

          • georgehants

            Buck, if you disagree please put up what Facts in my reply you are disagreeing with.
            There is Factually no repeatable proof the Rossi has a commercially viable Cold Fusion.

          • Buck

            IMO, the facts are presented to assess and guide the sense of balance for a given opinion.

            You present the critique of Rossi focused upon his lack of sharing his IP and his lack of presenting scientifically acceptable proof of his claims.

            I present an point that to exclude the legal and practical requirements of the culture in which he is developing and introducing a revolutionary highly disruptive technology tips that sense of balance for a given judgment in an unreasonable manner.

            The current legal situation with IH is after-the-fact evidence in support of Rossi’s caution and supports the perspective that your critique of Rossi is does not sway or hold much weight for impacting that balance. You present facts . . yes, but they do not shift LENR G’s central point.

          • georgehants

            Buck, many thanks.

      • Rossi gave his reactor up for 6 months of independent testing by the Lugano team which found unambiguous evidence of isomeric shifts and transmutation in the ash.

        He is also taking the established path to publishing his ‘recipe’, which is via a patent… one which is currently in non-final rejected state. He doesn’t really have patent protection yet for a reproducible device.

        • georgehants

          LENR G, as with my reply below, allowing for your reply it does not in any way make my reply less accurate of Factual.

          • Didn’t say it did george. It’s all good.

          • georgehants

            LENR G.
            Best to you and my Hope goes on forever, or until I croak anyway.

          • And you. I am trying to be fair to all sides and people. Your point about Rossi keeping things close to his vest, perhaps too close, is acknowledged.

    • sam

      All involved should take lie detector test.
      But I think they are all so mixed up
      they do not know what the truth is.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Sam,

        The truth is what the data shows.

        Show me the plant schematic, the instruments used, where they were placed, ALL the collected data and science will determine who is telling the truth.

        • sam

          I was trying to get Mary Yugo
          hired on a while back but no
          luck.

      • f sedei

        The lie detector would not have a chance. It would break down dealing with the negative group.

    • f sedei

      Nice summary. Thanks. I believe Rossi and so will the court.

    • Nice summary!

      Feel free to start a new thread about it at LENR Forum.
      We could close it so it will not get spammed and you can update it any time.

      • Thanks, barty. I may engage on LENR Forum at some point when I have more bandwidth. At this point I barely have enough time to follow the discussion on E-Cat World, so I will pass on your invitation.

        Feel free to post it over there though with my blessing.

  • DrD

    Acutually no, the $89m was for the ERV report and that’s what the jury will rule on.
    Who owns the license is what’s debatable and may need further law suits to decide.

  • Alan Smith

    About $100k in legal fees.

  • MasterBlaster7

    Less focus on the court case.

    More focus on the production facility and distribution in Europe.

    It is the only unhindered avenue.

  • Engineer48
  • Ged

    Hmm, IH’s reply is rather shorter and looks pretty weak. I also note there is no reply by date, so this could be the last volley and then the judge will rule on the MTD. Who knows when though.

    • They more or less just restated the points in their original motion. Time for the judge to decide; the arguments have been made.

    • radvar

      Probably just a standard thing to do. IH lawyers may have been considered negligent if they did not rebut the rebuttal.

      Side point: lawyers cannot buy professional liability insurance, to cover errors and omissions, like, say, an engineer could. So lawyers have to be extra careful.

  • LuFong

    While it’s true that the Contract doesn’t explicitly say that IH was responsible for setting up the test (“secure a test location”), the 1MW plant that IH bought and test was to be delivered to IH and the GPT was to begin (initial contract) within 5 days or something like that. I think it’s a good assumption that IH was responsible for setting up the GPT test (and they may have done so but was overruled by Rossi, another unsubstantiated allegation).

  • wizkid

    Cherokee AKA IH et al.. Reply to the Judge in their response that she simply SHOULD NOT DISMISS the lawsuit against them because:

    “Even if this Court were to adopt the reasoning of the Classen court (it should not), Plaintiffs suggest that the circumstances of this case, as alleged in the Complaint, require an exception to the “general” principal predicated upon Defendants’ outright attempts to commandeer Plaintiffs’ intellectual property.”

    Interesting that they don’t deny the part of the statement that says: “predicated upon Defendants’ outright attempts to commandeer Plaintiffs’ intellectual property.”

    Copy and paste does not constitute rights, unless you are a bank stealing homes from defenseless Americans in the USA, who copied and pasted mortgages, and sold them over and over and over again and succeeded in not being convicted of illegal activity. Hmmm

    • kdk

      Something integral to understanding the current state of the world is the knowledge that judges (and public prosecutors!) can be bought off and blackmailed just like politicians. Not fearing any incarceration or legal repercussions, they will be more likely to do whatever they want.

      Many witnesses to the Iran-Contra Affair (CIA run guns-for-drugs scheme to sell drugs in America) in Mena, Arkansas had their statements taken in preparation for a Grand Jury hearing but were never called to the stand in a show-trial. In a court case which was brought before a judge (who just so happened to be related to Bush) challenging the official narrative of 9/11 at the Pentagon including eyewitness evidence, a judge threw out the case and fined the lawyer for bringing a frivolous case.

      • psi2u2

        Throw the judge in jail.

  • Brokeeper

    Could these weak rebuttals lend some skeptics see their world fragment?
    Steven Krivit, the admin of the ‘eCat News’, is calling it quits:

    “The End”
    “EcatNews has outlived its purpose…..” June 14, 2016

    http://ecatnews.com/?p=2702

    • Gerard McEk

      So Krivit’s purpose was to slander and abuse Rossi. Now he leaves it to the professionals, but this one sentence he managed to produce (“AR is a fraud”), will undoubtedly continuously be repeated until he dies. (Otherwise he may forget it).

      • Brokeeper

        Agreed, lies will eventually turn against itself. EcatNews was filled with it by many skeptopaths. I even caught one such lie, the infamous Mary Yugo, quotting a comment I never posted nor existed by anyone in the JoNP against AR.

      • Brokeeper

        I’m not sure if that is his purpose, but he is not exactly Rossi’s friend as Admin to the Newenergytimes – verses eCatNews as Agaricus rightly corrected above.

      • Wonder if his funding ran out.

        • Gerard McEk

          I would think so. Having a website only visited by the few followers he had wasn’t viable and his message was boring. Who would subsidize that?

    • Just on a point of fact, Paul Story is the admin/owner of ecatnews.com – Steven Krivit owns and runs newenergytimes.net. Krivit doesn’t seem to have posted any articles there since May12, which may or may not mean anything.

      • Brokeeper

        Ok, thanks for the correction. The only name credit I could find was Krivit under the Press menu. Thanks!

  • peacelovewoodstock

    First reaction to the reply, to paraphrase Shakespeare, it is a tale told by a lawyer, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    For example, arguments against effectiveness of Second Amendment are laughably weak.

    IMHO an example of lawyers doing their job by extracting every last possible billable hour of work from their clients. That’s what they do, they are lawyers.

    Years ago I went to the dentist because I had some periodontal disease. The dentist told me he needed to “probe my pockets” before estimating cost of treatment. I was speechless until I realized that he was referring to a diagnostic technique. I think there is an apt analogy to how lawyers operate, except that it is not a diagnostic technique.

    • MasterBlaster7

      Hhaha…”probe my pockets”….I laughed out loud at that one…I could really see where that interpretation could go either way…that is a legit, real life double entendre…..also…consider…it is a good thing that was a dentist story and not a proctoligist story….hahaha….did you see what I did there…quadruple entendre 😀

  • Rene
    • Skip

      I’ve been watching this for 4 hours now. Due to lack of patience, I’m going to call it a draw.
      Hopefully the Rossi/IH situation has a clear winner…

  • LilyLover

    The profound the irrelevancy and thence the disappointment, the higher the social proof that the goods indeed exist!!

  • DrD

    It’s for a boiler (water heater).
    It significantly doesn’t mention LENR or cold fusion.
    If it did, it would have been rejected on the grounds that “they” believe LENR contradicts the laws of physics as if it’s never happened before (i.e. L of P being contradicted).
    Some day organisations should got together and sue the patent office for losses resulting from lack of patent protection.

    • Bob Greenyer

      What it does say is that it is a device that produces 6 X more energy out than is put in – which makes it massively over unity so OBVIOUSLY not chemical given that it is only chemicals that are used in combination with electric heating – this is a point that nearly every one misses as it is buried in the text – it also seams that IH missed it too!

      • DrD

        Yes, some of us appreciate that but others missed it and did the patent office apppreciate what it implies? Granted, it’s difficult to see how it’s not LENR but that isn’t claimed and I it might be something else not that I can imagine any such energy source.

  • Josh G

    Great work, 48! Keep it up!!

  • Everybody is subject to confirmation bias. Everybody. It’s a powerful thing, the human need to be considered right and feel respected.

    But if you know it exists and periodically review your assumptions and keep an open mind, you can minimize it.

  • One could argue that if they have uncovered massive fraud and a 3+-man conspiracy running for 5 years now, that they have an ethical obligation to expose it immediately.

    • Engineer48

      Hi LENR,

      The fraud would involve:

      the owners of Leonardo, it’s board members and employees,
      the owners of AmpEnergo, it’s board members and employees,
      the owners of HydroFusion, it’s board members and employees,
      the Lugano testers,
      Rossi’s lawyer,
      both of the IH engineers,
      the ERV,
      ALL the scientists and engineers that have tested Rossi’s reactors,
      Rossi,
      the actors hired to pose as the Customer’s employees.

      I suggest that is hard to accept ALL those people are involved in a fraud.

      • I swear Engineer48 and I are not the same person.

  • So far, I consider this more or less ‘normal’. Industrial Heat got served and hired a top notch law firm to defend them. That law firm is leaving no stone unturned. Hence fighting every point, even the ones they don’t expect to win.

    However, I do entertain as one possible scenario that Industrial Heat’s raison d’etre is to stall the emergence of LENR technology. That’s somewhat cloak and daggerish and requires one to go into dark conspiracy corners of the room but it’s not impossible. Their stalling to start the 1 MW test, scooping up a lot of LENR-related IP, stiff-arming Rossi right when it was time to go into production and apparent trips to the White House make me go ‘hmmm.’ Plus they are careful not to say much of anything themselves. Kind of like they are in a grin and bear it situation and are doing something their hearts really aren’t into.

    Then there’s the publicly announced disinvestment from oil by Saudi Arabia in 2017.

    I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to suggest that the US government agreed to suppress the emergence of LENR until S.A. got clear of a nation-killing economic calamity. You’re the President what do you do? Destabilize yet another Middle East nation or give them a little breathing room and tell your buddies at IH to slow walk the tech for just a bit longer?

    I look at that and say yeah, maybe. But it also feels too organized to me. I think there’s probably more chaos at work here than that scenario allows.

  • They’re just doing their job.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Chapman,

    While only a “Bush Lawyer” I expect your analysis may be close to the mark. Any Yes the court cares little about does the ECat work or not.

    I do expect Leonardo may release the 1 year ERV summary report as part of their marketing support material for the 125C steam 1MWt 4 slab reactor plant.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Gerald

    Court case dock is updated with schedules and certificates.

    • Buck

      Yes as of about 7:30 last night. I will take someone with access to see what the following holds:

      Certificate of Interested Parties/Corporate Disclosure Statement
      Scheduling Report – Rule 26(f)/16.1
      Att: 1
      Text of Proposed Order,

      Att: 2
      Election to Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge for Final Disposition of Motions

      • Gerald

        Ok, I saw it this morning 7 local time and went to work. To busy to check here and i am amazed nothing on this on the side yet. I will try to check it when I’m if my trial account is still working.

          • Engineer48
          • Ged

            Not a bad turn around, only 6 months from filing to trial; positively the express lane.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Ged,

            18 Sept 2017, not 18 Sept 2016!

          • Ged

            Oh whoops… nevermind then! Dang.

          • Buck

            Given Rossi and IH being closed to sharing at this point, there probably will be no ERV report until then.

            I hope I am wrong.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Buck,

            For the jury trial, it is central as IH will need to prove to the jury that the ERV’s claimed COP > 50 is not correct and that the real COP was 2.6 or less and thus they do not owe Rossi $89m, did not breach the License Agreement and the Leonardo termination of the License Agreement was in error.

            If IH win, they will probably seek damages. Weaver did once mention $100m in damages.

            So early October 2017 should be interesting.

          • Buck

            I couldn’t agree more.

            On a different note . . . . despite the fact that the QuarkX is not the same technology as that used in the 1-Year test and therefore might be inadmissible, I do like to imagine a demonstration of 1-5 QuarkX toothpicks showing a COP=200.

            I think it would be prejudicial to IH’s case.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Buck,

            A QuarkX reactor demo should not have any effect on the jury.

            To win, IH needs to prove to the jury the ERV’s statement that the COP was > 50 was not correct and that the real COP was 2.6 or lower and thus IH owes Rossi nothing as under clause 3.2c.

            Of course there are other issues in the Rossi complaint that IH need to prove to the jury are also false.

            Going to trial is not what IH wants and that is why they filed the MTD, so as to score a win via the judge dismissing all of Rossi’s complaints and avoid needing to convince the jury they did nothing wrong.

          • Buck

            Engineer48,

            I disagree on your assertion that it would have no effect upon the jury.

            To show how the technology is advancing in leaps and bounds and that IH knew of the QuarkX before the event of non-payment enhances the sense of imbalance in IH’s decision to not pay the $89M. And, to join this with the theory of IH’s intent to take all IP without any further payment enhances the sense of “unjust theft”.

            However, my disagreement is immaterial as I don’t believe a demo will be allowed by the judge.

          • Gerald

            Thanks, did check your site a few times. Almost home now, gonna check it on a normal screen.

          • Gerald

            2. Publicly Held Companies Owning 10% or More Stock: There are no publicly held
            companies owning 10% or more of IH, IPH, or Cherokee.

            And Woodford puts in 50 M, their pockets must be deep then?!

            October 2017… Years fly by quick, things will happen between. I’ll keep checking this and your site. Lots of things to learn from.

    • Discovery starts in August 2016 or two weeks after the MTD fails, whichever comes first. Must be completed by the end of May 2017.

      They must go through mediation, running from 30 Dec 2016 to 17 Mar 2017

      Up to 13 videotaped depositions each.

      Trial starts 18 Sep 2017.

  • MasterBlaster7

    Unless it is appealed.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Pweet,

    The big difference is what Rossi shares is from Rossi and he can be held accountable. As for Weaver or Jed, nothing they say is binding on IH as Darden can easily distance IH from them by saying what they say are not official IH statements.

    Understand the difference?

    • Pweet

      My understanding is that both Weaver and Jed speak for themselves. I have not seen any proof that they speak on behalf of IH or Darden or anyone else. I may have missed something that proves otherwise so if I have, then someone please let me know, but simply using the fact that what they say is in support of the position of IH and not in support of Mr Rossi is not going to cut the mustard. To accept that argument as proof of them being complicit with IH extrapolates to the position that anyone who believes that IH may have been defrauded is automatically in the pay of IH, or an IH stooge, or an IH mouthpiece. That is clearly a specious argument and patently false. Such logic would make me, on the other side of the planet, an accomplice or stooge or mouthpiece of IH and I am none of these. I speak for myself only, and I speak what I see, and what I see is, all is not well in the state of Bologna, and Rossiville. I have seen this for five years now and said so. All along I was accused of being a shill, a troll, and a number of other things. Everything I have said is for the purpose of preventing others from ending up in the same situation as IH. It is of no benefit to me at all other than the satisfaction of knowing I might have prevented some decent person or people from being skinned. Obviously IH took no notice. There are other people who still take no notice. I can confidently predict those who take no notice and put money into this circus will come off severely bruised in both reputation and financial well being. That has been the situation so far and it will continue to be so. For anyone who wants to know what that looks like, have a look at the mess IH are now in. I’m sure that where they are now is nowhere near where they thought they would be three years ago. And yet there they are, in deep excrement, and clearly it stinks.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Pweet,

        Weaver and Jed speak for themselves?

        Both say their info is from IH. If they did not say this why would anyone bother reading what they say?

        Jed very clearly stated he received ERV information from IH by “Asking for it” and has talked to the IH experts about the tests and how they were conducted.

        • Pweet

          Yes, but I can understand anyone who thought they might have half a chance of getting information from IH, asking for it. Half of the people here would do that, including me. We would also ask it from Mr Rossi if we thought he would give it, but that does not make anyone in the pocket of IH or Mr Rossi.

          Jed Rothwell has had a long standing interest in lenr and has spoken in favor of it, and Mr Rossi, many times in the past. He would be tickled pink to have obtained any results from IH and would undoubtedly have given it all a close inspection. I think it would have suited his purpose much better to be able to claim it was all an outstanding success, but he simply couldn’t, and he has reported it the way he sees it. He might be wrong, but then again, he might be right. I think he is right because I was expecting it to turn out this way. I also think the ‘cake was iced up a bit thick’ when the reported COP came in at 50. An error that large would be so easy to spot, even from the next room, so Jed would have had no trouble seeing it straight off, and he has said just that.

          Weaver has money in the game and that money was put in via IH, so they would have a communication channel open already. It is only reasonable that he would ask IH for updates from time to time and they would be obliged to tell him. Obviously he doesn’t like what he hears and he says so. If it was me, I would say so too.
          .
          Now I can appreciate that non of this is a 100% proof that they are not in the pay of IH, but the fact is, it is also very reasonable to believe that they are both only ‘speaking as they find’ and are not in the pay of anyone, so unless there is positive proof to the contrary , I think it is unreasonable to claim that they are paid mouthpieces of IH.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pweet,

            As I read the contract, neither party can disclose the ERV data, despite what Weaver claims, unless both agree or the court orders it.

            So IH would be in violation of the contract if they gave Jed the data he claims he has from them.

            I have asked Rossi for a NDAed release of the ERV data so I could generate a summary report as counter to what Jed claims. Answer was there can’t be any release, other than in court or he would be in violation of the contract.

            BTW when Rossi terminated the contract, that act does not dissolve all of the binding on both parties conditions. What it did was to stop IH using the Rossi IP and forced them to not be able to compete with Rossi for a very long time. However the non disclosure conditioona are still binding on both parties.

  • Engineer48

    Hi MWW,

    There is a logic people chain here, that if you place all those involved with the 1 year test, shows a massive network, yet those that attack only attack Rossi as if this was ALL the work of one man.

  • So you’re saying that lawyers are not your favorite people : ) ?

  • LuFong

    With the civil suit now appearing to be scheduled for 18 Sept 2017, well over a year from now, it seems to me that this court case will become irrelevant if what Rossi has been saying comes to fruition. By then the QuarkX should be well into production and public knowledge. Ditto for the BrLP SunCell.

    To be blunt, I don’t think any of this will happen and I don’t think we will hear anything about the court case till then as well. So to me it looks like a long dry spell of independent information is coming (me356 disclosures possibly an exception).

    • I understand your frustration but consider:

      * MFMP has already detected neutrons and kind sorta excess heat. The next round of testing holds great promise for unambiguous, repeatable results that they will publish to the world.
      * me356 claims working reactors and that the knowledge will be shared sooner than later.
      * Rossi of course claims to be on the verge of commercialization.
      * Mills and Brilliant Light Power still talking a big game and doing demos painting a picture of a march to commercialization. 20 years and counting, but… maybe.
      * Clean Planet (the Japanese) have claimed working prototype reactors
      * Brillouin Energy of course was on Capitol Hill touting their prototype reactors not long ago
      * Lenuco seems to have transferred their IP to Industrial Heat (check out who is on the shareholder list of the company Industrial Heat created with their Woodford windfall!). Miley had claimed working prototype reactors too — just needed to fine tune the control of the reaction
      * Swartz with his Nanors is out there doing something
      * Piantelli takes a more scientific approach with Nichenergy but he claims to understand the reaction
      * The Russians and the Chinese are still just exploring the phenomenon, but there may be more going on in those countries than we know.

      Basically either the whole world is full of s**t and s**tty lying a**holes or something will break soon. The race to market is nearing a climax. The IP war is underway (Rossi v. IH being the first skirmish).

      One possible climax is that they all turn out to be scamtastic and we get nothing. But c’mon. Can’t be nothing. There’s too much smoke. There’s dark black, billowing smoke almost choking us.

      • LuFong

        I’m not saying LENR research won’t continue. But it’s been continuing now for decades. I have a hard time getting excited about a few bubbles — I believe there is enough evidence to establish LENR but Rossi et all were talking about commercial ready products at the MW level–since 2011.

        I do have high hopes of me356 disclosing something that can be easily and definitively replicated but he seems to be having second thoughts and I completely understand his concerns. So to me it appears to be another year or two of unconfirmed Rossi says about secret technology, secret production plans, and secret customers. No thanks!

        The smoke you see might very well be other peoples’ money burning.

        • I know there are many people trying to make a quick buck any way possible. I just don’t think that population includes many scientists.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LENR,

            I suggest that before the trial is over Leonardo and others will have commercial reactors on the market.

            I have started to gather all the Rossi reactor test data and photographs I can to drive my own Black HotCat replication design process.

          • You may want to study the MFMP documents closely as well. They have already put many of the pieces together and that may save you a bunch of time.

            Or just ask if you can join MFMP, perhaps. If you are open to committing whatever work you do into the public domain then you could help each other out. I suspect they would welcome your energy, background and resources.

  • Engineer48
    • Served his purpose? (Fleshing out lines of attack)

      Told it’s time to go dark? (Real discovery will begin soon anyway)

      Sifferkoll standing over his cold dead forum corpse? (It was getting pretty nasty over there)

      Better things to do? (Asked to go on the road and raise more dough for their new enterprise so that they can turn Lenuco IP into a working reactor before it’s too late?)

      Inquiring minds want to know!

      • Gerald

        Don’t try to get anoyed. I just got back to where i believed Rossi. Back in 2011 an interview with Focardi/Rossi. These guys believe what they are telling. I had the “fortune” to hit my head and could’t speak and write for a year so you develope other skills like watching hands/eyes everything. These guys are real.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmWbVH5A4gI

        I think a lot of guys/woman here think LERN is real, but for me I just don’t know if it is commercial/politic posssible. Lets stay open and see what developes.

      • Roland

        Or a recognition that the entire Weaver initiative was an abject failure in every regard.

  • kdk

    Again, the Zapruder film clearly shows the shot coming from the area of the grassy knoll and JFK’s head moving violently backwards, not forwards like was repeated in the media. The idea that Oswald got off a shot every two seconds accurately with a bolt action rifle is absurd. There are many more holes in the official JFK narrative as sold to the masses.

    The Iran-Contra affair is a fact, and many people were willing to go on the record with testimony but were never called to the stand in other cases involving the drug and weapon smuggling ring. You can find out what they were prepared to testify to on your own through videos which have been recorded of them talking about their experiences in the periphery of the scandal and the air port in Mena which was used to smuggle drugs into the country by the CIA and weapons without serial numbers out of the country. Clinton involvement in the scandal is also documented and easy to find online… and again, you can verify for yourself if you are prepared to spend less than an hour cross checking these facts.

  • Ged

    Sadly!

  • kdk

    If you look at the Zapruder film and think that the bullet that blew his head apart came from the book repository, you will believe anything.

  • Eyedoc

    Ken, thanks for trying….Frank, if you can’t allow Ken’s comment, please (with my full permission) give Ken my registered email that you have, so he can forward his comment directly…….Thanks to you both