JM Chemical Products, Inc. is the Key Witness in the Rossi vs. Industrial Heat Case

The Penon ERV report apparently states that the 1MW E-Cat plant ran with an average COP of around 50 for the duration of the 1-year test. From what we have heard from people who say they have connections with Industrial Heat, IH does not dispute that the report states this — however they apparently do dispute the accuracy of this report. They apparently hold that it was not possible that 1MW of heat could have been provided by the plant. This must mean that they think that Penon was incompetent or fraudulent.

How can we get to the truth of this matter?

I think the key witness in this whole affair has to be JM Chemical Products, the customer who used the heat provided by the 1MW E-Cat Plant. So far, this customer is a very mysterious entity. Andrea Rossi has said that the company was set up specifically for this test, with the assistance of Henry Johnson, a Miami area attorney who is also a business associate of Rossi’s. According to documents filed with the court (see p. 25), the parent company of JM Chemical Products, Inc. is an unnamed UK company; Rossi has said that they did not want to be identified publicly.

If someone from JM Chemical Products gets on the witness stand and testifies that they did indeed receive an average of 1MW of heat for the duration of the test, it would certainly bolster Penon’s conclusions in the report. It would be important to be able to see as evidence this customer’s power bills, and also to see their production data, showing how much of their product was produced over the course of the test, and whether that product could have been produced with a lesser amount of energy input.

However we would still need to know whether this customer was a legitimate business, and not just some actor hired by Rossi and Johnson to tell lies to visitors and tell lies to the court. So in my mind, it would be very important to know who exactly is the parent company that had the JM Chemical Products Inc. set up, and also to know details about the product they were making, and how it was made.

From all accounts, this customer did not want any scrutiny. Industrial Heat personnel were not permitted to enter the customer’s facilities that were located in the same warehouse as the 1MW plant, but in a separate location behind a dividing wall. If called to testify in court, the customer might not want to disclose details about a production process which they seem to consider some kind of top secret proprietary process. Whether they can be compelled by a court to disclose trade secrets, I don’t know.

I can imagine that the web of secrecy surrounding this whole affair and all the intricacies involved could become very frustrating to the judge and jury alike. I hope that Judge Altonaga is a woman of common sense, and that she can make sure that the plain facts concerning the important aspects of the case come to light.

To my mind, if the facts are still elusive after all the discovery and testimony has taken place, perhaps the most effective thing she could do would be to order a new E-Cat test to take place, with a court-appointed independent expert or experts in place as a new ERV. It would not have to be a year-long test — maybe a week would suffice.
If Andrea Rossi can (or cannot), under order from the court, show that an E-Cat can produce a COP of around 50, as claimed in the ERV report, it would make things much simpler for the jury to come to a decision.

  • Mats002

    Hi Jed,
    You can always question chain-of-custody with any data, bits or atoms. The problem is not to question, the problem is how to proof beyond doubt. Who have the benefit of the doubt in this case?

    Jed: I.H. has more credibility than Rossi. Rossi has a long history of dissembling, making up nonsense about production lines, angering his investors and customers, and doing such sloppy experiments he came close to injuring people in one case.

    Maybe this spectacle is a setup to make US court to proof LENR once and for all.

    I hope so.

    • Obvious

      There will be no bags of letters to Santa Claus this time.

  • Curbina

    This is what I said since april, when the complaint was filed: the customer can solve the issue with their own figures, if its real. The report can be challenged (and for all we know It will be challenged by IH), but a real happy customer with production figures and orders for further e-cats would be enough To stop any challenge on the e-cat.

  • GiveADogABone

    I am inclined to the view that the key witness will be a running E-cat (or even three if Rossi gets them built in time). In any event, proving that the ERV report is a work of fiction involves numbers and not waffle. If IH just waffles, then they fail to prove their case and the ERV report stands.

    On much the same theme, there must any number of the old, smaller reactors that can be started up to prove/demonstrate that the Rossi Effect is real and the CoP greater than six is reality.

  • LuFong

    What a novel notion–that the customer can actually help determine what happened during the test!

    The customer would have to identify themselves as a established business with a history of production requiring 1MW of heat for the product produced. They should be able to produce production figures and other data consistent with the claimed output. Their key employees should be able to provide expert testimony to this end, as long as the company is an established company with a history of product of the time produced. This should be quite easy to do and my guess is it probably is possible for the customer to testify and maintain their anonymity. Their testimony would have as much weight as the ERV measurements, IMO.

    I disagree that retesting the 1MW plant is a solution to the civil case. The contract dealt with the GPT and the $89M is contingent on this and this alone. (This could be agreed to by each part as part of mediation but it would not help the civil case should it go to trial.) Given the positive ERV report I believe the burden is on IH to show that the report is flawed and/or provide additional evidence with a weight equal to the ERV report which shows that the 1 year test of the 1MW plant did not meet the requirements of the GPT. I think IH has their work cut out for them.

    I’m really only addressing the first count. I haven’t looked into the others because to me the first count is the one that will tell me if the 1MW plant worked or not.

  • cashmemorz

    This witness ties into the “unsubstantiated” term used by IH. From my point of view, this ties everything together according to what IH wants “substantiated”. The court case was forced by IH to act as a means to get the best kind of “substantiation” that IH can get, given the current state of what is available in terms of facts. Without an accepted theory to fall back on and no history of the E-Cat performance that mass use could provide, then the only venue for obtaining said substantiation is via forcing witnesses under oath in a court case to either confirm that the E-Cat does work as the ERV has stated in the report or to come clean if a fraud was being perpetuated. If the witnesses are all lying then it is the judges and prosecuting attorney’s and the rest of the expertise of the system to dig out the facts and in the end provide substantiation one way or the other. If I were in the place of Industrial Heat/ Darden/Cherokee Funds/investors this would be the only way available to determine if their investmenty is worth persuing. What all this means is that IH is Not out to get something for free from Rossi. It’s what they have to do as smart business people. They have show their investors that the investment is worth persuing or not. All of the other detailed legal back and forth is standard activity to show that they mean business to get at the facts.

    • GiveADogABone

      ‘The court case was forced by IH to act as a means to get the best kind of “substantiation” that IH can get.’

      CoP=Energy Out/Energy In = Enthalpy Difference*Mass Flow Rate / Electricity In

      1: The enthalpy difference is available in universal engineering tables given the inlet and outlet temperatures of the E-cat and the outlet pressure.

      2: The mass flow rate could be measured by filling a tank with the condensate flow and recording the time it took to do it, if you really cannot bring yourself to trust a calibrated flowmeter.

      3: The electricity in can be measured by any number of clamp meters round the supply cable.

      That is all it takes to ‘substantiate’ the instantaneous CoP and if the CoP is 50, IH would know that they had a winner, way beyond the contractual figure of CoP=6. The real witness is the E-cat itself. Start it up and let it testify. This could be sorted in a morning.

      • Mark Underwood

        Isn’t the big question here whether or not the contractual obligations were *actually* met, rather than simply said to have been met? To deal with this issue, won’t technicalities have to be addressed in court – just as, say, forensic science is sometimes called upon to present evidence in a court of law?

        • Pedro

          From this article and many comments before it, the impression is that Rossi is hiding the customer from IH. That Rossi had forbidden IH to see the customer facilities.

          However… at one point (a few months ago) Rossi explained how this situation has arisen… (I repeat from memory, so I hope I repeat correctly) when IH made the contract with the customer, IH explicitly put in the contract that no employees of the customer were ever allowed to enter the part of the building were the eCat was sitting, because of IP-concerns. At that point the customer requested the same privilege for his part: no IH employees were ever allowed to enter the production facility because there were IP concerns also by the customer. Typical contract tit-for-tat stuff. IH started, the customer followed up.

          This (apparently) is the reason why nobody could get through the separation wall: it was in the contract because of IH’s wish for secrecy.

          If this is true, no blame is on Rossi. He only repeated what was in the contract: IH was not allowed to enter the customer production facility.

          • Omega Z

            That’s pretty much as I remember it.

          • Mark Underwood

            interesting info, thanks

      • cashmemorz

        Its not the technicalities of accepted data and practices that are at stake. Since it is unproven, in the wider sense of a so far unaccepted machinery as compared to known and accepted machinery mainly for the sake of investor security is what I understand is the reason for getting extra substantiation. What you say may be true and easy to understand. But if you were putting your life savings into it with expectation of a return other than losses because of lack of due diligence then even you would want something more than accepted practices to confirm or at least substantiate the claims made about the workings or results gained from using the E-Cat. Nothing in life is guaranteed therefore extra backing up of claims by third parties helps in the possibility of getting ahead.

        • GiveADogABone

          ‘extra substantiation’
          I think you are saying that the ‘investors’ are prepared to believe a court but not a group of engineers. The jury decide the facts on the basis of probability, so the court decision could give the investors a 49% to 51% probability. The engineering test, on the other hand gives the raw data on which those probabilities will eventually be based. I suggest that evaluating the raw data is a far better way to be certain (and far less expensive and time-consuming).

          ‘to confirm or at least substantiate the claims made about the workings or results gained from using the E-Cat.’
          I do not regard the ERV report as a ‘claim’. I regard it as a presentation of the raw data and the deductions made from that data according to sound engineering principles. The major principle is the equation I quoted above and the final result is one number; the average CoP of the plant over one year. If the number is greater than six, IH owe $89M.

  • Observer

    Has anyone seen the contract with the customer? Once the customer has the superheated steam, what the customer does with it is the customer’s business. What is important is the amount of energy in the steam being delivered to the customer and the amount of energy in the water being returned from the customer.

  • Obvious

    It was a demonstration. There were problems.
    There was no report, other than from eyewitnesses in conversation.
    Nothing written up officially that I know of.

  • Mark Underwood

    What if you, as a plumber, were a friend of the contractor, and you did shoddy work, but your contractor buddy checked all the boxes anyway, with you and the contractor both knowing your work was not up to code? An expert witness would be called in to see if your work was up to code, and those results would be compared to the contractor’s checklist. If it was discovered that there was obvious discrepancy, and it was further discovered that the plumber and contractor were buddy buddy, then what? Should the plumber still get paid?

  • wpj

    The only evidence, other than”Rossi says” comes from contracts of Mats Lewan. What has been stated is

    A) that there was a presentation stating that the use of energy was 10-20 fold less per unit than the energy used in their other facilities.

    B) that they passed the customer unit when the door was open and saw what appeared to be production

    C) that the product was ” sponge metal catalysts”

    Assuming that these weren’t actors (which is not possible for some people) then we would have to assume that they were able to compare against other facilities. Interestingly, they don’t agree with the COP 50 figure of Rossi which fits in with his statement that some heat was vented when not used.

    Presumably Darren et al were present with the group when the door was open and would have seen the same thing.

    Lastly, as a practising Chemist of too many years, I have always called these Raney type catalysts. We are taught that at university and all the preparations are for Raney catalysts. The first time that I heard of sponge metal catalysts was when an ex- Johnson Matthey person came to work with me and explained that “Raney” was a trade mark and their trade mark was “Sponge Metal catalysts” which is why they had to call them that.

    I am still of the firm belief, because of this that Johnson Matthey is the client despite all of the denials.

    • GiveADogABone
      Since Raney is a registered trademark of W. R. Grace and Company, only those products by its Grace Division division are properly called “Raney nickel”. The more generic terms “skeletal catalyst” or “sponge-metal catalyst” may be used to refer to catalysts with physical and chemical properties similar to those of Raney nickel. However, since the Grace company itself does not use any generic names for the catalysts it is supplying,[6] “Raney” may become generic under US trademark law.

      • wpj

        Similarly, Sponge Metal is a trademark of JM after their acquisition of a US manufacturer in 2005/6. If it were me, I would have just said that we were making metal catalysts…..

        • GiveADogABone

          So ‘sponge’ is quite a giveaway.

          • there is only two possibilities :
            1- JM chemical produce metallic sponges using 1MW of dry steam, and the ERV report is simply badly written

            2- there are lies, and those lies are hiding something that IH could not accept, and what IH cannot accept is only that it does not work.

          • Alain Samoun

            “ERV report is simply badly written”
            Did you read it?
            “what IH cannot accept is only that it does not work.”
            Well,actually that what they say: It doesn’t work…

          • wpj

            I noted that a long time ago and THAT is why first I speculated, all that time ago that JM (everyone in the chemical industry calls them that) was the client.

            NO ONE (except a JM employee) ever refers to these things as sponge metal- they are Raney catalysts (as you pointed out, just like “Hoover” this is now a generic term rather than the Grace owned trademark)

        • Frank Acland
    • Curbina

      Rossi denies that JM Chemical products has anything To do with Johnson Mathey’s. However, before Cherokee’s press release confirming their involvement with Rossi back then in 2013, Rossi was asked about It (when several leads were found pointing To that) and he denied It. So, we know Rossi has denied stuff before that later became known.

      • Ged

        Sometimes that is the world of NDA. With NDAs you are not allowed to even hint at what it is you are under NDA for. Outright denying is taking it a bit too far, in my opinion, though, but it happens a lot.

  • LilyLover

    Nobody bumbled. They pretend to have fumbled. Dardeno needs time to compensate for lack of money. Why the lack of money? Branch of a tree, poison to the tree. Hence cherokeefried Dardeno needs to pretend. Children. Soft. Gains no sympathy from me, but I could understand parental cowardice.
    Ok, ironically in a ‘he said – she said’ jury, time is ripe enough to award Rossi a victory!! You’ll see!! Although it could be profitable for JM to corroborate IH’s claim to amplify future profits, I believe they will simply admit to having received ‘paid-for’ steam. Nothing helpful or hurtful. AND they’ll proceed further with Rossi-products partnership. Word to the wise. Courts have reduced to the technicalities’ playground; actions of investors are louder than global plutocratic inertia.
    Dear Dr. Rossi will win this one in any sense!!
    Hey lawyers, judges and professors of Physics, call me when you need deep insights!

  • GiveADogABone

    ‘It has to be that specific one he built for IH.’
    That has to be the decision that the jury finally makes but how do they decide if the defendants claim it does not work and the report is a fraud?

    Would a later demonstration of the same E-cat or a new E-cat in operation not provide corroboration that the ERV results were, at the very least possible?

    Then reverse the argument. If the later test shows the E-cat works does that not weaken the claim that it could not have worked in the 1-year test?

    It is all about building the jury’s confidence, whilst remembering that they are unlikely to be engineers and scientists.

    ‘[Demonstrating the technology works] may help some, but not be decisive, dont’ you think’
    I could not agree more and I reckon the members of the jury would say the same.

  • GiveADogABone

    Here is the relevant section of the contract :-
    License Agreement
    4. Validation of the Plant

    produces energy that is at least six [SIX – my emphasis] times greater than the energy consumed

    5. Guaranteed Performance
    Payment of the amount … is contingent upon the Plant operating at the same level (or better) at which Validation [same or better than SIX] was achieved …

    Please explain to all of us how you make a decision under these terms of contract without knowing if the CoP was greater or less than SIX. I say that it cannot be done.

  • Mats002

    Hi roseland,
    ‘He’ and ‘she’ will be a number of people. It can very well be that ABB or some other large entity step up and witness the tech works in favour for Rossi. On the other hand if Rossi would be alone I think the other side will win a credibility game.

  • wizkid

    As I recall … Rossi created a matrix product that contained hydrogen to eliminate the hydrogen tank attachment on the E-Cat technology. Very Cool! Sponge Metal can be used to hold hydrogen and nickel – suprise suprise! Is JM where he custom ordered his own brand of Hydrogenation? Does JM need some more E-Cat 1MW power plants to help Rossi provide the QuarkX product to us. Hmmm


    My Notebook says:,d.amc

    “The AMCAT™ brand of catalysts are activated Sponge Metal™ encapsulated catalysts in which … stuff happens ha ha ha”

    “Common catalysts used are insoluble metals such as palladium in the form Pd-C, platinum in the form PtO2, and nickel in the form Ra-Ni. With the presence of a metal catalyst, the H-H bond in H2 cleaves, and each hydrogen attaches to the metal catalyst surface, forming metal-hydrogen bonds.”

  • Gerrit

    JM Chemical = Rossi’s aunti Rosie, no ?

    • Ged

      I am hoping for a CEO that looks and talks like the Godfather.

      • Omega Z

        ->”I am hoping for a CEO that looks and talks like the Godfather.”

        I doubt Rossi would want to be in the same country as said person. Likely has much to do with Rossi coming to the U.S..

    • Ophelia Rump

      The use of shell corporations makes both sides look suspicious.
      There could be two honest sided too dishonest sides.
      One honest side.

      The judge will be the judge and you could not ask for a better judge than a real judge.

      • shell company raise question but can be genuine.

        what is tragically clear is refusing access to client zone. no excuse except…
        guess yourself.

        • Ted-Z

          Even if the customer was a shell company created by Rossi and flushing the heat down the drain… even in this case the ERV report is the deciding factor and the contract is binding. If I were Rossi, I would create such a shell customer, as it was worth it and it would be perfectly legal.
          Essentially, shell or not shell, the customer is irrelevant to this case.

        • Omega Z

          Yet IH/Darden agreed to the no access to the customers side as well as the customer not having access to the E-cat side.

          Regardless, This is not necessary to obtain data on E-cat input verses output. All you need is to know how much water goes in and the volume of steam that goes out. There are components that can accurately measure this. There used in power plants all the time. Penon would be very familiar with these.

  • BillH

    Because this is not even close to the situation at hand? In order to get paid you have to full fill ALL the terms of the contract. A customer is also involved. To the customer all they have is a contract to supply with IH, to supply a specific amount of heat, for a specific amount of time, over a specific time period, for a specific price of $1000/day. So even if an ERV states that an average COP 50 was achieved that isn’t sufficient in terms of efficiency and reliability. It’s like buying a car that will do 100mph but finding out it will only run on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays. I suspect IH would be quite happy that AR or the court has the plant under lock and key, if they think it is defective, as long as they don’t have to pay out $89M.

    • GiveADogABone

      Please cite the sections of the Licence Agreement that refer to the Customer. I seem to have missed them.

  • BillH

    If AR can’t produce a customer in court then of course the whole case will collapse. So let’s assume someone from JM does show up and can be verified by the court as a legitimate company. Since they were completely isolated from the plant producing the energy there is actually very little the can testify too. They received energy, they used it in their process and they paid $1000/day for the privilege. What they can’t testify too is where the energy came from, how it was produced, or how efficiently it was produced. It’s like when you buy electricity, they don’t tell you how it was generated, oil, gas, nuclear, wind, solar it doesn’t matter if the price is good..

    • Monty

      I can’t agree with your statement. If the customer verifies they received 1 MW of power and one can show the energy bill for the whole building then it is very easy. If you want to produce 1 MW of continous power with lets say diesel you would need around 70 gallons (is around 260 liters) an hour. Thats a whopping 6240 liters a day. So every 3 days you need to order a tank truck to keep up with demand. If you have an idea how to produce 1 MW of continous power by any conventional means without people noticing I am excited to hear about it.

      • wpj

        Remember, also, that Mats L had an electricity bill which had COP of 24 hand written on it, though we don’t know by whom.

        Also, there is this fixation on $1000 per day payment. This is not correct! It was “up to $1000” per day so we don’t know how much they actually paid.

        • BillH

          From the reading of the agreement, I don’t see the sum as variable. IH/AR were contracted to supply 1MWth 24hrs a day for 365 days any day were the supply fell below that agreement would be a day where they would be entitled not to pay anything, due to unreliability of supply and disruption to their process output. Any profits made due to the COP being higher than expected would accrue to IH not the customer.

      • BillH

        Since I have no knowledge of possible power supplies in the locale of the “factory” I wouldn’t like to comment.

        • Monty

          what would be a hypothetical way for you to bring 1 MW of power to the “factory” ?

          • BillH

            How does power get to any factory, through a big cable run by a power company, doh!

        • sam

          Frank says another EVR report might only take a week.
          But lets say a couple of months.
          Judge Altonaga please order a new test.

          • dennis

            Remember that the ERV had conditions placed on him (page 4) “To make this measurement, the ERV will measure the flow of the heated fluid and the Delta T between the temperature of the fluid before and after the E-CAT reaction.” If this was not done then the report would be invalid. There is a question as to if the fluid temperature was measured as it entered and as it left the device and not some other location in the “loop” (i.e. returned from the customer) and if the flow was measured of the heated fluid and not somewhere else in the loop.

            That is there is more to it than just the numbers you list but also their method of measurement

          • Omega Z

            If I recall, the incoming fluid temperature would be excluded below 99`C whether that was 20`C or anything up to 99`C.

            Only the energy to cross the barrier between 99`C to 100`C plus would be counted. In essence, any energy used to bring the fluid up to 99`C would not be included in the energy produced calculation.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Unless there is some evidence of theft from the utility company, then that is settled.

    • GiveADogABone

      ‘Since they were completely isolated from the plant producing the energy there is actually very little the can testify too.’

      Let’s think a bit about ‘completely isolated’. The test procedure required measurements of the E-cat outlet pressure and temperature. The test points could (not were) have been about 1m from the wall on the E-cat side. There could (not were) matching test points 1m from the wall on the production plant side. It is not unreasonable to think that the instruments on each side of the wall would give the same readings.

      The test procedure also required a water temperature from the condensate line. With just a straight pipe through the wall, two thermocouples on either side of the wall would be expected to produce the same reading.

      Another variable that could be measured in the production plant was the condensate flow. Again, identical readings would be expected on each side of the wall.

      All the thermodynamic variables that made up the test are duplicated in the production plant : steam outlet temperature and pressure, water temperature and water flow rate. From those readings the energy transfer can be calculated.

      The only reading not available in the production plant, that was needed for the test, would have been the electricity consumption of the E-cat.

      • BillH

        They can certain attest that energy was supplied, and that energy matched their requirements for production. What they can’t do is testify how it was produced. If they were paying $1000/day for energy that would normally cost $3000 why would the not be happy? Would they even care how it was produced? Just pocket the profit and move on, no?

        • GiveADogABone

          The whole thing is a test rig. Those on the production side would want all the data to design their own equipment to match an E-cat. I cannot believe that they would not have recorded everything.

          There was also something about them needing to measure the heat to pay the bill. Then one can say that this data is a good corroboration of the E-cat test data and might just come in handy in any future arguments.

          • Chapman

            As I said before, you are clearly no fool. 🙂

  • GiveADogABone

    The ERV is not responsible for paying Rossi. The ERV is responsible for stating the average CoP over the 1-year run. What criterion should IH use to decide if payment of $89M is due (Clause 5 of the License Agreement refers)?

    • Chapman

      A report that says “COP >6”. THAT is the criteria agreed to.

      • GiveADogABone

        We can agree CoP>6 is the criteria for paying $89M. That is great progress. I wonder if we can take the next step?

        The equation below is the definition of CoP :-
        CoP=Energy Out/Energy In = Enthalpy Difference*Mass Flow Rate / Electricity In

        If CoP=6 is the boundary between paying or not that means the equation :-
        6=Enthalpy Difference*Mass Flow Rate / Electricity In
        is very significant. If the E-cat makes steam, the enthalpy difference is taken as 2265kJ/kg and :-
        6/2265=Mass Flow Rate / Electricity In

        At the CoP=6 boundary, you cannot mess with the MFR/Ein ratio; it is fixed at 6/2265. All sorts of consequences flow from knowing that but it needs a spreadsheet to lay it out.

  • BillH

    If you see this as a case about IP then you might be correct but if AR can’t prove that the energy he generated actually went anywhere useful then whatever the ERV might say about the COP of AR’s plant is irreverent as the energy would have been vented into the air and not quantifiable. A real customer can only give credence to AR’s claims, but not actually prove them.

    • Zeddicus23

      What counts here is the scientifically measured input power versus the output power. Both were supposed to be measured by the ERV and the customer has no bearing on the measurements. So all that counts is whether or not the ERV’s report is accurate or not. Also, the license agreement does not say anything about a customer for the 1 year test, and so this is not required, although it is clear that any testimony by the customer (if there is one) could have some bearing on the validity of the ERV’s measurements. However, all that counts here is whether or not the one-year test matched the guaranteed performance requirement corresponding to a COP of 4 or higher (see Sec. 5 of license agreement at

      • DrD

        Contractually, It doesn’t even depend on the ERV report being accurate. According to the contract, once the ERV report is “positive” an amount becomes due, $89M or some fraction of.
        That’s the case even if the ERV report is a bunch of lies (or errors).
        It is then up to IH to sue for fraud or incompetence.

        • GiveADogABone

          Yes. That is exactly my position.
          You can also reverse the argument and explore what lies/erroneous thinking IH might offer with any hope of credibility if the ERV report is true. This may well be the more likely scenario.

          • DrD

            Will the judge n Jury see it so black n white? I wish but very much doubt it or the case should be over in 5 minutes.

        • Chapman

          YES!!! Folks, can you hear the BELLS and WHISTLES? That’s the sound of a JACKPOT!!!

          DrD has done it again… He used, let’s count them.. yep – SIX LINES to express what I was using 100 to TRY and say, and he did it with a clarity that I seem unable to achieve.

          And THAT is why I love E-Cat World! Because I am just an average joe, so that means HALF you guys are smarter than me, so I pick up wonderful communications skill pointers, and I learn something new every day. The other half??? Well, let’s not go there… 🙂

          • cashmemorz

            Looking at this whole non payment and “unsubstaniated” from the point of view of IH as an investment firm, IH is doing simple due diligence. They are basically dotting the “i” ‘s and crossing the “t”‘s by taking the extra step of vetting anything they can via a court case. The reason for this extra step is that the E-Cat is an extraordinary source of heat for a boiler or what have you. The extraordinary aspect requires, for some people and especially for some investors, extra, or if you will, extraordinary due diligence.To convince more investors to invest with Cherokee and indirectly, IH, the out come of the court case will either support what Rossi is doing or refute his work as fraud. IH is betting on a positive outcome. If positive they will gladly pay Rossi his $89 since IH and Cherokee will have further proof via extra due diligence that the E-Cat works. And with a positive ERV then the COP of 50 will drive investors to them. This also answers the question of why IH is doing what they are doing: not paying the $89 to Rossi at this time. Because if a fraud is uncovered, IH has already covered their assets by not paying beforehand. No need for cloak and dagger scenario’s, unless one is so predisposed.

          • GiveADogABone

            Shame they have not got a licence any more and just obsolete IP. Otherwise a great strategy.

          • Chapman

            As always, Cash, your logic is perfect. I suspect Rossi responded unexpectedly by cancelling the License Agreement, and that must have caused IH much consternation, but I find nothing to fault in your analysis.

            Not that you need MY approval! Hell, who am I to you? I am under no delusions of grandeur, but I do love acknowledging good reason when I see it. It makes me feel like I am building up Karma towards those times I go off on imbeciles… 🙂

          • cashmemorz

            Just thought there might be a better reason for what is happening from IH/Cherokee’s side. And I guess I am predisposed to nice action instead of over zealous competition and mud slinging.

          • Chapman

            That is what I have been discussing with GADAB. I see a perfectly reasonable explanation as to how all this could have happened, where no one was screwing the other, but it just all went to shit over disagreements, and paranoia on both sides. But haven’t we all experienced that ourselves?

            I know I am guilty of jumping to conclusions, overreacting, and refusing to stop for just one damn second, to consider the opinions and perspectives of someone I was actively taking up arms against for a perceived wrong.

            Not recently mind you – no, I am WAY more mature than that now… but, uhm, when I was YOUNGER I made such mistakes – that’s what I meant to say… 🙂

            Again, I do not say the scenario is true, but it is just as possible as any of the ones where IH eats babies…

  • Frank Acland

    From what I have read, it seems that IH will cast doubt on the legitimacy of the report and Penon’s honesty or competence. It sounds like they will be trying to convince the court that it can’t be trusted and should be discounted as evidence. The customer’s testimony will be important if the accuracy of the report is in doubt.

  • Alain Samoun
    • clovis ray


  • Mark Underwood

    The truth of the matter is that forensic evidence *is* used in civil cases, not just criminal cases. So a civil case, while not looking at criminality, can still accept evidence of a scientific nature.

    Given this, I’m quite certain the civil case will indeed probe into the scientific or engineering aspects of heat measurement. The theoretical existence of LENR and such things need not enter into it.

  • Mark Underwood

    That is a very pertinent tidbit I haven’t heard of in a awhile, thanks. Given that is true, it would speak volumes in a trial I think.

  • Pedro

    It looks like IH has for most of the year 2015 taken a position that the eCat was working well, at least to outside parties. Maybe because they were convinced it was working, maybe because they wanted to attract investments before “blowing the lid” on the eCat.

    So, whatever 3rd party is called as a witness, will likely under oath declare how positive IH was about the ecat and the ongoing test. That’s true for investors as well as any party they entered in contract with, like the customer for the 1 year test.
    I guess IH has a lot of explaining to do!

  • Rene

    Yes, this is a tort case with the potential of discovering fraud (but that I mean defendants lawyers ripping the ERV to shreds). The latter, if proven sufficiently, would end the tort in favor of the defendant (IH), and then lead to much worse things. If the challenge fails, then it’s just a contract dispute that falls in favor of the plaintiff (Rossi).
    All this will take a long time.

    • Chapman

      Yes sir. Clean and simple.

      Sadly, Rossi is either rich, or incarcerated. No middle ground.

      UNLESS the mediator works some magic and they settle out, which is my wish. I do not want to see anyone trashed, not even IH, really. Just be grown-ups. Cancel the contract and license, no refunds – no further payments. IH stays away from LENR and does no further dissemination of Rossi’s IP.

      Everyone go home.

      • nietsnie

        I don’t think that’s true. The third possibility is that the ERV is indisputably proven incompetent independent of Rossi. In that case Rossi may not get his money – but he skates.

    • Mark Underwood

      Well put, hard to argue with that.

    • Ecat

      “Guaranteed Performance will not be deemed achieved unless such written confirmation is received or waived by the Company”.
      Chapman, does this mean Company can “waive” and not accept ERV’s confirmation?

  • Chapman

    Love the logic – really, sound principles – but… What he said was “If AR can’t produce a customer in court then of course the whole case will collapse” which is not a logic equation, but a factual statement that the case collapses without a client. Big difference. I am well versed in Platonian, Euclidean and Boolean Logic, and I can differentiate between the syntactic forms. The supposition that he intended such a causal linking is clearly supported by the further context in which the statement was presented.

    • nietsnie

      Rossi is not on trial here – IH is. Bottom line is that the case is about breach of contract. Contract stipulates the terms of payment – to be judged by the ERV. ERV says they were met. Then, IH didn’t pay. IH is in breach.

      In order for IH to win, they would have to know something extraordinary, and probably fraudulent, about the ERV’s judgement. Rossi doesn’t have to prove that LENR is real. It won’t even help IH to prove that LENR is not real. Rather, IH has to prove that there was something very specific that invalidates the ERV’s judgement. I agree with Chapman – that will be really tough.

      • nietsnie

        Of course, that’s what undeniable proof is for.

      • BillH

        But he does have to prove that the COP is >6 (or 4) which in effect would prove the LENR does work. It’s interesting to note the test was to run for at least 350 days, by all accounts it ran for 352 day, by my calculations that means there was at most 2 days of downtime. Look at the reports that AR posted during the testing and convince me that they could be fitted into 2 days. So you see there was more than one condition to be met before the money was paid. Otherwise they would have run the test for 1 day, measured the COP and went home.

        • DrD

          No, as said before
          Contractually, It doesn’t even depend on the ERV report being accurate.
          According to the contract, once the ERV report is “positive” an amount becomes due, $89M or some fraction of.
          That’s the case even if the ERV report is a bunch of lies (or errors).
          It is then up to IH to sue for fraud or incompetence.

          • BillH

            Or just keep their money and let AR sue, which is what’s happening.

          • MorganMck

            Chapman, if all you say is true (and you make a compelling case) AR had to weigh the probability that he would prevail in court and get the $89M, IP and license rights against imprisonment for him and Penon. Is that about right? If so, that would be quite a roll of the dice if he knew he was running a con. Given his age, probably the end of the road for him.

          • Hehehe, sorry for ruining your joke… 😉

      • nietsnie

        Incidentally, Rossi winning this case does not mean the court is validating LENR or Ecat either – because the court case is not about validating or invalidating Ecat or LENR. It’s about breach of contract.

        • clovis ray

          Simple i would say, huh,

          • nietsnie

            Well, there’s nothing like shooting one’s mouth in off public to tempt the fates. But, it certainly seems simple to me, yeah. Let’s see what IH comes up with – if it indeed goes to court. That’s the weird part. I presume IH has very good representation. I don’t know whether Rossi is asking for legal fees as well, but whatever IH is bringing to court can’t be cheap. It at least appears that they think they can win. They seem to think they know something that Rossi doesn’t know. What could it be?

        • GiveADogABone

          I do not have a roadmap for the American legal system. I guess I wait by the roadside for Friday.

  • GiveADogABone

    That would be about right for 1MW.

    $1000/day for 1MW of heat
    $1/day for 1kW of heat
    $1/24 for 1kwh of heat
    4c for 1kwh of heat
    1 therm = 29.3kwh
    150/29.3 c/kwh

    So the money transfers from JM to IH are a smoking gun. Why are IH accepting payments for heat at the 1MW gas price level if the E-cat don’t work? So easy to miss the obvious.

  • BillH

    So they wasted 2 years providing a customer that they didn’t need, pull the other one! JM’s representatives signature is right there at the bottom of the agreement, what exactly do you think they were agreeing to?

  • BillH

    So, you are saying they didn’t need a customer to perform the test. I repeat my question then, why did they have to wait over 2 years to perform the test?

  • The 100 million total payment, was of course for the e-Cat license, not for the 1 year test. I doubt that IH would be willing to pay anything at all for another test.

    • sam

      If the Court orders the test they would probably have to pay there share.
      I think they should have another test by the
      end of 2016.

  • sam

    Lets keep the test as simple as possible.

  • Barbierir

    The allegations that the customer doesn’t exist, entail logically that the attorney Henry W. Johnson is knowingly accomplice of setting up a fake company for a fraud attempt. According to Rossi the customer was already one of Johnson’s clients and they first met in his office, I wonder if he would confirm this fact if asked.
    Also Johnson has 30+ years career and has good ratings on martindale and avvo, of course this doesn’t prove anything but it must be admitted that he doesn’t fit a “Saul Goodman” model.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Hehe. “it’s all good man”. I was thinking the same thing.

  • clovis ray

    Hi, Guys,
    I personally think, leonardo corp. is not interested in friendship at this point, neither are they interested in the 89, million, I/H knew exactly what they were doing, when they tried to steal,,his device, he caught them and turned the tables on them, what leonardo corp wants is their I/P back, and rid of this bunch of crooks, and i say good riddance.

  • nietsnie

    I laugh every time I read this…

    • Chapman

      A Seinfeld fan. by chance? 🙂

      • nietsnie

        Yes I am. But, really – who isn’t?

  • clovis ray

    Hi Chapman,
    The ERV, report will probably be all that is jermain, his personality has nothing to do with the data, which stands on it own, to be confirmed or denied, if denied, tuff, it on I/H to prove it is faulty.

    • GiveADogABone

      Chapman wrote : ‘Penon has been impeached based on malice and fraud, not incompetence.’

      Writing as someone with no background in American law, it seems to me that the defence to the allegation of malice and fraud is that the ERV report is correct and therefore just cause.

      Complaints are accepted for due process on the face of the facts, are they not?
      Does this not make Rossi and the ERV, as defendants, have to prove the ERV report is right, rather than IH have to prove the report is wrong?
      In its legal application, the term malice is comprehensive and applies to any legal act that is committed intentionally without Just Cause or excuse
      A reasonable and lawful ground for action.
      Appearing in statutes, contracts, and court decisions, the term just cause refers to a standard of reasonableness used to evaluate a person’s actions in a given set of circumstances.

  • clovis ray

    lol, it would seem they are getting worried, and with good reason.
    it just seems, they tried to pants A.R., but got their own took down, lol.

  • nietsnie

    I don’t know, Chapman… Rossi worked a whole year of 18 hour days for his 100 million dollars. Unless he has done something that IH can use as a devastating argument against him – I don’t see him walking away. He could have done that before he filed. In theory, his legal position is so good he’d be foolish to back off – unless he suspects that IH has something on him.

    • Mark Underwood

      My memory may be faulty, but didn’t Rossi say that he offered to refund Darden the $11 million (or whatever) to have their licence agreement revoked, but IH refused?

      • nietsnie

        My memory is also faulty. But, I do recall hearing that, third hand at least, also. And, if true, it is a confusing point. Considering the otherwise apparent strength of Rossi’s position, and the length of time he worked on the test, if he was willing to go back to scratch – maybe he knows he’s caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

        • wpj

          See Mats Lewan’s interview with AR when he was in Sweden to remind yourself.

        • Mark Underwood

          I remember when reading this, not that Rossi had something to hide by backing out, but that he had become so turned off by IH that he would offer to refund the $11 million to be free of them as soon as possible. That IH refused had me thinking that 1) IH really did value the licence to Rossi’s IP and didn’t want to give it up and 2) Rossi had another strong potential partner in cue.

  • nietsnie

    I suppose you’re right about that. It would have to be elaborate for no financial gain – but it could have been done with CGI.

    Lugano was very compelling for me. I had high hopes for Florida. Remember in the beginning how the ‘customer’ was going to allow tours of the Ecat by now? The court case certainly muddles it too.

    The parallel of Ecat to the jump would have to be more along the line of disconnecting Ecat from the input power line and powering a small neighborhood with its output. Actually, I would settle for a small test unit powering a light bulb that wasn’t connected to the wall for longer than a battery could power them. You could argue about CGI, but that would be it.

  • Andy Kumar

    // If the lawsuit goes to court it will end up with 2 possible outcomes. … //
    I have always maintained that if e-cat were working, we would already have had third party validation long time ago. Rossi won’t be wasting his time trying to force IH to buy his invention for a mere $100M. He will have customers lined up at his door willing to pay lot more. That leaves us with no good options…

  • roseland67

    You didn’t disappoint, behind all of your Shakesperean jumbo jumbo you seem like a pretty old guy.

  • The dichotomy is good, but it will be less radical.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Andrew.

    This is a civil trial. It is not a criminal trial.

    There are 4 outcomes.

    1) Rossi wins all or some of the 4 complaints.

    2) Rossi loses all or some of the 4 complaints.

    3) A negotiated settlement is reached on all of some 4 complaints.

    4) Some combination of the above 3 outcomes.

  • Engineer48
  • GiveADogABone

    Back to the numbers

    ‘Rossi is sure he is right.’
    CoP>6 AND steam T>100C AND valid test days>350

    ‘Unfortunately, IH is also sure THEY are right.’
    CoP<2.6 OR steam T<100C OR valid test days<350

    How does the court know which is right?

  • GiveADogABone

    I am not expecting to be bored for the next few weeks, what with 5 August getting close as well.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    You are living in a dream world, do you really think NASA would be a “neutral ERV”, agreeing to all Rossi testing parameters! You said, “If the government really wanted to they would have stolen everything he has and locked him in a dungeon by now.” Really, is that how you think the international big money interests work. They are not interested in throwing any one in jail, they simply want to control LENR for the purpose of basically charging the world twenty time what it should cost. I think your basic problem is you do not believe there is such a tech as LENR. I do believe there is an energy source in LENR and Rossi is a major researcher in the field. The big question in my mind is who is going to control this energy source for the benefit of everyone rather than a few billionaires.

  • GiveADogABone

    Just three points to start with :-
    1: The whole thrust of the LA is to prove the CoP>6 whilst boiling water to make steam at close to atmospheric pressure and therefore at 100C+. It is making the steam that absorbs almost all the energy produced by the E-cat, so steamT is way different from plain T.

    2: One of the surprises is that the total energy output gets no mention in the LA. That seems to make part load running at CoP>6 and steamT>100C perfectly acceptable.

    3: Close, but should read:
    ‘Unfortunately, IH is also sure THEY are right.’
    (CoP=>50) and (steam T>100C) but, sadly (valid test days<350)

    A couple of points :
    You changed the ORs to ands. Thats not correct. You only need one of the logic statements to say TRUE so the complete correct line becomes

    IH is sure THEY are right because (valid test days<350)=TRUE

    The CoP and steamT values, TRUE or FALSE, do not matter if (valid test days<350)=TRUE and the valid test days can be any number below 350. This mathematical rigour matters. It tells you that IH do not care what the ERV report says about CoP or steamT.

    Of course, if IH lost the argument about valid test days<350, they suddenly get very interested in CoP<2.6 and steamT<100C if that would achieve their objective. A viable Plan B or even C?

    • Chapman

      ‘Unfortunately, IH is also sure THEY are right.’
      (CoP=>50) and (steam T>100C) but, sadly (valid test days<350)

      I stand by what I stated.

      IH will gladly proclaim that the COP was consistently above 6, and mostly averaging about 50. They will also stand behind the fact that the steam produced was pretty damn "dry" steam. They have every reason to ensure that the E-Cat is not put in question, as they are seeking to own the rights to sell it!

      They will, on the other hand, insist that the ENDURANCE TEST was a failure due to Rossi's unwillingness to address the issues of downtime, and, once the subject was broached, may have actively worked to dishonestly hide later service interruptions.

      This is the point they will make to the court – that ROSSI himself caused the failure of the test, not the E-Cat. And that they would have been happy to work together to resolve the issue, but Rossi filed suit without ever seeking to discuss the issue, and then canceled the Agreement before any ruling could be made as to the justification for questioning the day count presented in the ERV.

      • GiveADogABone

        I will play Devil’s Advocate here :-
        Prove to me that the Licence Agreement requires the test to be an endurance test of the hardware, to the extent you describe.

        I say that the test is a test of the ability of the plant to deliver the CoP reliably, with steam temperatures of over 100C over the course of 350 days. To do that repairs, adjustments and alterations to the Plant are permitted.

        You have done what you have accused others of doing; imputing motives and facts that are not in the Licence Agreement.
        ‘Chapman BillH 3 days ago

        You really should read the contract. I say that without insult. Most of what is being endlessly repeated here is easily dismissed when you read the contract and see for yourself that they are nowhere in it! A lot of people are saying what THEY would have done, or think is right, or fair, but they are choosing to ignore the simple facts of the contract. Read it yourself, then rethink your considerations based only on what is actually written in the document. Remember, common sense does not exist in court – agreements do.’

        Section 5 states :-
        Payment … is contingent upon the Plant Operating at the same level (or better) at which validation was achieved for a period of 350 days

        Each of Leonardo and Rossi will use their commercially reasonably best efforts to cause Guaranteed Performance(GP) to be achieved, including making repairs, adjustments and alterations to the Plant as needed to achieve [GP].

        [There is no hint of endurance testing in Validation but there may well have been repeated engineering failures before a full 24 hour run was achieved.]

        [There is strong evidence that Validation was achieved because $10M was subsequently transffered and if it had not the [GP] would not have started. Therefore :-
        Validation Achieved = CoP>6 AND steamT>100C AND (valid test days=1) = TRUE

        The [GP] requires this logic statement to be repeated 350 times within a 400 day period. During those 50 days downtime you can do whatever you need to do to the Plant to keep it on line; altered components not a problem.]

  • Albert D. Kallal

    It is quite significant that the energy was delivered. I mean if the dispute centers on me not delivering you some oranges and you find a customer that testifies that the oranges were delivered, then yes
    this is important.

    If the UK Company states that the amounts of energy delivered were in the range of their past experience and what was required for such production, then everything flips back to the ERV and the
    input side of things.

    So who called this witness?

    It would be REALLY silly to call up a witness that can verify the energy was received. I mean, either IH is being really silly here, or they know something we don’t. Or it was Rossi calling for
    this witness.

    Who is calling for this witness will shed some light on this issue.

    Did Rossi or IH call for this witness?

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • GiveADogABone

      The Licence Agreement specifies three things as criteria for a successful test i.e. one that pays $89M: CoP>6, steam temperature>100C and valid test days>350.

      Chapman’s argument, and it is a powerful one, is that the dispute will only involve the number of valid test days. That way the E-cat is a brilliant piece of kit; it is just that the valid test days were below 350, the test failed and that is the fault of individuals and not the E-cat. In other words, play the man and not the ball.

      • there are other more important conditions.

        one is that the client is real, doing some real business.
        another is that the know how is sincerely transfered, allowing replication by a sincere replicator.
        another is that the report is correct and sincere.
        another is that the ERV is competent and sincere

        It is not a game, it is business.
        if one contractant is fooling another by playing with the rules, beyond what the attorneys have to manage, there is a problem that the judge will correct.

        if what Jed and Dewey says, even partially, is confirmed, the work of the judge will be easy.

        • GiveADogABone

          Please cite the sections of the Licence Agreement that deal with each and every point you make.

          • about IP it is the previous phase.

            abour sincerity of results and people, this is just implicit in any contact.

            to be clear is someone defraud you to make you believe something that is not true, even if the surface seems positive, it breaks the contract.

            if you chose an expert which is a donkey, the contract is broken, since you asked for an expert, nor for a donkey.

            It is like marrying a fake woman when you don’t know. it breaks the contract, even if all the procedure is OK.

            using common sense may be requited to predict judge behavior.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Well, we really don’t know if the disagreement will center on the number of days or not.

        Either the terms of the test were achieved, or they were not.

        However, if IH called this witness, then clearly that’s not their strategy or goal to dispute the number of days, is it?

        If IH strategy is to dispute the number of valid test days, then it would be of zero use to call JM as a key witness.


        Rossi had a backup reactor on site, then such testimony will be useless since all they can do is state they received heat, but they have zero way of knowing which reactor the heat came from.

        So again:

        Who is calling this witness will reveal much about if said strategy going to center on the number of days. However, since the input/output measurements can flow through either reactor, then even the test data likely would not reveal which reactor was running and producing heat. It is unlikely that Rossi would not fire up the backup reactor for a few
        days or give up 90 million dollars – people are not that stupid.

        The problem with this theory is due to a backup reactor being in place, and the simple concept of turning on one set of values to send water through either reactor?

        I am not thus convinced at this point in time the number of days will be even an issue. The measuring systems and output does not determine which reactor was running.

        The fact of JM receiving heat is much moot since they would be unable to determine which reactor Rossi had running. So testimony by JM that they received such heat and did so for more than 350 days would reflect ZERO in terms of which reactor Rossi had running.

        The outputs and the measuring systems have no way of knowing which reactor was running.

        And I can’t imagine I would sit and watch a reactor stop working and sit losing 90 million when behind my back is a backup reactor that can take over – makes zero sense to me to not flip a switch on to keep 90 million dollars for that simple act of hitting the on button.

        So basically this whole argument rests on the idea that I don’t hit the on button and throw away 90 million? Gee, not going to turn the lights on for 90 million?
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • GiveADogABone

          ‘The outputs and the measuring systems have no way of knowing which reactor was running.’

          My expectation would be that the backup plant has a similar set of instruments.

          Andrea Rossi
          April 3rd, 2015 at 7:44 PM
          The measurement system of the 1 MW E-Cat is made by:

          56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the water steam in different positions

          56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the liquid water that flows toward the reactors in different positions

          1 PCE 830 to measure the consumption of electric power, which has been installed between the container of the reactors and the electric power source of the Customer’s Factory, plus

          the Wattmeter of the Customer’s factory installed by the electric energy provider

          56 pressure gauges to measure the pressure of the steam in different positions

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, we are confusing the heat and measuring systems required to run the reactor vs what the ERV was recording.

            The ERV likely did not log and use the “control” data required to run the reactor.

            All those measuring points likely were not used by the ERV.

            The simple matter is the ERV measured incoming water temp, and outgoing. All these “additional” measuring points are for the reactor – they prove little in terms of output.

            So I doubt two sets of data logging systems and recording of temperatures were used by the ERV or even in place for the main vs backup. The ERV measured incoming and outgoing heat. The backup reactor would not change this issue.

            And even if for some “strange” reason there was two sets of measuring systems for the ERV, it still don’t change the issue that testimony by the customer would NOT have knowledge of which reactor is running.

            Without knowledge of which reactor is running, then the witness may well be a key witness, but not one that can determine or help the fight over the number of days main reactor ran vs the backup reactor.

            The whole point here is this “key” witness does not help nor change nor support any kind of theory or strategy in regards to the number of days the system produced heat since this “key” witness would not have such knowledge.

            So I don’t see this number of days as some big legal issue unless the reactor was down for hours/days and the backup unit was not used.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • GiveADogABone

            I abridged too soon but the link is at the top of my post

            56 pressure gauges to measure the pressure of the steam in different positions

            All the data are taken by the certified registration system made by the referee, who has placed the certified gauges to calculate the COP, and collected in his computer. All the referee’s gauges are certified and sealed.
            Besides all this, there is the master Gauge, which is the manufacturing plant of the Customer, which needs 1 MWh/h of thermal energy carried by steam: if they receive this energy they pay for the plant, provided we give the granted COP, otherwise they do not pay. They measure with their instrumentation the amount and quality of the steam, but most of everything, they check the amount and the quality of their production and compare their costs using the E-Cat VS their costs with the traditional heaters. Their plant is the universal gauge and is, under a commercial point of view, the only one that really counts. So far the Customer is satisfied. Nevertheless, I have to add that it is soon to assume final considerations and we are aware of the fact that within the end of the year the results could be positive, but also negative.
            Warm Regards,

          • Albert D. Kallal

            That is interesting. From above, it looks like the ERV did log more than just in/out temperatures. However the context is not 100% clear.

            While there are 56 gauges, the next sentence states there is a “certified registration system made by the referee – this statement does not necessary include or imply to the 56 gauges. That statement only suggests that a system made by the referee existed. The context is not clear in this regards.

            However the “master gauge” is the customer gauge, and this points out what the customer received – as such the customer would not know which reactor is running.

            Thus my “point” about the customer as a key witness makes sense, but as such this witness would not suggest the strategy or legal attack will center on the number of days the reactor ran. So the customer testimony is very important.

            That customer stating they received the energy is a big deal.

            With the customer saying they received the energy, then things flip back to the plant and where the energy came from.

            This then comes down to how one will or can dismiss the ERV report.

            It not clear how IH plans to dismiss the ERV report. They MUST have some reason or means to dismiss that report else their claims about a non-existing COP would not make sense.

            IH has to put doubt on the ERV report – I don’t see any other approach here.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • GiveADogABone

            IH has to put doubt on [prove it’s wrong] the ERV report – I don’t see any other approach here.
            Agreed but doubt needs strengthening.

            The Licence Agreement specifies three things as criteria for a successful test i.e. one that pays $89M: CoP>6, steam temperature>100C and valid test days>350.

            The phrase ‘kill the goose that lays the golden egg’ means ​to destroy something that makes [or will make] a lot of money for you.

            Attack on CoP>6 or steam temperature>100C and succeed, then you ‘kill the goose’. When the E-cat is worth an absolute fortune and investors have been told it works, why would IH do that?

            The only alternative left is attack on valid test days>350 because that is the fault of the people and not the machine.

      • Gues

        GiveADogABone – you claims three criterias:

        * COP
        * Steam Temperature
        * Days

        What about effect? Was it not said that the plant had to deliver a certain amount of power, or could it have been that the customer only needed a bit of power and the plant that was capable of operating at 1MW was operating at a fraction of that efficiency?

        • GiveADogABone

          ‘Was it not said that the plant had to deliver a certain amount of power’
          The short answer is no. If you read the Licence Agreement clauses 4 and 5, then power drops from full power are permitted but Rossi had a duty to use his ‘best efforts’ to keep the Plant at Guaranteed Performance (I think we can interpret that as full load).

          We know that the backup reactors were run for the first four days and thereafter the 4 ‘Tigers’ carried the full duty, except when a Tiger had to be taken off-line when the output energy dropped by 250kW.

          ‘could it have been that the customer only needed a bit of power’
          Nowhere is it said, to the best of my knowledge, that the E-cat was load following. The best way by far for the load to operate is as a heat sink that takes whatever it is given and does it at 100C+. That description fits an evaporator running at atmospheric pressure.

          ‘the plant that was capable of operating at 1MW was operating at a fraction of that efficiency?’
          So, the Plant is operating at 1MW and the CoP is 50.
          A Tiger comes off-line. The 1MW drops to 750kw.
          What does the CoP do? ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL QUESTION.

          The answer is that the Tiger came off line and the electrical supply to it tripped from 5kW to zero.
          Calculate the before and after CoPs.
          CoP = Energy Out / Energy In

          Before : 50 = 1000 / Elec In
          Elec In = 1000/50 = 20kw

          After : CoP = 750/ (20-5) = 50

          You could in theory take three Tigers off line; the output would be 250kw and the CoP would still be 50. There are people involved in this court case who think otherwise.

  • Engineer48

    Amazing that on the other furum folks are stating the IH Customer company can’t be found. Guess they never went here:

    Note the company name was changed from
    J.M. Chemical Products Inc
    J.M. Products Inc.

    All clearly shown on the above web site.

  • Eyedoc

    Well, IH better watch what they try for, because that may lead, I am sure, to the open release of all AR knowledge to the masses….which would be a fitting end to this saga (I do believe that if AR loses, he will make sure IH loses)

  • GiveADogABone

    Rossi says : The measurement system of the 1 MW E-Cat is made by:
    56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the water steam in different positions
    56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the liquid water that flows toward the reactors in different positions
    56 pressure gauges to measure the pressure of the steam in different positions

    There are spare reactors inside the 1MW plant. They are rated at 20kW, so only 50 are needed for 1MW.

    Taking note of :-
    ’cause Guaranteed Performance(GP) to be achieved, including making repairs, adjustments and alterations to the Plant as needed to achieve [GP].’

    would (your understanding of) IH’s interpretation prohibit the switching on of a spare reactor if one failed?

  • GiveADogABone

    In a previous answer you stated :-
    ‘you are trying to interpret that some things, such as the use of backups, or partial operation, were allowable …’

    Depending on whether or not you allow a spare reactor to start, I ask:-
    Not allowed :
    If not allowed to start a spare reactor the total power level of the E-cat drops. Does that not force a breach of ‘Leonardo and Rossi will use their commercially reasonably best efforts to cause Guaranteed Performance(GP) to be achieved, including making repairs, adjustments and alterations to the Plant as needed to achieve [GP]?

    Are you not forcing ‘partial operation’ by refusing to allow a spare reactor to start? You stated above that partial operation was not allowable?

    Allowed :
    If I am permitted to start one reactor why would I not be allowed to start two? etc, etc

    If I am permitted to start one spare reactor in the 1MW plant, why am I not permitted to start two[its 2x10kW] in the backup plant to restore [GP]? I am after all required to us use my best efforts to cause [GP] to be achieved.


    You stated in a previous answer :-
    ‘They already DID the validation test and demonstrated the ability to produce the reported energy at the designated COP.’

    Was there any requirement for the purposes of Validation to report the energy and if so where is that requirement stated?

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I don’t think you know the facts surrounding the Rossi testing with NASA. If you know the facts please give them to us, with your sources. You said, “Give it to NASA” right, how naive! I cannot help it if you are ignorant of what multi-national corporations and billionaires are doing to our Democracy by undermining our economy, buying elections, writing, lobbying for and passing legislation favorable to them They have the power and money to control LENR and they will unless a lot of light is put on the subject and individual intellectual property rights are protected. You did not respond to my accusation you do not believe in LENR?

  • Engineer48

    Hi EEStor.

    The name change is as per the Flordia company registration site. It seems the change on the linked court document was prior to that.

  • GiveADogABone

    You are a gentleman Sir and I mean with the greatest respect.
    Most fun I have had for quite a while.
    We, at our age, now need to conserve our energy for the big day tomorrow.
    I might just do a screen dump and frame it.
    Even better, put it on my CV.
    Actually, I threw my CV away years ago.

  • wpj

    You will see it was changed again…………….Trying to get further away from the identity of the client…………… Maybe you can have the same name if the company is in different states in the US

  • GiveADogABone

    Another day, another insight.
    I accept in full your thesis that the attack comes through #3 (valid test days>350). We now know more about :-

    ‘Each of Leonardo and Rossi will use their commercially reasonably best efforts

    to cause Guaranteed Performance to be achieved,

    including making repairs, adjustments and alterations to the Plant as needed

    to achieve Guaranteed Performance.’

    This is not just a permission to repair, adjust and alter; it is a duty to do it. Running backup reactors for as short a time as possible to remain at full power is not only allowable, it is REQUIRED to the standard of ‘best efforts’. Having to run part-loaded is a failure of this standard to some degree but that does not make part-load running a total no-no and a breach …

    … but it does give IH a window, however small, to claim that ‘best efforts’ were not made, if the Plant did run for a while on perhaps thirty (your number) occasions at reduced output.

    It is nit-picking but the hole is there. That is why Rossi spent eighteen hours a day in the containers – to demonstrate ‘best efforts’ that IH could not possibly criticize.

    What these clowns in IH do not understand is that when the enthalpy transfer drops, the CoP does NOT drop because the electrical power ALSO drops. They have found the places in the records where the enthalpy transfer drops and they think that the CoP is ‘unsubstantiated’, which is of course total garbage.

  • GiveADogABone

    That last point was made in the national news last night. Families who do not talk at all, even when in the same room; they just text.

  • Omega Z

    Thr ERV provided quarterly reports to both Industrial heat/Darden and Andrea Rossi. It is these reports that Rossi compared his own observations.

    As to F&P thinking they would have a breakthrough within a year.
    There were several issue’s they were not fully aware of.
    They didn’t know whether impurities or purity was of importance
    In addition, the technology just wasn’t advanced enough for the task at the time.

    As to Hot Fusion. Even should they eventually accomplish the task, it will never be cheap, plentiful or safe for use. There are a lot of issues with this technology they do not tell you. But hey, it’s a job with prestige and it pays the bills.

    • Steve D

      So the source was from quarterly reports. Thanks Omega Z

  • GiveADogABone

    You need sound technical advice :-

    Much more reliable than resurrection.

  • Mats002

    Darden et al claim a conspiracy from many people; Rossi, Penon, the customer, the lawyer, IH people too:

    No details yet…

  • LuFong

    IH Answer is out. Don’t see the ERV in it.

    Here’s a tid bit from a letter head from Henry Johnson:

    J.M. Products, Inc
    Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthew Platinum Sponges

    Intentional or mistake? Coming from a lawyer I have to wonder.

    • GiveADogABone

      I do not want to seem pickky but the Johnson Matthey I know ends in ‘y’. I would have expected a letterhead to be able to get that right.

      • LuFong


        • GiveADogABone

          Do we have a number of conspiracy theories yet?

          • LuFong

            We’ll hear some doozies over the next few months!

  • GiveADogABone
    Likewise no real surprises for the counterclaims — except for the “actor” James Bass/John Doe.

    It seems possible that James Bass works for Johnson Matthey in Cambridge, England and plays football for the Johnson Matthey team on Sundays. Otherwise he may be a John Doe as claimed by IH. I have seen an IH statement that a James Bass handed over a business card with the title of Director of Engineering. Now I cannot find that statement, hopefully it will turn up again.
    ALL COMPETITIONS : Player’s Appearances – Bass James
    Division 2B Johnson Matthey XPO 1 1 Sawston Keys Reserves Sun 10 Sep
    Cambridge & District Sunday Football League
    28 Cambridge Science Park
    Milton Road
    CB4 0FP

    Tel: 44 (0) 1223 226160
    Fax: 44 (0) 1223 438037
    Divisions: Fine Chemicals

    • LuFong

      That’s pretty good. I did a quick search earlier and couldn’t find a hit. The record you point to is from 2006 I think.

      Given that that Johnson Matthey has a division in Tennessee I would expect him to be from there. The business card displayed in Exhibit 20 shows J.M Products with an address of Doral, Florida.

      • GiveADogABone

        I think we can be confident that the Johnson Matthey connection was being disguised. This could easily be a headquarters research project, rather than production site based and they are a global company. IH do not tell us if James spoke with an American or an English accent.

        • LuFong

          What bothers me about this is that they named it J.M. Products. If they were *trying* to disguise their customer, you would think they would pick a different name?

          The business card looks very unprofessional to me as well, like someone made it at home and printed it out.

          • GiveADogABone

            I take your point but the connection to sponge manufacture and Johnson Matthey was after a lot of research based from this blogsite. It seems IH never did discover the true identity and continued to think it was all a hoax. IH may well find Rossi has told nothing but the truth.

          • LuFong

            Rossi denied it was Johnson Matthey. Of course he didn’t lie because it was Johnson Matthew 🙂

          • LuFong

            I think some of the information came from Matt Lewan’s web site.

            If they saw an early energy report and weren’t too careful they would conclude it was indeed Johnson Matthey.

  • LuFong

    Another interesting tid bit. We’ve previously determined that during the test the 1MW plant was down a total of 10 days based on the calendar and start and end dates.

    Part of the IH filings include reports from J.M. Products (Henry Johnson) indicating amount of heat received. These reports are from June through December and do not include the early months nor the later months. The report indicates days full 1MWh/h were received and partial days.

    The interesting this is that over that time span 50 days were only 75% of the energy received. I would think that this would mean that 1MW plant was not operational for at least 50/4=12.5 days and this does not include the early months. Of course it depends on how this was counted but this is a reasonable way of accounting up time I would imagine so somehow the test terminated early.

    • GiveADogABone

      Now you really have got me interested.
      Six months =180 days
      75% = 50 days

      75% is one reactor slab being taken off line. That is exactly right the right reduction. Rossi was really working hard on repairs if a slab was out of action for 50 days in 180. The key thing to realize is that taking a slab off line does not reduce the CoP. I think IH do not realize that.

      Some 1MW Plant test results I made up :
      Power(kw) CoP
      1000 ……. 50
      1000 ……. 50

      1000 ……. 50
      1000 ……. 50
      750 …….. 50
      750 …….. 50
      750 …….. 50
      750 …….. 50
      750 …….. 50
      That is what happens when you take a slab off line.

      • LuFong

        Here are the month’s days at 1MWh/h and 750KWh/h

        June 26/4
        July 26/4
        August 15/16
        Sept 15/15
        Nov —–
        Dec 20/11

        • GiveADogABone

          Really helpful data, even if incomplete.

      • LuFong

        It may or may not reduce the COP especially as Rossi claimed that the COP was partially the result of synergisms. Cop only becomes a factor below 6 with regard to the GPT (I think). The other requirement is for 1MWh/h (I think).

        By the way IH defense for Count 1 is that 1MW plant in Florida was not the GPT.

        • GiveADogABone

          It is difficult to see synergisms between separate reactor slabs; inside each one then yes. If the overall CoP of the test was 50, then the reactors did not operate anywhere near 7 for any length of time.

          ‘The other requirement is for 1MWh/H.’
          We are going to have to disagree about that. The Licence Agreement clauses 4 & 5 need careful reading. The requirement was for Rossi to use his ‘best efforts’ to achieve Guaranteed Performance but reductions in performance were allowable.

          • LuFong

            Rossi claimed improvements derived from sysnergisms and fuel improvement gleaned from the Lugano test.

            I am only going on memory and I make mistakes. The contract specified performance consistent with the Validation test and things changed etc and I’m too lazy to look it up and wordsmith all the nuances and amendments and partial information.

            The bottom line is that Rossi said the customer required 1MWh/h from his 1MW plant.

          • GiveADogABone

            This is what the Licence Agreement states :-

            ‘Each of Leonardo and Rossi will use their commercially reasonably best efforts

            to cause Guaranteed Performance to be achieved,

            including making repairs, adjustments and alterations to the Plant as needed

            to achieve Guaranteed Performance.’

            is not just a permission to repair, adjust and alter; it is a duty to
            do it. Running backup reactors for as short a time as possible to
            remain at full power is not only allowable, it is REQUIRED to the
            standard of ‘best efforts’. Having to run part-loaded is a failure of
            this standard to some degree but that does not make part-load running a total no-no and a breach …

          • LuFong

            As I said it had to perform at the level of the Validation test whatever that was. But this is all moot as IH is claiming that it wasn’t the GPT.

        • Chapman

          Thanks for the document dump. You are now officially My Hero! 🙂

      • LuFong

        I’m not sure what a slab is and I’m not sure what reactor was used in the 1MW plant but this is the picture of a reactor from Exhibit 3.

        • GiveADogABone

          The test plant had 4x250kw reactors that I call slabs and Rossi called Tigers and also a backup plant of old 100x10kw reactors. The backups were run for the first four days and then never restarted. The 4x250kw Tigers then carried the whole duty. The reduction to 750kw output is one of the 250kw reactors coming off line.

          • LuFong

            It’s more complicated then that I think. There is non one-to-one relationship between E-Cats and reactors. There is some information about that as well in the Exhibits which I will include below for information purposes.

            This comes from Exhibit 5 which is a list of questions from a IH technical lead about Penon’s test. You would probably enjoy reading it and I will look into making it available. In the mean time here is one part:

          • GiveADogABone

            Thanks again for that. I struggle to interpret it at present but all this data needs assembling to get a better picture.

          • LuFong

            OK. I put everything on Google Drive. Not sure how this will work but the link for the directory is


            You want to see Exhibit 5

          • Frank Acland

            Thanks very much for that link, LuFong. I’ve put it in the post above.

          • Hank Mills

            I hope we get some answers.

            Dear Andrea,

            You previously told me in response to a question:

            “Andrea Rossi
            April 24, 2016 at 4:22 PM

            Hank Mills:
            Your comment contains a big mistake: Johnson Matthey has nothing to do with us. We bought from them some materials but that is all. Please do not diffuse false information.
            No further comments.
            Warm Regards

            Now, Industrial Heat claims that the customer sent them an invoice with the letter head identifying their company as,

            “J.M. Products, Inc. “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthew Platinum Sponges.”

            Here are my questions:

            1) Does J.M. Products have anything to do with Johnson Matthew? (Note, I mean Johnson Matthew with the name Matthew ending in a “w.”)

            2) Does Johnson Matthew, ending with a “w” have anything to do with the large well known UK based company Johnson Matthey ending with a “y”?

            3) Do you confirm that J.M. Products has a verifiable connection of some sort — as a subsidiary or affiliate — with Johnson Matthey, related to the production of a chemical product manufactured or processed at the Doral, Florida location?

            4)If the answer to all the above questions is that JM Products never had anything to do with Johnson Matthew (with a “w”) or Johnson Matthey (with “y”), will you identify the company based in the UK that is connected to JM Chemical Products — which you described had facilities across Europe?

            I think the answers to these questions are important as the overall situation becomes more bizarre and incomprehensible by the day.


          • GiveADogABone

            I have added a link to a 1MW plant photo just above.

            I can read the google drive, so that is a big thanks for that.

  • Hank Mills

    Very odd.

    Andrea Rossi told me specifically on the JONP that Johnson “Matthey” was not the customer and that they had only purchased a few things from them. But it seems he claimed to I.H. that Johnson “Matthew” was the parent company of JM.

    This needs to clarified by Rossi, immediately.

  • Hank Mills

    Andrea Rossi

    April 24, 2016 at 4:22 PM

    Hank Mills:

    Your comment contains a big mistake: Johnson Matthey has nothing to do
    with us. We bought from them some materials but that is all. Please do
    not diffuse false information.

    No further comments.

    Warm Regards


  • GiveADogABone

    Fabiani, USQL and Penon also played critical roles in the scheme to hide the fact that the Plant does not perform up to the standards set forth in the License Agreement… … Despite have full knowledge of the flaws, Penon nevertheless issued his false final report on March 28, 2016, claiming that guaranteed performance was achieved

    Methinks we are going to get to the numbers (or in IH speak flaws) somewhere along the line.