More From Rossi on Restricted Access to the Customer's Plant

Andrea Rossi answered a question on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today which provides a bit more information about the restrictions placed upon Industrial Heat regarding access to the customer’s manufacturing plant during the 1-year E-Cat plant test that took place in Doral, Florida. Rossi was asked if Industrial Heat had access to the part of the factory where the customer’s plant was, and if they were able to take measurements of temperature in the customer’s area. His response:

Andrea Rossi
August 1, 2016 at 7:36 PM
Susan Cordasco:
Absolutely not. Nobody of IH has ever entered the area in which was the plant of the Customer, based on an agreement signed by IH and the Customer , on the base of which both parties were engaged not to enter in the respective areas. Between the two areas there was a wall that has never been violated by IH. I know this because such agreement has been signed also by me, as the responsible of the safety of the E-Cat area.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Based on Rossi’s answer here, I feel pretty certain that the picture below is of the premises where the 1MW E-Cat plant took place. Rossi mentions a wall between the E-Cat plant and the customer’s manufacturing facility which is clearly shown in the photograph. Rossi has mentioned that the doors to the plant were opened at one end, again which is shown here. There are two pipes shown between the two units. My guess is the top one is likely the one that provided steam for the customer, and the bottom is the return pipe for water, which according to Rossi was recirculated through the E-Cat plant.E-CatDoral
On the left side of the wall is a structure that could match with dimensions that Rossi recently provided giving the dimensions of the customer’s facility:

Andrea Rossi
July 28, 2016 at 10:01 AM
Ray:
Approximatively:
length 21 meters ( 70′)
width 3 meters ( 10′)
Height 3 meters ( 10′)
Plus the external ancillary components.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

From what Rossi says here, there was a written agreement between the customer and IH that neither party would have access to the other’s facility, and it sounds like the agreement was upheld.

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