Rossi Addresses Some Issues Regarding 1MW Plant Test

There have been some questions posted recently from myself and others on the Journal of Nuclear Physics in connection with accusations made about the 1MW E-Cat test to which Andrea Rossi has responded. Below is my comment with some of the accusation listed; Rossi’s repsonse follows.

Frank Acland
July 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi:

There are some accusations apparently coming from the IH group regarding the 1 MW plant test.

a) The flow meter used in the test was not fit for purpose
b) 1 MW plant did not have the required legal authorizations to work
c) JM Products did not have any employees
d) IH had proposed another customer to you, but you refused them
e) JM did not use the heat you produced in any manufacturing process, and the only heat supplied by your plant was 20kW, not 1MW

Can you respond to any of these points?

Andrea Rossi
July 3, 2016 at 2:03 PM
Frank Acland:
Independently from who is the imbecile that wrote such things, please find hereunder my answers, confined within the limits allowed not to touch issues that have to be discussed exclusively in Court, with due evidence.
a) The flowmeter used in the test is property of the ERV. The ERV has chosen that instrument based on his experience. It is, by the way, a very common flowmeter, that everybody can buy, even if it is quite expensive. The flowmeter has been certified and after the test the ERV has retrieved it and sent it to make a certification of its margin of error after the test of 1 year, specifically with a flow of water with the same temperature and the same flows of water that we had during the test, minimum, maximum, average. So the ERV told us he was going to do when he retrieved his flowmeter after the shut down of the plant at the end of the test.
PLEASE DO NOT FORGET THAT:
The ERV is a nuclear engineer, with experience of nuclear power plants and certification+validation of plants
b) Obviously it is false, otherwise the plant would have been closed after the inspections
c) False
d) Tragicomic: Leonardo Corporation delivered, as per contract, the plant on August 2013, and we were ready to start immediately the test, as a continuation of the preliminar test made in Ferrara two months before with IH. IH had 1 year of time to start the 1 year test, but they always delayed with the excuse that they did not have the authorization from the Healthcare Office of North Carolina, due to the fact that there was the “nuclear reactions” issue. I have been able to get such permission in Florida and therefore I proposed the Customer, that has been accepted by IH. Evidence of it is the contract that IH made with JM. Since the plant was property of IH and it was in the factory of IH, obviously they could choose the Customer they wanted, if they had one.
e) When you have not the burden to give evidence of what you say, you can say every stupidity. This is exactly the case. Anyway, what counts related to the contract is the energy produced by the 1 MW E-Cat, and such energy gets evidence from the report of the ERV.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

In another comment regarding the 1MW E-Cat plant’s customer, Rossi made this response:

Andrea Rossi
July 3, 2016 at 7:25 AM
Roberto Rampado:
The Customer has set up this plant in Doral, Florida, specifically on the purpose to test our technology for at least one year to see if it works, based on an agreement between him and Industrial Heat.
He knew from the beginning that, due to the experimental nature of the test, such test could have been stopped for any reason and the Agreement signed between him and IH says that the test could be stopped anytime without refunds of any kind could be vindicated by the Customer for the lack of production. He accepted, because for them too, as I said, this was a test.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

The last sentence of this response is rather confusing; but I read it to mean that the agreement between IH and the parent company of JM Products (the Customer) stated that if the testing did not work out, the customer would not be entitled to any refunds. This was apparently a risk that the Customer was willing to take, and according to Rossi, they were satisfied enough to order more plants at the conclusion of the test.

Rossi makes it clear that he is not going to present evidence on the JONP that is reserved for court, and I don’t think we’ll see the ERV report that he references for a long time, maybe never now. So I understand this is just his word, and readers must make their own judgments about how to take that word.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.