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.

  • 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.

    • Nicholas Payne

      This is a civil case, preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof

    • Obvious

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

    • roseland67

      Mats,

      If it comes down to a “he said, she said” argument in front of a judge/jury, who do you think would win in a question about a cold fusion machine.

      • 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.

  • roseland67

    My god,
    Give the Ecat to NASA, let them test it!

    Wait a minute, we can’t do that because…….,,?

    • Obvious

      He already did. The test did not go smoothly, according to at least one report.

      • roseland67

        Obvious,

        Was this “report” by NASA?

        As I recall, many years ago, Rossi offered to
        Let NASa test it but he wanted millions of $$$&
        For the privilege and they naturally said no

        • 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.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Right, give away years of research and IP……then you say NASA would not reveal any IP secrets, and I say Nuts.

      • roseland67

        Bernie,

        Really?
        Rossi is present for every hour of testing,
        Just like he was for IH, (living in the Ecat),
        NASA cannot disassemble anything , their only function is to confirm
        energy out > energy in and,
        if Rossi allows, do a before/after assay of fuel/ash analysis.
        NASA signs a typical Rossi NDA.

        What are you so afraid of here?
        If it works as stated, the world changes, if not, This charade ends. There is no down side except, that Rossi will finally be vindicated or not.
        Are you maybe concerned that the Ecat does not work as stated?

        I want to KNOW, not just be told to believe something on the Internet. I would like to believe that most on this board want to KNOW also.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Really, How do you know what the testing rules are or will be? Rossi owes you nothing. Why do you think you have the right to his IP? I am afraid of “big money interests” getting their hands on and controlling this tech and we will be paying for it at twenty times its value. NDA, ha, since when did that stop the lobbyists who own our government?

          • roseland67

            Bernie,
            Andrea sets the rules of engagement,
            That includes no one doing anything that jeopardizes his IP. He can even run every portion of the experiment, no one touches anything, all NASA does is set up energy out vs. energy in monitoring, essentially acting as a neutral ERV.
            If the government really wanted to they would have stolen everything he has and locked him in a dungeon by now.
            IF he has why he says he has, the very first person to actually buy a working Ecat is going to cut it open and discover how it works, and his IP
            Is public

          • 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.

          • roseland67

            Wow,
            You are one very paranoid man Bernie.
            If they wanted to, they would already have stoelen it by now, they haven’t
            So maybe they don’t want to.
            Rossi already offered it to NASA for testing, but he wanted to charge them an exorbitant fee for the privilege. He wasn’t worried about
            Them “stealing” anything then?

            Give it to NASA let verify energy out> energy > in

          • 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?

          • roseland67

            Bernie,
            As I have said on this forum before,
            There have been way to many, seemingly non related, instances of “excess heat” by multiple sources to think that LENR is some kind of global conspiracy. I believe there is something to LENR, I am not sure, but, that is what I think.
            However, Rossi has for well over 5 years now continued to NOT DELIVER on anything commercial, so in my opinion, he probably won’t.
            Tesla has built/outfitted and entire functioning “robotized” automotive and battery plants in the same time frame and Rossi can’t cobble together some plumbing parts, controls and powder for anyone to test?

  • Barbierir

    I don’t agree that JM chemicals is the key witness here, the key element is only the ERV report and if IH can prove that it’s flawed or fraudulent.
    Anyway regarding specifically JM chemicals here is my list of questions:
    1. If the customer is fake, is it at all possible that Henry W. Johnson is unaware of this fact? This seems extremely unlikely so he must be an accomplice in fraud
    2. In such case Johnson must be totally mad at Rossi that with the lawsuit is going to be exposed and get him in prison too.
    3. So is Johnson still in business or has he already fled the country? Can anyone check it out?
    4. Who was the engineer who pretended to work for the customer?
    5. If the customer is real who really is it?
    6. Will the customer be called as a witness and its identity exposed?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Is a court room the place for adjudicating scientific issues? I’d keep the scientific arguments to a minimum.
    https://themuslimtimesdotinfodotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/burnt-alive2.jpeg?w=667

    • kdk

      A demonstration of the device in operation would be the surest proof. With radiological readings during the demonstration to preempt the radiation issue. It would be something to see the pathoskeptics deal with that.

    • Chapman

      AH HA!!! A man of logic and reason. Thank God!

      The issue of LENR’s validity, and the E-Cat’s operation are not matters before the court. The issue is one of contractual obligations and commitments.

      • 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?

        • Chapman

          Sadly, no.

          The agreement was not based on “Proof”. It was based upon satisfying the ERV. That is the whole point. The ONLY point.

          The contractual obligations were *actually* met the moment the ERV released an opinion that the plant met the performance goal. This is the condition stipulated in the agreement. THIS is the contract.

          A civil action against the ERV for damages incurred by IH due a proposed incompetence on Penon’s part would delve deeper into the facts you are considering, but has nothing to do with Rossi’s claim for payment, which is “Event Driven”, that is – that payment was due immediately following the release of a positive report from Penon. It is really not complicated.

    • GiveADogABone

      If x=7 is x greater or less than 6?
      If x=5 is x greater or less than 6?

      That is as minimal as I can get it.
      Clauses 4 and 5 of the ‘License Agreement’ refer.
      x is, of course, the measured CoP

      AH HA!!! I see below that Chapman has prescient powers and given me a compliment for that minimal presentation. Much appreciated.

      • wpj

        Remember that payment was still due down to a COP of 2.6, but and a reduced basis

        • GiveADogABone

          I was trying for minimal to please Alan but add :-
          If x=2 or less is x greater or less than 2.6?

          Its a bit more tricky though; an additional logic statement and a floating point number.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Chapman

    A very disappointing article, based on an absurd notion.

    We moved far beyond this simplistic idea that the court would require a retest long ago. The suggestion was no less absurd when originally put forth. It was quickly dispensed with, and yet… Here we go again!

    Have we so quickly come full circle on this track that we must now start re-examining every folly we have previously set aside, simply for the lack of any alternative matters of valid interest? Is this entire distraction nothing more than a childish Carousel plodding mindlessly around in circles? Shall we endlessly repeat the same pointless arguments on an endless 90 day cycle???

    I thought we were a brighter lot than that…

  • 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.

  • 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.

    ‘It would be important to be able to see as evidence this customer’s power bills’
    My main interest would be to see the customer’s payments for steam at $1,000 per day. If matching payments received were in IH’s accounts, how would IH explain that? Would the customer then be accused by IH of paying for something they never received? If IH knew the customer never received the heat, would accepting the payments be dishonest?

    • lrao

      if you are a builder, and are involved in a suit for performance (the stuff you built doesn’t perform as per the contract), can you use other similar construction you’ve done and use that as your defense? I don’t think so. (say, for example, it is a tall building that sways too much. You can’t use another tall building you have done and say: “look this one doesn’t sway. That’s my defense”) . I think that you need to show that the particular building in question, for which you are been sued, performs as expected. In the case of Rossi, wouldn’t he have to show that the actual plant in FL works (worked) as expected. Showing another one that works doesn’t help. It has to be that specific one he built for IH. If the dispute is about the technology in general not working, that’s one thing. But in this case, the dispute is about $89M related to that particular plant operating at a particular performance during one year. So, demonstrating that the technology works, is not going to resolve the case (it may help some, but not be decisive), don’t you think?

      • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 star witness is the E-cat itself. Start it up and let it testify. This could be sorted in a morning.

      • 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.

          • clovis ray

            I disagree,
            They I/H are in breach of their contract with Leonardo corp. simple and undeniable, if they deny the ERV’s report, then it is on them to prove,
            Which is ridiculous, when they already agreed to his data,
            one of an old okie cleshay, They just have sh_t in their nest.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    • Chapman

      Exactly, which was supervised and monitored by the ERV, and included in the overall evaluation.

      The customer, and what they did with the heat, are irrelevant.

      • 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?

        • Chapman

          Buying a megawatt of heat! What did you think they were doing???

          The test was not for the sake of the heat produced, it was a stress test for the design in an industrial setting. So they sold the heat to a real life customer, just to demonstrate there was no interruption in the plant’s production. But what the customer did with the heat is of no consequence. All that matters is that the plant operated dependably for a year exactly the way it had for the first validation test, and they had a happy customer who never refused to make a payment for received energy due to plant downtime.

          I am curious… What did YOU think they were doing? Did you not understand the point of the test?

          • GiveADogABone

            ‘But what the customer did with the heat is of no consequence.’
            Section 4 says, in essence, CoP>6 and steam hotter than 100C for 24 hours.

            What is the best, most reliable way to make sure that the steam stays hotter than 100C?
            Dump it into a load at 100C and a load that stays at 100C whatever you do to it.

            What would such a load look like?
            An evaporator working at atmospheric pressure.

            An evaporator load stabilizes the E-cat. If the load is always 100C and you put saturated steam at 105C into it, then you double the heat transfer if the saturated steam rises to 110C. The steam pressure in the E-cat is stabilized by big heat transfer rate changes for small saturated steam pressure changes.

            What the customer did with the heat matters a great deal when you understand the thermodynamics.

          • 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?

        • Engineer48

          Hi BillH, who wrote,
          “JM’s representatives signature is right there at the bottom of the agreement,”

          What agreement is that? Link or image please.

  • Chapman

    Let’s say I am a Plumber.

    You are building a new house, and have hired a general contractor to supervise and coordinate that project, and to oversee the work of subcontractors.

    I am engaged to do the plumbing according to a set of blueprints provided. An agreement is made as to timelines and compensation.

    I complete my work, and have my work inspected by the contractor, who signs off and agrees I have completed my duties.

    I submit my bill, but never get paid.

    YOU refuse to pay, because you do not like the results that your contractor has produced. You refuse to pay the subcontractors, because you think, let’s say, that the contractor did not include the latest weatherization techniques. You believe the insulation in general is lacking, the plumbing may be subject to freezing in severe cold conditions, and the roofing is not adequate for prevention of possible wind storm damage.

    But my agreement was to work to satisfy the contractor specs, not to negotiate directly with you and to try to do the plumbing to your ever-changing whims!

    I did my job. My work was done according to our agreement and signed off by your appointed representative.

    I file suit for payment. Now, here’s the thing… It does not matter to MY suit if you can bring in experts to prove the contractor was lacking and should have had me install differently. I performed the exact duties I was engaged for. Your dispute with your contractor has nothing to do with me. You can not counter sue ME and include the contractor, as your suit against the contractor is a private liability issue between you and your contractor, and I have nothing to do with that.

    You need to pay me, and then YOU can sue your contractor, but there is nothing releasing you from the obligation to pay me, regardless. Pay me, or I put a lien on the property. Period.

    This is a CONTRACT ISSUE!!! Not a Science Fair!!! Our Courts do not engage in Scientific Research. That is absurd. They resolve contract disputes regarding the terms of agreements made, and the fulfillment of those obligations. Rossi was required to demonstrate the plant to the satisfaction of the ERV. THAT was the obligation. IH having a dispute with the ERV has no relation to Rossi’s demand for payment.

    What is wrong with you people, that you can not grasp such a simple legal concept???

    • Steve D

      Chapman, IH might contend that the ERV (mutual Rossi and IH choice) colluded with Rossi to defraud IH, hence no payment. The accuracy of the report will determine the outcome. IH will have a counter claim to Rossi’s payment demand.

      Should a retest be ordered, which I note you don’t approve of, the Ecat will have to be resurrected, which by now is probably showing signs of rust so will need to be refurbished. Rossi might say sorry no spare parts available, we don’t make that model anymore. Or it could be that the same plant is still earning its keep, who knows? Testing his later device would only demonstrate proof of concept and not account for the year long test results. Otherwise I can understand your argument. IH has changed it’s mind.

      • Chapman

        And how exactly is the court to evaluate the operation of the plant? The court has bailiffs, and clerks, and stenographers – but which among them has a PHD in Nuclear Physics???

        The court can only look at the contract agreement, the historical facts and events, and the evidence submitted by the two parties. It can not initiate, let alone independently perform, a full scale scientific investigation into a physics phenomena. If the court had such ability, and resources, we would not need Research Institutions!!! Why not give all the Cancer research money to the courts, and have them use this mysterious “Genius Pool” you think they have in order to cure cancer, or AIDS, or fix the environment??? Judges are not scientists, and courts are not laboratories!

        No, in the end the court has to look for an outside expert to render an informed opinion, and force all parties to accept that evaluation. The judge could chastise the parties, and point out that this is what they should have done in the first place and not bothered the court. BUT WAIT – That IS what they did! Get it? That was the ERV.

        Interestingly, you are RIGHT ON POINT in regarding the testing of any OTHER unit. Just not relevant, or a provable equal.

        In the end, the question will be resolved after a review of the qualifications and experience of Penon. If he is deemed by the court to be a qualified expert in the field, then his evaluation is as good as any evaluation the court could petition from any other qualified expert, which is as far down the path of scientific inquiry that the court will venture.

        But remember, the case is BASED upon the binding arbitration of the ERV, as mutually agreed upon. Any other phase of the debate will only manifest AFTER the establishment of some valid cause to nullify that contractual element is established. Basically, the Judge will be operating from the position of:

        “You agreed to accept the evaluation of the ERV as Binding. Upon what grounds do you seek to overturn your obligation to honor that condition? What EVIDENCE do you have that will justify nullifying that agreement?”

        IH has to prosecute and PROVE that entire issue before ANY consideration is given to any other aspect of the case. It is a trial-within-a-trial. Without setting aside the agreement to the binding decision of the ERV, all other arguments and complaints are MOOT.

    • 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?

      • Chapman

        You either have a contractor guilty of incompetence, which is a civil complaint against the Contractor alone, or you have a CRIMINAL FRAUD complaint against the two for actually colluding to scam and defraud ahead of time, which would be handled by law enforcement, and a CRIMINAL trial, not a civil case. Two different legal entities. I am sorry, I am not trying to be insulting – but you guys really do not seem to understand some of the most basic ideas behind our justice system. Too much TV. Courts do not work like they show on LA Law… Just like Coroners do not engage in murder investigations to bring bad guys to justice. TV makes **** up. Get over it.

        • 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.

          • Chapman

            Ha – I know what you mean. I was just referring to TV shows like Bones, or the old Quincy, which portray Coroners running around in the middle of the night chasing evil-doers and solving the “Big Case”. Yes, of course they give testimony in court…

            As to your second point – The exact nature of the heat measurement protocols present a second challenge for IH, in that they established the test protocols, not Rossi!

            Remember:
            IH agreed to the appointed ERV.
            IH’s ERV established the test protocols.
            IH employees managed and monitored the plant operations.
            IH execs had full access to the plant, and visited often.
            IH received quarterly reports with the exact same numbers as the final.
            IH proudly proclaimed the success and used it for fundraising.
            IH watched the test for a full year while expressing no reservations.

            Then IH came up with doubts when payment was requested….

            IH can not question the testing protocol itself, regardless of the senseless babbling of Jeb, Lumox and Weevil, because they approved it not only initially, and not only by staffing the test with their own people, but by the fact that they were receiving constant status reports throughout the testing and never expressed any concerns.

            They also cannot refute the credibility of the ERV based on any information that was available to them for that time. The only way to impeach Penon is to disclose unique facts that brought them to suspect his motives that were only brought to their attention in the very last weeks of the test. Any knowledge they had regarding Penon prior to the final weeks was accepted by them and they agreed to continue the test. Any damning evidence that was brought to their attention prior to that time frame would have needed to be addressed by them and dealt with at that time, even to the extent of stopping the test – but they showed no concern or dissatisfaction until the test was completed.

            No, their only hope is to present the court with a Private Investigators report from, say, December of 2015, suggesting improper contact and probable collusion between Penon and Rossi. It would be reasonable for them to claim that the test concluded before they had a chance to corroborate this damning evidence, as they were giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt, but just as things were finishing up they got the final word from their investigators that it was all a setup and IH was being swindled by a band of Genius ConMen…

            Nothing short of that will hold up in court.

            AND, only after removing Penon will the science and tech of the plant come into question or under examination.

          • Mark Underwood

            Well put, hard to argue with that.

          • Chapman

            And thank you also, for a wonderful exchange. I only come here for the debate, and of course, the booze!

    • GiveADogABone

      Here is the relevant section of the contract :-
      http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/01-2-1.pdf
      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.

      • Chapman

        By agreeing ahead of time to an ERV, which is what they did. That was the whole POINT of having an ERV.

        • GiveADogABone

          The ERV is not responsible for paying Rossi.
          ‘3.2(c) Within five business days … the Guaranteed Performance has been achieved as required by Section 5 below, the Company will pay to Leonardo [$89M]’

          The ERV is responsible for stating the average CoP over the 1-year run.
          ‘5. The ERV … will be engaged to confirm in writing the Guaranteed Performance.’

          What criterion should IH use to decide if payment of $89M is due (Clauses 3.2(c), 4 and 5 of the License Agreement refer)?

          • 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.

          • Chapman

            Close, but no cigar. It does not matter what the COP was. What matters is that the ERV reported the COP was greater than 6. Nice try though…

            You still don’t get it! It does not matter what energy the plant produced. What matters is the ink the ERV put on paper.

          • Chapman

            I just want to be clear of one thing…

            I really like chatting with you. You make great sense, relative to the point you are trying to make. I may have a different take, and so I banter, but you are no fool, and I certainly never intended to imply you were. I get snarky with some who speak gibberish, or argue against their own propositions without even realizing it, but I have nothing but respect for you, and the others who engage in logical and lively debate!

            Thank you for engaging. Like I said – I just wanted that to be clear. When I intend to insult there really is no question as to my intent. I am many things, but NEVER subtle!!! 🙂

          • clovis ray

            That they received a 1000 dollars a day for a year,

          • 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.

          • 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

            http://www.bls.gov/regions/southeast/news-release/2016/pdf/averageenergyprices_miami_20160616.pdf
            $1.5/therm
            1 therm = 29.3kwh
            150/29.3 c/kwh
            5c/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.

            Get the bank accounts from each end of the transfer, line up the matching payments / receipts and figure out what the E-cat really produced. Anything like $1000/day and the E-cat was running at full design output and IH knew it.

    • 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.

      • Chapman

        “Fulfill ALL the terms”? There was only one term. ERV report confirming COP greater than 6 for >350 out of 400 days.. That’s it.

        No customer. No product. No other nonsense – which is what all this other is.

        If Rossi had painted the plant Blue, and made a big deal of it, would THAT have been grounds to contest the ERV? That IH did not agree to Blue, but would have prefered Red?

        Anything not in the contract is not relevant.

        And YES!!! If you bought a car based on the top MPH because you wanted to be able to drive at 110, but did not look any further into its published performance reviews to check on DEPENDABILITY then you have no claim against the manufacturer when you discover it only works on mondays and fridays! Do you remember the Fiat?

      • GiveADogABone

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

  • 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

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raney_nickel
      Nomenclature
      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.

  • 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

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raney_nickel
      Nomenclature
      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.

          Page 4 of Frank’s URL :-
          Sponge MetalTM Catalysts
          Note the ‘TM’

          • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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 started by IH.

    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

  • GiveADogABone

    Here is the relevant section of the contract :-
    http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/01-2-1.pdf
    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:

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjUzcvH353OAhWD64MKHQd3DDkQFgg0MAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jmprotech.com%2Famcat-johnson-matthey&usg=AFQjCNHVn_MrQ5AHiq-jcDq4yptFcMY04Q&sig2=1E1cZJ-UPbthq5TCmoqizQ&bvm=bv.128617741,d.amc

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

    http://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Organic_Chemistry/Hydrocarbons/Alkenes/Reactivity_of_Alkenes/Catalytic_Hydrogenation

    “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.”

  • 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:

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjUzcvH353OAhWD64MKHQd3DDkQFgg0MAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jmprotech.com%2Famcat-johnson-matthey&usg=AFQjCNHVn_MrQ5AHiq-jcDq4yptFcMY04Q&sig2=1E1cZJ-UPbthq5TCmoqizQ&bvm=bv.128617741,d.amc

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

    http://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Organic_Chemistry/Hydrocarbons/Alkenes/Reactivity_of_Alkenes/Catalytic_Hydrogenation

    “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.

  • 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.

        • Chapman

          ;
          “So true. Tragically clear. No excuse whatsoever… well, except for the customer contract, agreed to by IH, maintaining security on their side of the wall for their own IP considerations. But other than THAT, yes… quite damning, to be sure…”
          ;

        • 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.

  • I hope that this isn’t too far off topic, but I was thinking of Rossi and all of the pseudoskeptics who say that Rossi is a crazy nutjob and that what Rossi is trying to do is impossible, last night, when I watched Luke Aikins jump into the history books, on TV, by being the first person to intentionally jump out of a plane without a parachute or wingsuit and land on a net without significant injury. Aikins, of course, had his own set of pseudoskeptics hounding him and calling him a crazy nutjob who was trying to do the impossible. Well, it looks like Aikins showed those pseudoskeptics to be wrong, and reminded us all that we need to not let pseudoskeptics call us names when we try to do that which pseudoskeptics say is impossible. You can watch the footage of Aikins proving the pseudoskeptics wrong here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8j0YFzmqWc

    • Alain Samoun
      • Thanks, man. That movie that I posted worked…for a while, anyway…

      • clovis ray

        wow,incredible,

    • nietsnie

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

      • I prefer to say “reasoning that any reasonable person would accept,” or something like that. I don’t think that any proof is ever truly undeniable. There are ways to deny if you REALLY want to. Even that skydive could have been some brilliantly made hoax. For as unlikely as that may be, I can’t prove, with absolute certainty, that is was not a hoax. However, I DO believe that we have “reasoning that any reasonable person would accept” with respect to the skydive being real, and with respect to cold fusion, as well.

        • 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.

    • Omega Z

      Obviously impossible and this is all fake video and the guy never left his parents basement.

      See. You can’t win with pseudoskeptics…

  • 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. 🙂

  • 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.

        • clovis ray

          Hi, wpj.
          wouldn’t a copy of the customer’s check too I/H for up to 1/2 million,be kinda dumb,if nothing was received, i think so. if the customer’s payment to I/H can be proven,

          • Chapman

            Damn, Clovis! I missed that one!!! Why did IH willingly receive payments totalling upwards of $360,000 for energy they never provided? And, if they believed no energy was being provided, are they not an accomplice to the very fraud they are claiming took place???

            Once again, Clovis – I take my hat off to your superior Kung-Fu!

          • 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.

      • BillH

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

        • Monty

          what could 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!

    • Chapman

      Your first statement is a total false premise. AR producing a customer is not relevant. You can not start a statement with a falsehood, or your entire logic train is off the rails from the get-go.

      Oddly enough, I AGREE with everything else you said! I just can’t ignore the first statement, as it leads these guys down another false path.

      • Andy Kumar

        Chapman,
        A little OT, but worth it. A mini lesson in logic for you. Did you notice the IF in front of the premise. Bill is exploring what-if scenario. Nothing wrong with that. It is standard technique in (mathematical) logic.
        .
        I remember that when learning geometry in 9th grade, I was not happy with the way the book dealt with parallel lines. But after *repeated exposure to the dogma* that parallel lines never meet and alternate angles are equal, I forgot that there is any *foundational* problem with parallel lines.
        .
        Gauss had the same doubts but a lot more creativity to handle the problem. He started with the what-if scenario – what if the parallel lines do not meet. It lead him to conclusions contrary to Euclidean geometry, e.g. the sum of angles of a triangle is not 180. Now rather than cry foul and say it is against the gospel truth, he realized there is nothing inherently wrong with that. So non-Euclidean geometry was born that Einstein will later use to formulate his non-Newtonian theory of gravity.
        .
        I think you hold some statements to be gospel truth (after repeated exposure to them) when they are just statements that still need to be verified.

        • 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.

          • Chapman

            (yes, that was satirical nonsense…)

            But it is curious how we once again see a presentation devolve to invoking “Einstein” in order to lend a false air of Authority to an otherwise hollow proposition.

            That is Axil’s big move. You should work up your own routine…

          • nietsnie

            I laugh every time I read this…

          • Chapman

            A Seinfeld fan. by chance? 🙂

          • nietsnie

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

          • 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.

          • I agree. well said.

          • 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.

          • 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?

          • clovis ray

            Hi, Nietsnie,
            Their BLUFFING, and what’s worse is their holding ace’s and 8’s,
            SMILE.

      • 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.

        • Chapman

          He does not have to prove the energy went anywhere. That is precisely where you are going wrong. All he has to prove is that the ERV released a report confirming that the energy was created. That is the end of the inquiry. No issues beyond that are of any concern.

          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.

          You may think I am being an ass because I seem to think the court will not listen to reason, or consider a big picture, but please think back over the last few years of court rulings that you have heard about. They all come down to the court fixating on one simple hinge pin of logic. One fact that defines, and limits, the larger argument. Even the supreme court decisions recently released take what appears to be large issues, but the decisions are made on small basic concepts that preclude even getting to the point of debating over the larger issue everyone thought the court would address.

          The Penon issue is a nearly insurmountable obstacle for IH. The contract THEY wrote places the final payment solely upon his evaluation. You can argue that it is a stupid way to write an agreement, and we could debate that. You could say that the customer’s identity is suspicious, and we could debate THAT too. But the judge will not. And the judge will not let IH try to debate those ideas before the jury.

          • 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.

          • Chapman

            Exactly – but not the “Accuracy”, only the “Honesty” of the ERV will matter. Any reference to the customer, and its power consumption, is only relevant – and admissible as an inquiry – if or when Penon has been impeached based on malice and fraud, not incompetence. Penon must be destroyed in order to release IH from honoring his judgement. Only then will IH be able to address their liability to Rossi on the basis of some OTHER evaluation of the plant’s performance. Until Penon is eliminated, no other opinion as to the plant’s performance matters in the least.

            If they DO take Penon out, then it’s no-holds-barred!!! That is when the roller-coaster begins… But at that point, Penon, Rossi and several others will be behind bars, so it will be an anticlimactic ride.

            Keep in mind, The ERV is not an issue of evidence. The plant is not the legal question. The ERV is the subject. The object of the inquiry. The legal question will not be “did the plant produce energy”, it will be “Is Penon a Fraud, who conspired with Rossi”. Only after establishing the fact of the latter point can the debate turn to the former.

            A perfectly honest ERV report that nonetheless came to a wrong conclusion still does not release IH from it’s obligation to honor the payment. The ERV was a representative of IH, and his actions bind IH to the obligation.

          • 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?

            http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/malice
            In its legal application, the term malice is comprehensive and applies to any legal act that is committed intentionally without Just Cause or excuse

            http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Just+Cause
            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.

        • 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 https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-2.pdf).

          • Chapman

            God bless you… I was running out of steam… 🙂

          • 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

            You want the dark side?

            I could post my darkest fears, what I believe we will see friday, but I would get flamed for jumping ship or for pretending to have psychic powers.

            Unfortunately, you do not need to “See the Future” to read a roadmap and know there is a cliff ahead.

          • GiveADogABone

            I do not have a roadmap for the American legal system and must rely on others more learned in that regard. I guess I wait by the roadside for Friday. No point driving off a cliff.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Exactly what I think. IH needs proof. Didn’t Rossi say everything was on video?

          • 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. Again I remind that this is for the potential investors and not connected to the way the contract for the one year test is worded. What the court does with the contract is another point that may or may not help with investor confidence. However with a court decision that ERV is acceptable then the COP of 50 will drive investors to Cherokee/ IH. This also answers the question of why IH is doing what they are doing: not paying the $89 million 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…

          • clovis ray

            I totaly disagree, the customer’s electric bill will tell all, along with his check stubs where he payed close to 1/2 millon for the heat consumed, and that I/H has accepted those funds as payment for said product. they are being sued, for breach of contract, it’s on them to prove they did not breach, the measurements be damned, 3 different partys have the data, two of which are the same or close, only I/H is claming foul,

    • 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) be 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.

      Furthermore, if the production plant was an evaporator, working at atmospheric pressure, the secondary water flow into the evaporator would check the energy transfer from the E-cat. That would be a reading not available to the ERV. And here is the sting in the tail: that secondary water flow in the production plant would match the water flow in the E-cat.

      The production side people could testify to everything bar the E-cat electricity and corroborate the energy transfer and water flow rates.

      • 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.

  • Chapman

    As a final note – Many of you are still thinking that this legal action puts Cold Fusion “to the test” at last, in court. This is not so. Cold Fusion, and LENR will not be the issue.

    IH is the defendant on a claim regarding defaulting on a financial obligation.

    The only entity going on trial here will wind up being Penon… If he is impeached as a fraud, and for colluding with Rossi to swindle IH, then the issue gets referred for criminal prosecution. If IH fails that, then the contract agreement stands and IH must abide by Penon’s findings, and pay Rossi accordingly.

    But remember, they can not simply disagree with Penon – they chose him as their authorized expert, and bound the commitment to pay solely upon his evaluation. No, they have to destroy him. They have to prove NOT that he did bad science ( would not change anything in the least ) but that he misrepresented his intentions, interests, and associations. They will have to prove MALICE on the part of Penon to ever get to the point of even being allowed to present their other arguments before the jury. The judge will not allow the introduction of misleading or irrelevant assertions to be presented to the jury, because the judge’s job is to constrain the issues presented to the jury to those that are relevant to the decisions the jury is being asked to rule upon. ONLY when Penon has been destroyed UTTERLY will the arguments be allowed to expand into questions regarding anything beyond that first hurdle…

    • 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.

        • roseland67

          Chapman,

          That’s it?
          I don’t want to see anyone trashed either, but I would like to see evidence of
          Energy out > Energy in.

          IF, the court somehow decides that the Ecat does in fact perform as Rossi suggests, the “veil” they shrouds LENR may in fact get lifted enough for real government funded research to begin.

          If not, we’re back to duck, dodge and hide, flee, avoid & evade, maybe, almost kinda sorta, any day now, soon etc etc.

          • Chapman

            Sorry to disappoint, friend, but it is just so!

            I make lots of noise, but carry few grudges, and do not have a vengeful spirit. My indignations flash bright, then burn away to ash with nary a stain left behind to betray their existence.

            I do not see any value in drawing out the dispute, nor of forcing either party to a painful and embarrassing surrender. A peaceable and gentlemanly settlement would allow all parties to move forward to greater independant glory of their own making.

            There comes a point in a messy divorce where the pain of the present fight has exceeded the anger over past transgressions, and the continued misery that we subject ourselves to leads to no solace, just more despair. There is a time to let go. Rossi and IH have reached that point. So it is time to just severe the ties that bind them one to another, and let them seek separate fortunes in distant waters.

            And that which is best done, is best done quickly…

          • 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.

          • Chapman

            Please keep in mind, I am not saying this WILL happen – but that this is the most likely response we can reasonably predict given what we know of IH’s position, intentions, and financial prospects.

            My personal unwavering support and respect of Rossi is rather well documented in these pages. I do not even pretend to be impartial. I am an official Rossi FanBoy. Hell, I have the T-Shirt! So no one should question my motives for presenting this analysis – I am simply trying to look realistically at what may be going on.

            I continue to look forward to seeing Rossi triumphant, and RICH!!! But we are always better confronting problems, and battling with solid footing, than turning our backs and praying our enemies suffer self inflicted wounds before stabbing us in the back.

            I agree that Rossi has an excellent legal position, and that all arguments to be made against him can be overcome, but only by applying greater cunning and critical thinking than that employed by his adversary.

          • roseland67

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

          • Chapman

            Old? Age is relative, I guess.

            I would say, “Old enough to know his works well, yet not so old as to have had the pleasure of his company…”

          • roseland67

            Old enough to “know”?

            Damn, you’re old
            The rest of us 60 year old engineers are still wondering and you “know”

          • Chapman

            ” us 60 year old engineers”

            Now I understand what is behind your lively debates:
            Youthful Exuberance!

            I did not realize I was engaging with such a group of Youngsters… Why, it is almost as though I have taken unfair advantage of a bunch of kids. 🙂

          • roseland67

            Sure you are

        • 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.

          • Chapman

            Ah yes, the third option. Things are never black and white, yes? There is always a little grey spot in between…

            You are CORRECT Sir! Well spotted.

          • 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.

    • 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

        No, it means that IH can waive the 1 year test and move directly into a distribution phase if the plant design displays overwhelming evidence that it is robust and dependable enough for commercial and industrial rollout without the need of such extended testing.

        This gave IH the ability to waive the requirement FOR the ERV certification, not the right to dispute it when it came.

  • 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 https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-2.pdf).

      • 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

      wow,incredible,

  • 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!

  • 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

    http://www.bls.gov/regions/southeast/news-release/2016/pdf/averageenergyprices_miami_20160616.pdf
    $1.5/therm
    1 therm = 29.3kwh
    150/29.3 c/kwh
    5c/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?

  • 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.

    • Chapman

      You know, how about this idea. Double or nuthin’.

      IH was supposed to pay 89 million for the successful test, right? OK, so they want to argue and ask for a redo because they do not agree with the results, so let the judge order IH to put 178 million in escrow to the court, then have Rossi redo the test for anything up to a year. When the ERV report shows a continuous COP over 6 for the test period Rossi gets paid 89 million for EACH of the tests that IH required him to perform.

      That is only fair, right? 89 million was the established price! They want two – they PAY for two. I suspect Rossi would even agree without protest, if the funds were put in escrow this time.

      Even Jeb, Lumox and Weevil could not argue against the fairness in THAT proposition. Everyone wins, nobody gets screwed…

      • 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.

        • Chapman

          Damn you, Hitesh! You spoil my fun!!! Why do you bring FACTS into a perfectly good joke? 🙂 🙂 🙂

          Well done friend! You spotted the weak link in my humorous proposal.

          But I am cheered to see there is at least one other person out there that understands the nature of the payment schedule, and what was being purchased! There seems to be a great deal of confusion on the matter that I have been unable ,to date, to dispel. Thank you for acknowledging the real agreement terms!

          • Hehehe, sorry for ruining your joke… 😉

        • 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.

  • Chapman

    Just because I hate to have a good idea go to waste…

    FROM JONP:

    Chapman

    July 31, 2016 at 6:55 PM
    Dr Rossi,

    Good Day Sir! I hope all is going well.

    We are having a lively debate over at E-Cat World regarding the potential for a court ordered Re-Test as part of your ongoing litigation against IH.

    I was hoping to get your input to a theoretical solution I proposed.

    Mind you, this is just a hypothetical question, but, since the payment due upon a successful 1-year test was 89 million dollars, would you not agree, hypothetically, that if IH wants to force the court for a re-test it would be perfectly reasonable to require them to post 178 million dollars into escrow prior to the commencement of the second test?

    Upon certification of the second test’s successful operation with a continuous COP in excess of 6, you would then be granted 89 million from the escrow account for EACH of the two tests IH had required of you!

    Luckily, you would not need to risk your health on a second long-duration test, as I, your humble Humanoid Virtual Tele-Presence Device would happily take your place, for 365 days of consecutive 12 hour shifts within the plant, for a mere 10% of the second tests purchase price. That’s right! For a low, low 8.9 million dollars I could wear a 3d visor, headset, microphone and any other gear of your choosing to allow you remote access and viewing of the plant status while you lounge by the pool and sip mint juleps! Such is the faith that I have in your Engineering Skills!!!

    But joking aside, would you not agree, hypothetically, that a “take two, pay for two” approach would be the courts only reasonable way to accommodate such an absurd demand from IH?

    GOD BLESS!

    CHAPMAN

    Let’s see what he has to say! It might be fun.
    Or he might just tell me to %^$# off, which will be HILARIOUS for all of you!! 🙂

    Do you see the lengths I will go to in order to amuse you guys??? You really do not appreciate me. 🙁

    • Steve D

      You’ve certainly stirred up this debate. You’ve made it your own. Just hope the legal eagles are tuning in to pick up a few pointers.

    • 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.

  • GiveADogABone

    The ERV’s contractual obligation is stated in the Licence Agreement :-
    ‘5. The ERV … will be engaged to confirm in writing the Guaranteed Performance.’

    What must the Guaranteed Performance Confirmation Document(GPCD) actually say? It has to say whether or not ‘the Guaranteed Performance has been achieved as required by Section 5 below’.

    Section 5 says ‘Payment of the amount set forth in Section 3(c) is contingent upon the Plant operating at the same level (or better) at which Validation [Section 4] was achieved for a period of 350 days …’

    Section 4 says, in essence, CoP>6 and steam hotter than 100C for 24 hours.

    So the GPCD must report the Validation document (CoP>6 and steam hotter than 100C) and confirm that this level was achieved (or better) for a period of 350 days. So three numbers :-
    1: CoP>6
    2: Steam temperature>100C
    3: Duration of test>350 days.
    and that is all.

    There is no opinion in any of that; just the collection of a mass of data and its reduction to three numbers. If the essence of the GPCD is just three numbers, why does destroying the ERV’s standing change anything? If the mass of data is still available (and I sincerely hope it is), then why would checking that data thoroughly and the instruments that produced it not validate the GPCD?

    Further validation or corroboration is available by starting up the original E-cat, possibly with new test instruments, and a somewhat weaker validation is possible with a new E-cat. Running any old E-cat and measuring CoP>6 and steam temperature>100C would add weight to the argument. At this point it is worth remembering that the jury makes its decision about the facts on the basis of the probabilities.

    The whole thing is just numbers which I have been saying for a long while; it has nothing to do with the ERV’s opinion and there is no point in trying to destroy his personal standing. If the ERV was run over by the proverbial bus tomorrow what changes? The numbers are still all there, so is the plant that produced them and the legal case continues.

    • Chapman

      Friend, that is precisely what we have been saying. The numbers are the numbers. Even IH knows this. And the numbers were collected following the same protocols that were established and accepted for the validation testing.

      It is precisely BECAUSE this reduces to simple numbers that IH can only invalidate the report by proving the numbers themselves were intentionally FALSIFIED. That Penon and Rossi colluded to gimmick the measuring devices, and record false data. The fraud they would have to prove would need to include everyone with any technical skill that had any continued access to the plant, including their own employees.

      There is no window here for minor incompetence. If the ERV report is invalid, it is a criminal enterprise involving everyone BUT Darden. They must have ALL conspired against that one man… But cracking that nut – establishing that case – requires FIRST destroying Penon, then tieing him to his nefarious accomplices.

      BUT, this gives us the mirror logic. IF IH can NOT prove that Penon colluded with Rossi to perpetrate fraud, then he is not impeached, and his report stands as-is as the evaluation of plant operation. No further review of the raw data, or testing of the plant, is required. His report is THE REPORT, unless Penon himself is proven a fraud.

      You continue to reach further than is required.

      1. Penon is NOT proven a fraud = ERV report stands as presented and is NOT subject to rebuttal or review – as per the contract…

      2. Penon IS proven a fraud, which implicates Rossi and pretty much everyone who MUST have known it was going on = THEY ALL GO TO JAIL…

      You keep going into details of the numbers as if they matter, but they do not. We are not talking about a situation where they were targeting a COP of 6 and Penon certified they hit 6.17, just enough to squeak by. Maybe that narrow margin could justify examining the tolerances and even how many decimal places Penon carried through on the equations, because 89 million riding on the difference between 3 decimal places versus 6 would be a good basis for a debate on proper consistent standards. But this is nowhere near that level. The reported COP is an order of magnitude greater than that minimum stipulated. There is no review of the math than can shift the output that far, AND yet not be known to all involved.

      With ALL due respect, you keep arguing a Thesis, while I am arguing a legal case. Law is not regulated through Peer Review.

      And here is the kicker: The legal challenge will not be based on the COP reported. That is, as explained, a legal dead end. No, the challenge will be to the real purpose of the test, which was durability and stability. They will be challenging that there was fraud committed hiding downtime. The test required 350 days of operation at the required level out of 400 testing days. They will be arguing that some days were below that standard, and 350 days were not achieved. The fraud they will pursue involves replicating the status numbers from operational days to hide the system downtime. They have dropped a thousand hints that telegraph what they intend, and they even had Jeb and Weevil softening the beach with FUD that establishes later doubts in this regard. They are just making noise and keeping you distracted by arguing the math, but the math is rock solid, and they know it. The attack will be from a totally different direction. Because it is the LAWYERS that are directing the case, and they know what matters in court. Math does not. Record falsification does.

      And of course, this is why any notion of a retest is foolishness. A retest will not prove a historical record, which is what will be challenged. Firing up the old beast and showing it CAN run at COP>6 for some duration does not PROVE it DID run at that rate for those specific days they will challenge it was idle or only partially active. It also explains why they did not stop the test. The accumulation of idle days did not mean the final count would be a failure. They probably addressed the concern to Rossi, and there may have been a growing argument over how many qualifying days had been accrued. Toward the end Rossi would have known they would contest the count, and so he prepared a legal challenge. Yet there was no grounds for IH to force a stop untill the 400 day limit was approaching and it became mathematically impossible to reach the magic 350. Rossi stopped the test believing he had reached 350. IH disagreed. They had information regarding up/down time that differed from Rossi and Penon’s reports. IH was unable to “Substantiate” the status of the plant on a number of specific days in question.

      THAT is the case that they will present to the judge… And LENR, and the physics of the plant, will never come under review.

      • 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.

        • Chapman

          Rossi is sure he is right.

          Unfortunately, IH is also sure THEY are right.

          Neither is actively seeking to screw the other…

          The sad thing is that this scenario is the one where there really are no bad guys.

          In this scenario, IH had concerns that Rossi would not address, which lead IH to unfounded suspicions, which made them start looking into every corner, which made Rossi think they were going to screw him no matter what – and it all snowballs.

          In literature it is referred to as “A Tragedy”.

          This is why I hope the mediator is able to bring the two parties to understand where the relationship went afoul. It may be beyond repair, but at least we have a chance of survivors…

          • 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?

          • Chapman

            ” ‘Unfortunately, IH is also sure THEY are right.’
            (CoP<2.6) OR (steam T<100C) OR (valid test days50) and (steam T>100C) but, sadly (valid test days<350)

            This demonstrates the tech is great, but Rossi is an unreasonable eccentric, subject to fits of rage and irascibility, which led him to irrational actions that have caused IH significant damages, both financial – and in terms of reputation and credibility amongst their peers.

            What is the proof? One instance where there is a cut-and-paste duplication in the tracking data. It is simple to expose, if it exists, and motives, circumstances or explanations as to "simple honest mistakes" have no bearing. If SOME of the data was copied, for whatever reason, then all the data is suspect, and IH's assertions as to their estimate of the number of days falsified is uncontestable. Such means that IH was justified in refusing payment because the test was a failure, which means Rossi wronged THEM, not the other way around. They were never in default – Rossi was…

            (keep in mind – I am proposing that this is what is in THEIR mind, not what I am personally advocating.)

            "Know Thine Enemy"

            Sun Tzu taught that the greatest advantage in war is to be underestimated and misunderstood by your enemy.

            The logical compliment to that assertion is "The Single Greatest Folly a General can embrace is to succumb to Bravado, ignore real threats, and willfully underestimate or fail to fully understand the motives and thinking of his enemy".

            Battles are fought with brute strength, but Wars are won by Intellect alone.

      • GiveADogABone

        Progress again.
        Attack comes in through #3: Duration of test>350 days.
        What is the counter-argument?

        1: Backup reactors were available? Rossi says :-
        http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/08/06/a-clearer-picture-of-the-1-mw-e-cat-plant-emerges/
        We have in the same container two sections, one with the [100] small E-Cats and one with the 4 Tigers, each section with a power of 1 MW. The strategy consists in using the 4 tigers, maintaining as a reserve the small E-Cats.

        We turned it on for several days at the beginning of the test, just to check it working, then turned it off and used only the 4 x 250.
        I’ve just had a powerful whiff of B***S**T from IH.
        Anyone seriously think that Rossi would not turn on the backup plant if the main one went down? I suppose electricity supply failure would knock out both.

        2: Part-load running not excluded by License Agreement.
        Please see 1: above.

        3: Heat transfer records from the production plant.
        4: Continuous recording of test data.
        5: Focus is on ‘specific days in question’.

        • Chapman

          Yeah, attack comes in as #3. They will probably claim only about 320 days of qualified operation. Furthermore, they will likely claim that the 400 day limit was not a reset, and they tried to address the issue with Rossi, but met with increasing hostility.

          They will leave it that they did not stop the test, that is was Rossi who insisted he had made the 350 count, even when they had told him that the test must continue a little longer to get a full count of 350 uptime days in a sliding 400 day window.

          But Rossi ended the test, declaring his own success.

          They will claim the issue is a self inflicted wound by Rossi, and he has no claim against them. They were simply demanding strict observance of the test protocol.

          Rossi then took the extraordinary step of cancelling the agreement entirely, which negates his claim for 89 million outright. IH is now out their full investment, plus potential profits from future sales, because Rossi unjustly canceled their License Agreement.

          They will not be putting forward a bullshit defense. They will come in with a completely rational explanation, and a clear argument as to how THEY are the damaged party.

          As I said, it has nothing to do with LENR. It will be an argument over technicalities.

          Oh, by the way, look into the contract and see if you can find anything allowing backup systems to carry the load during servicing. Because a stress test of the plant would require the tested element to be active the whole time. Having a backup would preserve IH/Rossi’s relationship with the client, so as to minimize his inconvenience, but days where a backup had to be brought on line would arguably be days of non-operation for the primary reactor, right? And would therefor not qualify as active days towards the 350 day count. Rossi would counter that the PLANT, as a whole, was the test bed, and the backup units in the plant are part of the operational failsafe system, therefore running on backups counts as THE PLANT maintaining operations for the day, and as such would be a qualifying day.

          This is the kind of dispute we are likely to see.

          Now, can you see why I say firing back up the system for some proposed retest will solve nothing relative to the dispute?

          • GiveADogABone

            I see nothing in the license agreement that says that :-
            1: part load operation, or
            2: running backup plant
            is a failure of a day for the purposes of the Guaranteed Performance test being longer than 350 days.

            Rossi’s statement in this regard is :-
            We turned [the backup plant] on for several days at the beginning of the test, just to check it working, then turned it off and used only the 4 x 250.

            If IH failed to object to that at the time then, using previously discussed logic(estoppel), they accepted it as part and parcel of the 1-year test.

            The backup plant contained 100 reactors. If part load operation counts, then the probability of not having half of them start is minute, barring any overall failure (like the electricity supply). All of this also hints very strongly at the importance of the load being present 350/24/7. Total reliability needed.

            ‘Rossi then took the extraordinary step of cancelling the agreement entirely, which negates his claim for 89 million outright’
            Cancellation of the agreement was way later than the failure to pay. I do not believe Rossi would have issued that public statement about withdrawal without taking legal advice.

            ‘They will come in with a completely rational explanation, and a clear argument as to how THEY are the damaged party.’
            We have not figured out what it is yet.

            ‘And would therefor not qualify as active days towards the 350 day count.’
            I have no precise knowledge of any definition and the question is open. What would qualify for sure is a continuous 24 hour run with CoP>6 and steam temperature>100C. In other words the 350 day test is a series of 350 separate validation tests, as per clause 4. Were the ERV, Rossi and the IH rep signing off each day as valid as the test progressed? With 350 signed sheets in the file was the test complete?

            ‘can you see why I say firing back up the system for some proposed retest will solve nothing relative to the dispute?’
            No. What this is about is the jury and raising their confidence that the E-cat can work, that it can work at CoP>6 and steam temp>100C and that a claim by IH that the E-cat produced no anomalous heat is far from a certainty. The jury decides on the facts on the basis of probabilities. Any argument or presentation that shifts those probabilities in the right direction and from the jury’s point of view is worthwhile.

          • Chapman

            The fact that no accommodation was made to allow the use of backups during the stress test means they were not part of the allowed protocol. Having backups installed made sense for the sake of guaranteeing the client uninterrupted service, but such use could not be interpreted by any reasonable person as qualifying as days of demonstrated primary device operation. The backups would have been cited as “an allowable exception”. Stating that “they were not expressly forbidden therefor means they were allowed” would also apply to the use of a series of diesel generators or a million gerbils on tiny treadmills!

            You were testing whether one of Rossi’s 1MW plants could endure 1 year (or actually 350 days in a 400 day span) of continuous operation in an industrial environment without significant failure or degradation, while consistently maintaining an energy output and COP equal to or greater than that demonstrated in the Validation test.

            Proposing that such a test would allow alternative units to be activated and still count as time credited to the primary system being tested is simply ridiculous. Rossi could have just as easily had 4 separate plants hooked up in parallel and swapped them each on independently for a 3 day run, then allowing 9 days of service before each unit had to perform again – would that have been a “Stress Test” of a single product/unit? No.

            Keep in mind, I am playing devil’s advocate here. I am a big Rossi fan and a true believer, so do not think I am bashing the man. But I am demonstrating that there is a realistic, and believable, argument to be made by IH that can walk over Rossi in court, just not one based on COP or Physics.

            Finally, I would point out that IH refused a refund. This means they WANT the tech, and the rights. Darden took in huge investments based upon the tech. He is unlikely to pursue a case claiming total fraud regarding the tech. That would damn himself for incompetence and naivete.

            Focusing the case on a dispute regarding a failure to allow the test to run the required number of qualified days allows Darden to fully endorse the COP and Function findings, and avoid damaging the value of the distribution rights he seeks to retain. It shifts the failure from the technology to the MAN – Rossi.

            Showing evidence that telemetry was modified or cut-and-pasted from fully functioning days to hide questionable days will demonstrate that Rossi was aware of the requirements and sought to hide the true state of the plant at a given time. Even ONE INSTANCE of such chicanery will damn Rossi completely. It will only require exposing a single provable instance where data was altered to completely discredit Rossi, Penon and the ERV Report.

            And all of this is ONLY the ANSWER to Rossi’s claim – it does not cover where they will go with the counter claim!

            I still believe they will go after the IP – as a matter of waiving the remaining due on the lifetime license(89 mil) in lieu of punitive damages, and establishing that Rossi defaulted on the agreement – which means Rossi is subject to the default restrictions listed in the contract, so he basically has to retire.

            I also suspect that IH is going to pull the “Rossi was an employee at the time he was working in the plant, and all discoveries and improvements made in that capacity are the property of IH.” They will demand all data on the Quark, and he will be forced to sign a Document of Understanding acknowledging IH’s ownership of the Quark IP.

            Rossi will be unable to compete in the energy field, and could not even continue to market in europe and other non IH territories, because IH will be marketing secondary energy tech there, and the exclusion states no competition at all.

            If Rossi can be shown to have altered or falsified so much as a single HOUR of telemetry, he is done… Destroyed. And it has no effect on the marketability of the E-Cat, which IH will then pursue on a global scale.

          • GiveADogABone

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

          • Chapman

            I expect to be spending Friday evening throwing crystal at the walls and cursing my computer screen, followed by a few childish tantrums involving inappropriately worded online postings.

            THEN, having completed my usual Friday evening rituals – I will check in to see how the IH answer turned out!

          • 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.]

          • Chapman

            Actually, I am reading the agreement exactly as it IS written!

            They already DID the validation test and demonstrated the ability to produce the reported energy at the designated COP. That was not in dispute.

            The 1 year test was not a duplicate of the first. The first test demonstrated a performance potential that was acceptable for commercial development and marketing. The second test was a 1 year test to ensure that performance could be maintained over a long service period.

            The purpose of that, or any, test establishes and defines the necessary protocols and allowances, but you are trying to interpret that some things, such as the use of backups, or partial operation, were allowable BECAUSE they were not precluded specifically in the verbage. It works the other way around. That which is not expressly specified is prohibited. We can easily define a stress test, and all parties understand what IS required, but you could never list in a contract the infinite number of things that are NOT allowed. They are NOT allowed by virtue of the fact that they negate the validity of any result obtained. They are contrary to the expressed intent.

            If the test was only a demonstration that ROSSI, himself, could manage to juggle the primary reactors, various backup units, and whatever else he could drag into the warehouse in order to provide a continuous SOURCE of energy feeding to the customer, like some circus plate-spinner and juggling savant, then ROSSI would be the PRODUCT being demonstrated! And THAT would be a one-time sale to the highest bidding customer!

            I am not adding what is not there, I am applying what IS there, to the purpose for which it was codified – While you seek to justify what is NOT there, contrary to, and in denial of, the very purpose of the test.

            Necessary service and maintenance was accommodated by the stipulation of 350 days out of 400. This roughly works out to operating 6 days a week, allowing ample time for simple maintenance and even minor repairs, without compromising the customers work schedule. But the primary system being tested was clearly expected to be running at full load and under predictable conditions for the full 350 demonstration.

            This is not an alien idea. It is standard testing procedure.

            When the navy commissions new battleships, they first have demonstrations of the technological elements proposed, then there will be a prototype demonstrating full function and top performance limits, then a sample unit is delivered to be put through trials and endurance tests – called Shake Down Cruises – to show that all the pretty bells and whistles and flashy-light-thingies work NOT just for demonstrations, but are robust and dependable enough to be functionally useful in real-life operational conditions.

            When a new battleship is undergoing such tests, the Navy does not allow the manufacturer to follow along with a support convoy of repair ships and a string of “Duplicate” Battleships ready to be swapped out in case the subject of the test starts smoking and listing in the water!!! They are testing ONE SAMPLE of the device family to qualify how any other SINGLE device manufactured might hold up.

            Really, this is getting just a little silly. If this simple concept vexes you, I am not sure how I can clarify, because this stuff is 99% common sense, not legal jargon or Law. This is the well of common understanding that the courts refer to as “Any Reasonable Person”.

            ( remember – I continue to argue as best I can from IH’s perspective. Do not shoot the messenger! 🙂

          • 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?

          • Chapman

            No.

          • Chapman

            Yes.

          • Chapman

            Wait! NO.

            Oh crap, I lost track… What were we debating again?

            Crap Crap Crap…. I blew it. That means you win, but only through default. Don’t go breaking your arm patting yourself on the back!

            But still, I will record it as DogBoner-1, Chapman-0 🙂

          • 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.
            PS
            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.

          • Chapman

            I have enjoyed our conversation greatly! You are articulate, which makes things easy to follow even when the fine details of your thoughts get complex, and your arguments are based on logical details and deductive reasoning. It is funny how so many confuse critical thinking with skepticism, and wholesome debate with pointless arguing.

            Hint: “Nuh-Uh” is not a debate… 🙂

            You know, there was a time – way back before Mario set out to free Princess Peach – when people used to engage in conversation for the entertainment value, as well as for the intellectual stimulation. But at some point we collectively decided that Beating Bowser in the Nth finale had more social value, and garnered one more prestige, than actually socializing and interacting with our fellow citizens.

          • 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.

          • 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 as a reactor is taken off-line. 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.

          • Chapman

            Just for the record – I pulled the 320 number out of my butt. I just figured about 10% short. Less of a shortage would be within range to whittle down, while greater would imply to much instability of the plant. But if they want a solid number that justifies failure of the test criteria, but not so bad as to be a TOTAL FAILURE of the technology, then falling short by 10% just feels reasonable.

            As far as the backups are concerned, I think IH would have insisted on the backups as part of the service commitment to the customer, but that when they had to be used it would be understood that such periods must be considered “inactive” times for the primary system being tested.

            Finally, the “best efforts” clause is a provision against Rossi “taking a dive” and intentionally failing the test for personal reasons – such as looking to get out of the contract in the event that a more lucrative offer is proffered by a separate prospective partner. It in no way enjoined Rossi to use every trick available, regardless of the test protocols, to try to pass the test – it is understood that the test protocol establishes limits, requirements, and prohibitions. This test, as all things in life, came with rules.

          • GiveADogABone

            1: ‘I pulled the 320 number out of my butt.’
            Worry not; I knew that you did not have a copy of the test data.

            2: ‘Finally, the “best efforts” clause is a provision against Rossi “taking a dive”‘
            I agree and as I stated, ‘This is not just a permission to repair, adjust and alter; it is a duty to do it.’ I think we are saying the same thing in slightly different ways.

            3: ‘but that when [the backups] had to be used it would be understood that such periods must be considered “inactive” times for the primary system being tested.’
            So were the four days of running on the backups[Ref 1:] at the beginning of the test part of the valid test days or not?

            Did this understanding get put into written form and included in the Licence Agreement? Do you have evidence on the point?

            4: 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

            750 …….. 50
            750 …….. 50
            750 …….. 50
            1000 ……. 50
            1000 ……. 50
            1000 ……. 50
            1000 ……. 50
            What is going on here? [Ref 2:]
            Is that possible? [Ref 2:]
            IH thinks it is unsubstantiated.
            Rossi knows the answer and so do I.

            [1:] http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/08/06/a-clearer-picture-of-the-1-mw-e-cat-plant-emerges/
            We have in the same container two sections, one with the small E-Cats and one with the 4 Tigers, each section with a power of 1 MW. The strategy consists in using the 4 tigers, maintaining as a reserve the small E-Cats.

            Then, as backup there are 100 or so small reactors. I asked Rossi why they did not automatically kick in when one of the Tigers was taken offline for repair recently.

            He replied:
            I try not to consume the reserves, to maintain them intact in case of serious failure of one or more “Tigers”. For short reparations it is not necessary to turn on the reserve. That is my safety boat if the ship sinks. This is the strategy. As a consequence of this strategy, we do not use the reserve together with the fighting “division”. We turned it on for several days at the beginning of the test, just to check it working, then turned it off and used only the 4 x 250.

            [2:] http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=885&cpage=6#comment-1107034
            Andrea Rossi
            August 4, 2015 at 5:24 PM

            This morning at 2 a.m. we had again a problem to one of the four 250 kW reactors. We lost the 25% of the production until 4 p.m. ( a couple of hours ago), when the reactor has been put again at work.
            Normal behavior regarding the rest of the plant. The “M.Me Curie” Hot Cat is not yet ready. In few words: a battle day. Now we are looking at the computers to check that all is set. The Murphy Law is enforced by the fact that problems happens always between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., when I am in the plant alone, apart the officers of the security. I spend the nights with the fatigue clothes to be ready to dive in the plant. Therefore for me is a sadistic solace to phone at 3 a.m. to my teamsters, saying ” We have a problem, please come here asap” ( he,he,he).
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

          • Chapman

            On the issue of the COP, I agree with YOU 100%. The stipulation was for a critical energy ratio (COP) not a specific output energy level. It is an issue where there is ambiguity between the written word of the contract agreement and the expressed intent OF the agreement and test sequence. It is an issue that the court will have to interpret according to the “Reasonable Person” standard. I keep stressing it as a matter that IH will be arguing, but it is not necessarily indicative of my PERSONAL view of it. I am pleased that you understand the PURPOSE of this entire exchange between us, and do not think less of me for expressing contradictions while playing the part of IH by proxy! The truth is that Rossi could have Idled the reactors down to 10Kw output on days when the CUSTOMER had production problems and there was no load for Rossi to satisfy – and as long as the idling input energy remained at 10% the maintained idle output it would still qualify as meeting the written criteria. You are 100% correct on your facts, as always.

            Second issue – The backups. In regards to these, I would say we need to see the plant specifications that Rossi is using for the 3 plants he is currently constructing for the “Customer” at his factory. IF those plants include a full set of backup reactors that are to be brought online during primary reactor unit service, then the Backups are an integral part of the overall system AS MARKETED, and would thereby be fully allowable in justification of the qualifying days during the test. Extending the Stress Test logic, the test was of the durability of The Plant to meet commercial and Industrial environment demands. As such, all ancillary systems included in the plant, as a whole, were part of the test being conducted. This is in exact accordance to my pointing out that the Validation test had already established the individual reactors ability to produce a COP of 6 or greater, and there was no point in re-demonstrating that capability for a longer period of time. I repeatedly stated during our conversation that the test was a test of a proposed Design intended for Manufacture and Marketing – as such, every component that is part of that design not only COULD be used, but I would extend that argument personally to state that Rossi should have been REQUIRED to periodically take primary reactors off line, in simulation of system failures, in order to validate the failsafe and backup systems. Such actions would not be in violation of the protocol, but a vital and required component of the overall test.

            And THAT is how I, if I were Rossi, would address the issue to the court if such a complaint was, indeed, proffered by the IH team. As stated, the reality is that there are perfectly reasonable complaints that IH may bring forth in support of their position. These reasonable complaints will have a direct impact on the jury. You can not go into court prepared only with a set of legal pads with ten thousands lines of notes that just say “Nuh-Uh”, “Did not”, and “Prove it, smart ass!”. To counter perfectly reasonable claims you must FIRST predict their invocation, and take time to prepare an even MORE reasonable response. You win your case not by confusing the Jury, but by demonstrating you are the most reasonable party, that you consistently demonstrate calm reason, honesty, and good intentions. In the end the Jury decides based on who they believe is most likely to be the one telling the truth, or the one with the wisdom to have likely SEEN the truth during the initial conflict. Facts and evidence are actually secondary. In a surprising majority of such cases, after-action interviews show the Jury decides based on human instinct regarding likability, confidence, and faith. When the facts are confusing to the layperson, the decision becomes a popularity contest, and who to believe becomes “WHO is MOST believABLE”.

          • 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?

          • 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)

          • Chapman

            Replicators have pretty much shown that the knowledge IS out there already. Rossi could publish a full step-by-step tutorial through MFMP, but it is the Patent and IP that restrict market access for commercial development.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            And how would IH or the data show the backup reactor was running?

          • Chapman

            It is a given that in this test EVERYTHING was recorded. I suspect even the toilet flushes were recorded in a timelog somewhere making reference the event. Rossi has even spoken of the exhaustive mass of data points that were recorded, both by electric metering and station video. It is inconceivable that such monitoring would overlook the need to record which units were actually “On” at a given moment…

      • Eyedoc

        Hey Chapman I think you nailed it……so the case can go either way…… BUT THE SAD PART IS that they are delaying/denying a world changing tech because it worked perfectly ~330 instead of 350 days!! (according to IH)……….such nonsense is so frustrating

        • Chapman

          Agreed. And it is not like they are fighting over financial scraps! That pie is so big, they can split it up and cut it however they need, and none of the parties will ever go hungry again. Does it matter if you only get 1,029 times more money than you will ever be able to spend in your lifetime, rather than the 1,099 times you think you justly deserved??? Will you pee in the pie, simply because you think your slice was being cut a little smaller???

          In the meantime, people die of starvation, thirst, dysentery, and extremes of either freezing or heat stroke. Conditions all of which can be addressed with the availability of abundant energy resources. Not that the blood of those suffering is on either IH or Rossi’s hands – that is not my point – but there is no doubt that the world would benefit greatly if IH and Rossi could resolve their dispute and get this project moving again!!! How many of us, in our lifetimes, have ever had the chance to be of such relevance – to have such impact – to make such a difference… ?

    • JDM

      Nothing about 1MW ?

      • GiveADogABone

        Nothing that I can see in the License Agreement. If the E-cat runs at half power and still runs at a CoP above 6 and steam temperature above 100C then it is making the qualifying standard.

  • This article is an emblematic paradigma of the E-cat’s story.
    When we will see the end?
    I think the Court, in any case. will not put the last word on that

    • Zavod

      I think it just may bring an end to this and if Rossi is not careful, he could wind up in prison for fraud or contempt of court.

      • Andrew

        If the lawsuit goes to court it will end up with 2 possible outcomes. Penon, Johnson and Rossi go to jail. Or The Ecat get validated with some major media coverage.

        • 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…

        • 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.

          • Andy Kumar

            Good engineering analysis! I am sure, tomorrow the Sun will either rise or not. Only two possible outcomes, if we don’t get into fuzzy logic territory.

      • Michael W Wolf

        He would not have sued if that was the risk for him.

      • Omega Z

        Rossi already recieved $11 Million with no pay backsies.

        If he doesn’t have the goods, he could have just walked away with ZERO repercussions and lived a good retirement with no money issues ever.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    • Chapman

      I agree entirely. By any logical analysis it appears the “Customer”, and the formation of the company entity to facilitate the client contract and yet maintain privacy for the end client, has no taint. There is no smoking gun here, regardless of paranoid speculation.

      Common practices were in play at all steps. Some people do not like it, but that is the reality of how business – especially International Commerce – is conducted.

    • 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?

      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/malice
      In its legal application, the term malice is comprehensive and applies to any legal act that is committed intentionally without Just Cause or excuse

      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Just+Cause
      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.

  • 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.

  • 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

    Dude,
    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

    Do note the initials “JTV” appear twice on the attached document. Darden’s partner is John T. Vaughn.

    If Vaughn inked that document, well that opens up a few questions. From the handwriting, the alterations to the document were made by JTV.

    Does anyone have a sample of John T. Vaughn’s handwriting?

    • wpj

      I would have thought that you realised by now that all of that is a forgery by Rossi- have to admit that the guy is a master of deception!

      And, yes, the JM Chemical Products does look a bit too much like Johnson Matthey which is why things later changed to JM Products with the removal of “chemical” from the name (though I still believe that it is them).

      • Engineer48

        Hi Wpj,

        Other way around.

        Original registered “Customer” company waa JM Chemicals Inc, which was twice crossed out and changed to JM Chemical Products Inc by someone with initials JTV and counter initialled by Johnson the lawyer.

        Note 1: Johnson Matthey Chemical Products is a registered US company that makes “Sponge Metal” products in NJ, US.

        Note 2: Johnson Matthey, the parent company, is a UK based company.

        Note 3: John T Vaughn is Darden’s partner.

        • wpj

          I am aware of all that; being a chemist I was the one that first suggested Johnson Matthey as the client (and still believe it).

          My reply was English sarcasm.

          JM Products Corp

          7861 NW 46th St, Doral, FL 33166
          (786) 631-4676
          AKA:
          J & C Chemical Products

          • Engineer48

            Hi Wpj,

            I also believe Johnson Matthey is the UK parent of JM Chemical Products Inc and I have NO DOUBT IH also know the identity of the UK parent as they would have needed to conduct due diligence on the heat Customer they were getting into a 1 year bed /contract with.

  • Engineer48
  • Engineer48

    Interesting news:
    http://chemicals.matthey.com/news/05-july-2016/usa-plant-shutdown-july-2016

    Note the name.
    “Johnson Matthey Chemical Products”.

  • 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?

    Regards,
    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.

        Why?

        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?
        Regards,
        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.

          http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/18/1-mw-e-cat-plant-watch-thread-update-1-rossi-production-cost-in-kw-is-very-competitive/comment-page-8/
          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.

            Regards,
            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,
            A.R

          • 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.

            Regards,
            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
          THE COP BEFORE AND AFTER ARE THE SAME

          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.

  • 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?

    Regards,
    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.

        Why?

        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?
        Regards,
        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.

          http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/18/1-mw-e-cat-plant-watch-thread-update-1-rossi-production-cost-in-kw-is-very-competitive/comment-page-8/
          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.

            Regards,
            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,
            A.R

          • 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.

            Regards,
            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
          THE COP BEFORE AND AFTER ARE THE SAME

          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:

    http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?InquiryType=DocumentNumber&aggregateId=domp-p14000056117-f1b317f1-99eb-48c8-9cce-18b618a70d75&searchTerm=P14000056117&currentPage=0&SearchNameOrder=JMCHEMICALPRODUCTS%20P140000561170&directionType=Initial

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

    All clearly shown on the above web site.

  • Engineer48

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

    http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquiryType=DocumentNumber&aggregateId=domp-p14000056117-f1b317f1-99eb-48c8-9cce-18b618a70d75&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=JMCHEMICALPRODUCTS%20P140000561170&searchTerm=P14000056117

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

  • INVENTOR INVENTED

    The plot gets thicker and thicker

  • 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.
    PS
    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.

  • Steve D

    Please correct me if my recollection is incorrect, but during the one year test period I think Rossi said that his own test results agreed more or less with that of the ERV. This I thought was good news at the time, but in view of the current dispute the thought of Rossi and Penon sharing notes does not look good. Though this is not evidence of malpractice.

    Rossi and IH are on trial here when it should be cold fusion on trial. The one year test was to deliver definitive evidence that LENR is a real and an exploitable technology, or bury it forever. The trial is an unfortunate diversion. There has been some discussion here of a re-test, by I would assume court appointed expert witnesses. Even a COP between >1 and <6 would suffice to demonstrate its reality and generate sufficient excitement to open up the whole field, but would be out of range for the year long test requirements. I'm sure most following the field want to see LENR rubber stamped and on the move whether led by Rossi or not. We follow Rossi because he appears to be the field leader and has been communicative with his followers, but if there are others who could give Rossi a run for his money please make contact with ECW. I somehow don't think the courts will order a retest but it would be great if it did.

    Now for some irony. After F and P moved to France to their purpose built labs, funded by Toyota, Pons with confidence assured an interviewer that their discovery could be operational that year. Time passes and we waited for the completion of the one year ecat test. Now we wait another year for the court case to begin. It's said that Hot Fusion is thirty years away, always has been and always will be. Regretfully it's looking like Cold Fusion is one year away, always has been and always will be. I'm not sure what would try my patience more, waiting for an eternal thirty years to pass or waiting for an eternal one year to pass. But if the hot guys get their act together before the cold guys, 30 years could elapse before one year. How would that be for time warp?

    • 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

  • Chapman

    Well, friends… we are down to only a matter of minutes until we know what IH plans.

    Has anyone started a pool? How much to buy in? How many slots are still available?

    And yes, I have my “Rossi 2016” hat sitting here on the desk next to my keyboard, and next to it is a bottle of ketsup and a 32oz Pepsi – just in case I have to eat the damn thing!

    On the off chance I choke on the thing:
    “SO LONG, FOLKS! It’s been fun…”

    • Chapman

      What the hell? I stayed up for the midnight Pacer update – and NOTHING!!!

      It is WAY past my bedtime.

      This HAT is going to be a sorry breakfast if things look bad in the morning…

    • GiveADogABone

      You need sound technical advice :-
      http://www.instructables.com/id/edible-party-hat/
      Much more reliable than resurrection.
      PS:
      Do I always have to do the research for you?
      It is becoming something of a habit.

      • Chapman

        GENIUS!!!

    • Mats002

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

      https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3560-The-Industrial-Heat-Answer/?postID=30974#post30974

      No details yet…

      • Chapman

        So, nothing regarding the scientific results of the ERV, but rather a grand conspiracy to fake data entirely by just about everyone involved except for Darden…

        Kinda what I thought. Attack the Human aspect, not the science. You can only do so much Due Diligence on PEOPLE. Darden would look like an ass admitting he was fooled by science, and was chasing a fantasy – But falling victim to con men is a more forgivable mistake. This also covers him for his continued investment in OTHER players in the LENR field, like Brillouin – to whom he gave Rossi’s IP, and who are now running with it.

        Poor Darden! He has surrounded himself with such a nasty cast of unscrupulous characters! Here he was just trying to help the environment and improve the world, but he has been the victim of a grand conspiracy.

        I am a bit disappointed – I had dipped my hat is chocolate sauce and strawberry jam, just to be ready, and was starting to actually get curious about the resulting flavor.

        I wonder if it will wash out? After all, It IS my favorite hat…

        • 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.

      • GiveADogABone
        • Mats002

          Ha ha, this was funny too: Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here. This is the War Room.

  • 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 :-
    http://www.instructables.com/id/edible-party-hat/

    Much more reliable than resurrection.

  • Mats002

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

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3560-The-Industrial-Heat-Answer/?postID=30974#post30974

    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.

      http://www.matthey.com/about_us/products-technologies

      • LuFong

        Exactly.

        • GiveADogABone

          Do we have a number of conspiracy theories yet?

          • LuFong

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

  • INVENTOR INVENTED

    Why did Rossi run his tests less than 365 days? It seems like he planned to breach the contract or maybe a reactor breakdown occurred.

  • GiveADogABone

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3560-The-Industrial-Heat-Answer/?postID=31156#post31156
    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.

    http://football.mitoo.co/PlayersHistory2.cfm?PI=95623&LeagueCode=hoc2006
    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

    http://www.matthey.com/contactus/whereweoperate
    Cambridge
    28 Cambridge Science Park
    Milton Road
    Cambridge
    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.

  • GiveADogABone

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3560-The-Industrial-Heat-Answer/?pageNo=1
    ‘They even had an individual pose as James Bass in a meeting with Industrial Heat and express JMP’s satisfaction with the steam power JMP was receiving from the Plant and using to run its manufacturing operations. Attached as Exhibit 20 is a copy of the business card provided by this JOHN DOE representing himself as JMP’s “Director of Engineering.” ‘

    It seems possible/probable 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.

    http://football.mitoo.co/PlayersHistory2.cfm?PI=95623&LeagueCode=hoc2006
    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

    http://www.matthey.com/contactus/whereweoperate
    Cambridge
    28 Cambridge Science Park
    Milton Road
    Cambridge
    CB4 0FP

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

    ‘Unbeknownst to Counter-Plaintiffs, everything material in the Leonardo and Rossi proposal was false – there was no customer in Florida who needed steam power for its
    chemical products processing, there was no intention for Leonardo and Rossi to operate the Plant to provide power to a real customer’
    If James Bass enters the witness box, and repeats what IH claim he said in the allegation above, then this one seems to fall.

  • 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.’

            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 …

          • 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

            https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5ZV0oKQafY4bHhOZHlBZFZ4MG8

            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
            A.R.”

            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.

            Sincerely,
            Hank

          • 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

    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

    A.R.

  • 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

    A.R.

  • 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
    A.R.”

    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.

    Sincerely,
    Hank

  • 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.

  • Arnaud Viguié

    i just hope it does not all end as a scam where rossi attracted investors money by claiming it is field testing a revolutionnary process with an eventually fake industrial client… all the tests/reports by university researchers could not have been cheated, right?