Industrial Heat Responds to Rossi's Complaints

As expected, Industrial Heat has responded to the complaints Andrea Rossi has made in the lawsuit.

Here’s a link to the main document, there are other files for various exhibits which will be added later.

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IH-Answer.pdf

IH-Answer
document.

There is lots of reading to do and I am sure there will be lots to analyze and discuss. More to follow.

Thanks to LuFong for putting all the Exhibits mentioned in the IH answer in a Google Drive folder here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5ZV0oKQafY4bHhOZHlBZFZ4MG8

Here is a key allegation made in the counterclaim by Industrial Heat:

“7.Beyond the fact that Guaranteed Performance could not be achieved in the required time period, Leonardo and Rossi knew that the Plant could not produce a COP of 10.0 or greater (or even a COP or 4.0 or greater) for 350 out of 400 days. As a result, Leonardo and Rossi manipulated the testing process by, among other things, 1) insisting that the Plant be relocated to Miami, far away from Industrial Heat’s offices, to provide steam to a purported manufacturing “customer” that did not actually exist; 2) manipulating, along with Fabiani, the operation of the Plant and the reports of the Plant’s purported operations, to make it appear that the Plant was producing a COP far greater than 10.0; and 3) enlisting Penon to produce a false report stating that Guaranteed Performance was achieved.

8. “Eventually Counter-Plaintiffs discovered that the test that Leonardo and Rossi
were conducting, in conjunction with the supposed “customer” in Miami, was not a real test at all,
but a carefully scripted effort to deceive Counter-Plaintiffs into 1) providing Leonardo and Rossi
with credibility in their efforts to license and promote the E-Cat IP to others and/or obtain
investments from others in their business ventures, 2) making the third payment under the
License Agreement to Leonardo, 3) paying a multitude of expenses of Leonardo and Rossi
including in connection with their operations in Florida, and 4) paying Penon and Fabiani for
services not rendered and reimbursing them for unnecessary expenses. ” (p. 25-26)

“77. Notwithstanding that Leonardo and Rossi allowed visitors to the facility in Doral
where the Plant was located on a fairly regular basis, in July 2015, Rossi denied Murray access
to the Plant without any reasonable justification. See Ex. 19. Had Murray – given his
established engineering background – been allowed to access the Plant in July 2015, he would
have immediately recognized the deficiencies in the operations that were being conducted by
Leonardo and Rossi.

“78. Indeed, when Murray eventually gained access to the Plant in February 2016 and
examined the Plant, the methodology being used to operate the Plant, and the methodology being
used to measure those operations, he immediately recognized that those methodologies were
fatally flawed. Some of the flaws that he was quickly able to identify are explained in Exhibit 5.

“79. Leonardo, Rossi, JMP, and Johnson also restricted access to the JMP area at the
Doral location, claiming that there was a secretive manufacturing process being conducted there,
when in fact it was simply recycling steam from the Plant and sending it back to the Plant as
water.

“80. Leonardo, Rossi, JMP, Johnson and Fabiani even went so far as to create a
fictional JMP employee – James A. Bass, Director of Engineering for JMP. Despite diligent
search, Counter-Plaintiffs have not been able to identify or locate this individual, for the simple reason that he does not exist. Rather, Leonardo, Rossi, JMP, Johnson and Fabiani created this fictional person as a means of making JMP appear to be a real manufacturing company that
would need a Director of Engineering and to create a person with whom they would allegedly
interact on technical issues involving JMP’s non-existent operations and operational needs.
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.” (p. 45-46)

  • Ged

    Really looking forward to the Exhibitions. Only so much we can get from the document itself, though still plenty to look over. Mostly exactly as some commentators here, like Gerard, expected to see.

    I am assuming when they admit and deny a “paragraph”, they mean the exact paragraph in the relevant subsection of the original Complaint.

  • Publius

    A subpoena to James A. Bass will be very interesting.

    • Michael W Wolf

      If someone is lying, it could well be IH. They have to prove Rossi’s people said that name to them. Otherwise he has nothing to do with the contractual dispute. Now if IH has this claim in writing like email or part of some sworn by statements, then Bass can be a witness.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Do you think they had this fake business card printed up? Exhibit 20.
        James A. Bass, Director of Engineering, J.M. Products, Inc. … with a photo of some massive chemical plant.

      • Plobby

        They just need to show more likely than not; the burden is not high.

  • Publius

    Everyone has to be honest with themselves and accept that if even one of the multiple allegations against Rossi is proven true in a court of law, there is little doubt Rossi is a fraud.

    • Ged

      Which allegations, though? For instance, the IH counter makes the point that it could be Rossi didn’t transfer all of the IP to them, and if that is true in some technical way, that wouldn’t be fraud though it would very much be a break of the LA. “Even one” is a little too broad, unfortunately. The converse is true for the claims against IH as well, which they admit to quite a number of. Some aren’t all that important in magnitude or context compared to others.

      • Publius

        There are plenty of disturbing allegations revolving around a common theme of deception, lies, underhandedness, scheming, conspiracy, and fraud. I highly doubt ALL of them will be disproved.

        • Ged

          Guess we’ll have to see :)! The same is true for IH. That’s the great part about this being in court, as the Court will force all the facts into the open and actually evaluate them all.

          • jimbo92107

            If IH’s allegations are true, then we are witnessing a good example of “the big con,” where a smooth-talking, unscrupulous pseudo-scientist teams up with a collection of co-conspirators to defraud a rich investor.

            This would certainly explain why nobody has been able to replicate Andrea Rossi’s magic recipe for achieving nuclear levels of power gain. It would also explain why people that claim to have replicated the phenomenon never seem to get their process into the public domain.

            Months ago I commented that either way this story pans out, it would be fascinating. Now it appears that Andrea Rossi’s freedom will depend on his ability to prove that his claimed invention actually works, in a court of law. Will it work, fail, or will Rossi mysteriously disappear before the trial?

            Fellow fanboys, it’s getting close to betting time.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jimbo,

            And if IH’s allegations are not true, well the one doing the “the big con” is not Rossi.

            So far IH have not presented a technical defense to counter the COP 50 claim. The water flow meter claim is very weak at best.

            Nothing about faulty steam pressure nor faulty steam temperature measurements.

            The only technical claim they have made is the model of the flow meter’s min range was just above the measured flow. So what? Not a biggie if the ERV had the unit certified at the 1, 500kg/hr flow rate before & after the test as Rossi has claimed the ERV did. If so that certification destroys item 5.

            Why was the flow rate constant? Because the pumps used have in built period based flow rate monitoring & control. If you want 1, 500kg/hr, you dial in 1, 500kg/hr and that is what you get. Maybe the IH “expert” doesn’t understand what modern pumps can do?

          • jimbo92107

            The crucial phrase in all of this is, “if so.”

            My $100 dollars is now on Rossi being a fraud.

            If you are sure that Rossi did not know the ERV, and that Rossi’s metal boxes actually contain nuclear processes, rather than useless junk, let us wager.

            I assume that con man Rossi will continue to find reasons to delay his fateful court date, culminating in either his flight from justice or his complete humiliation in court. For that reason I believe we should stipulate that if he runs away, I win. If he shows up in court and fails, I win. If he shows up in court and succeeds, you win.

            Please understand that it would make me very happy to lose this wager, for it would mean boundless, dirt cheap energy for mankind. All I get if I win is a measly hundred bucks, and the knowledge that another unscrupulous con man got exposed. Go solar.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jimbo,

            Might I suggest you take you “con man” accusations to another forum, that is unless you can prove your claim.

            Here on ECW we debate the data we have and try to not get personal nor to make statements we can’t back up.

          • jimbo92107

            So you have no real confidence in your beliefs. I understand.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jimbo,

            There you go again. Trying to make it personal.

            Would suggest you review a few of my posts.

          • Omega Z

            Bronco Billy

        • Bob Greenyer

          Try to disprove god – or prove him.

          It will be down to those given the task of weighing the evidence to decide.

          • Publius

            The court’s task is much easier in this case. Either Rossi can back up his claims or he cannot. Bob, you of all people should see that the mounting evidence of fraud against Rossi is disheartening and if proven true, will be yet another setback for LENR.

          • timycelyn

            You seem to be assuming some of these IH counter-claims are sound. We do not know that yet, at all.

            The fact that there are 20, or 50, or 100 dodgy counter-claims in no way demonstrates fraud by Rossi, just a lot of imagination and creativity by IH’s lawyers.

            As Observer commented, let’s wait for the proof of the pudding.

            Personally, this is starting to smell to me more and more like an attempt to buy time for ?? [something] by slowing Rossi down.

          • Publius

            They better be sound and vetted by Jones Day or someone is going to jail for perjury. You don’t just introduce fraud claims for the fun of it.

          • Bob Greenyer

            What will be will be, for me, it makes little difference – we have observed in live experiments data that points to an anomaly – including that which shows a source of nuclear origin.

            People say the damnedest things in a divorce – sometimes quite cringe-worthy.

          • Publius

            You fail to see the power in the sworn allegations alone. In the American courts, a large corporation and top law firm don’t decide on a whim or in “anger” to voluntarily bring fraud claims before the court unless you are damn sure you aren’t going to ruin your reputation and get thrown in jail for perjury.

          • Ged

            Works both ways. All lawyers have to verify the Complaints they make on behalf of their clients, otherwise they get Rule 11’d, and terrible things happen to them. And any materially false evidence is perjury, so it’ll be interesting to see the response by Rossi’s lawyer.

          • Publius

            Yes, but alleging fraud and eluding/renouncing fraud are two different things. The alleging of fraud introduces a higher risk of perjury if you lying. It’s much easier to “elude” and dance around fraud claims made against you. Don’t you think Jones Day looked into each allegation with the knowledge that their reputation is hanging on each one which might be false?

          • Ged

            And same for Rossi’s lawyer. That’s the thing. You can’t apply such a rule of logic to one without doing it to the other. It is the weight of evidence that’ll matter in the end, as always. Someone is right and someone is wrong; but both sides could be presenting the facts as true from their point of view, yet incomplete to the actual story (so neither is lying materially, yet either could be wrong about the actual story and the way the law will rule).

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            As I understand the matter, making fraud claims and being unable to substantiate them before a jury can affect the jury’s opinion about your other claims.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            No.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Ged keeps claiming this about Rule 11 and has it all confused with perjury.

          • Ged

            Perjury is for evidence, but Rule 11 covers any false statements made in a Complaint or as part of any other claim. As I have previously linked it, it is a very serious matter to make a false statement in a Complaint or any other document submitted to the Court, and one will suffer consequences.

          • Ged

            Here’s the link again, if it’ll help you and others https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-repercussions-for-the-plaintiff-in-a-lawsuit-who-lies-in-their-complaint-What-relief-is-there-for-the-defendant

            Note, that if the Defendant makes factual lies in the Answer, they are also subject to Rule 11 (like any false statement made to the Court) https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/a-defendant-s–answer–to-a-complaint-was-full-of–493362.html , but the best counter is to do Discovery. Lying in Discovery (that is, lying in evidence submitted to the Court) is perjury. Once Rossi’s lawyer makes the counter to IH’s Answer, they will probably both begin demanding Discovery against each other’s factual claims.

        • Observer

          Disproved, not proved, or proved? Who has the burden of proof?

          • Ged

            Guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty? Some folks seem to like applying the former to Rossi and then the latter to IH, instead of the latter to both.

          • Publius

            I want everyone in LENR to succeed, but I also want Rossi punished and neutered if he is found to be a fraudster. From my desire to see the potential of LENR fully realized, I believe he is hurting the industry and more likely than not deceiving those around him.

          • Observer

            So you have already passed judgement.

            On the basis of the number of accusations?

            Let’s wait and see the pudding (were the proof is).

          • Publius

            I too eagerly await the truth, but don’t see the logic in accepting where IH would commit fraud to prove fraud against Rossi. For example, Rossi needs to come clean about the supposed customer (JM) and the existence or not of one James A. Bass and their affiliation or not with Johnson Matthey.

          • Observer

            What obligations does the customer have in the contract under dispute?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Pay electricity bill – do not enter E-Cat room

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            None. However, participating in a fraudulent scheme, that’s another matter.

          • Ged

            And the fraudulent scheme is squarely involving the purported performance of the plant, so the customer is still irrelevant other than as character evidence really.

          • Ged

            To add to what Observer asked, what relevance does the customer have at all? If the plant worked or not makes no difference who the customer is or isn’t, and there is nothing in the LA or amendments that stipulate who the customer must be (other than to be somewhere to house the plant for a test), so what is the point? And IH certainly doesn’t seem to deny that they were paid for the heat by the customer, so far as I have yet seen.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            What matters is that the plant was moved to Florida to sell power to this customer, not for the Guaranteed Performance Test, which if IH were still willing to allow, they would presumably want to take place where they could supervise it. Take a look at the notifications from Johnson of power delivered. This was an unbelievably clumsy fraud. They don’t bother to come up with believable numbers based on actual measurement, someone pulled these numbers out of their butt.

          • Ged

            Why does that matter though?

            I did take a look at the notice, at least I think, you mean this one right: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/JohnsonMatth.png ? Nothing seems unusual or unbelievable about it, so what do you mean? They are also paying IH and asking IH to send them the invoice for them to pay. Do you mean that it’s unbelievable that for four days the power delivered was less than 1 MW?

          • Obvious

            ROTFLMAO.

            The customer doesn’t say how much power they got in the real world.

            Thank goodness the Customer steam-o-matic power meter worked so well.
            IH would otherwise wonder if they made enough steam… Good thing the Customer measures steam power in nice, giant increments….And asks so nicely to send a bill to them. With a grade 5 level invoice.
            OMG

          • Ged

            I dunno, I’ve seen invoices similar, but I am by no means an expert in invoices. Large increments would be expected with large amounts of energy like what was supposedly being produced, so I don’t have a problem with that. Averaging and rounding may be expected since this isn’t a utility situation, but a pure win for IH. We definitely need more info about that arrangement.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Heh. “Johnson Matthew.” Did I say “Matthey”? Obviously, a slip of the tongue. Tis purely a coincidence the similarity of these names.

            It’s looking to me like Johnson is screwed, blued, and tattooed unless he gets smart really fast and deals with IH. Still, we will see how he Answers.

          • Ged

            I agree that if he is shown to be committing fraud, he would need to be punished to the full extent of the law, and the same goes for IH. But for now, I have to view them both as innocent until the there is sufficient evidence.

          • sam

            You could view them both as
            incompetent when it comes to building a workable business partnership.

          • Ged

            Happens more often than we think.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

            – Oscar Wilde

          • Publius

            So it’s better to be in an abusive relationship than no relationship? CF/LENR already has a black eye in the public and any proof of fraud by Rossi will not help.

          • Michael W Wolf

            WOW, you just like to argue. From the perspective of people wanting to be famous, even bad publicity is better than no publicity. Now you are trying to correct Oscar Wilde by comparing apples to oranges, instead of seeing the humor in it.

          • Publius

            I’m sorry, but I fail to see the humour in pretty serious accusations of fraud against Rossi. LENR/Cold Fusion already has such a sad history of bias, disappointment, tarnished careers, and false hope. I don’t think it needs a new chapter with the same old story.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This type of argument serves no one.

          • Publius

            Rossi and his group now have the burden to prove they weren’t committing fraud among the other accusations. It’s important to note with Jones Day representing IH, this law firm has the resources to make sure they aren’t helping assist in perpetuating a fraud upon the court by bringing false or fictitious accusations.

          • Observer

            Really?

            I always thought that the party making the accusation had the burden of proof. Rossi has to prove his accusations against IH and IH has to prove their accusations against Rossi

            But I am not a lawyer (see, still have my soul ;o) ).

          • Publius

            The American justice system. If I sue you and said you wronged me, I have to bring the action, but you better defend yourself and prove you did not wrong me or I win by default.

        • Robert Dorr

          Sure there is a common theme of deception, it’s I.H.s filing of a counter suit against Rossi. Did you think they were going to file a ‘Love Letter’ to Rossi. Get a grip. Now it will be Rossi’s turn to respond. Let’s see how hot this e-cat can get.

          • Publius

            No love letter indeed. You have to think deeper though, this an official pleading with the court, so on some of these allegations either IH is perpetuating a fraud on the court or Rossi actually committed fraud. Either James A. Bass exists or IH lied to the court. JM exists and has products, billing, etc. or not. Someone is going down for fraud.

          • Rene

            Too early to determine any relevance to what you just wrote, and too much binary thinking. Complex court cases have a habit of uncovering totally unexpected results from the plebiscite pundit speculations. There is much private material to be discovered.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Publius, do you have a real name, I have not seen you before and you are hiding your discuss history

      • Publius

        What does it matter? I’ve posted here as a guest for years as Publius and will not be posting my true name. What many of you don’t realize here is that IH is going for the throat and it wouldn’t make sense for them to do so unless Rossi actually defrauded them and they had proof. Jones Day and IH are not going to commit perjury and introduce fraud claims before the court in what essentially began as a contract dispute. Introducing fraud raises the bar and also raises the bar for what proof IH will have to show in order to avoid perjury charges. Some of these allegations leave little room for discussion; fraud will be shown to have been committed by one or more of the parties.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          I’ve pointed this out in the other direction. If the charges against Rossi et al are not proven, Jones Day and IH are not exposed to “perjury charges.” The statements in pleadings are not attested, under oath. There is a general immunity. It is not absolute, there can be exceptions, but nothing here rises to that level, on either side.

          • Ged

            As long as what they say is materially true, they are fine, but not if it is materially false–but they can just be telling a part of the story and the interpretation is wrong once all the facts are known. That’s how works in almost all cases. Also, a Complaint has no immunity after 21 days; so if false statements are not corrected by then, they are in deep trouble with the Court. I already linked you some of the legal stuff about that previously.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Ged, what you linked before did not show what you claimed. You were claiming vulnerability to perjury charges, which is impossible for pleadings that are not attested. 21 days is the time to amend a pleading as a matter of course. “No immunity” to what? Source or citation?

          • Ged

            Here is another interesting legal bit from the Florida bar, discussing “Fraud on the Court”, regarding lying in the charges made against the other party in a lawsuit. It is an interesting, if not very clear, read. http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/c0d731e03de9828d852574580042ae7a/7ee566f4f7305b2085256e24006a34b6!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,disability*

          • Publius

            The overall point being that under Rule 11(b),”[b]y presenting to the court a pleading,
            written motion, or other paper–whether by signing, filing, submitting,
            or later advocating it–an attorney or unrepresented party certifies
            that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief,
            formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” that the
            material presented is not filed for an improper purpose and has the
            requisite degree of evidentiary and legal support. It’s seems highly improbable Jones Day would allow so many fraud allegations and open themselves up to possible sanctions without having a solid factual foundation for them.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Publius,

            If IH’s claims are found to be false, Jones Day would say, they acted in good faith, based on the information supplied to them by their clients.

          • Publius

            My point, as an outsider to the true facts, is what are the odds that IH is making up a dozen or more false allegations of fraud and deception? Again, Jones Day has the DUTY to make sure these accusations are factual in basis and law.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Publius,

            Jones Day bills their clients for following their instructions. That is now they make a living.

            They are not engineers or LENR scientists. They have no ability to know about LENR reactors. They have no ability “to make sure these accusations are factual in basis”.

            The only technical report, item 5, is very weak and easy to defend against.

            As an engineer, who understand the involved engineering, all I see is lawyer smoke and no solid technical claim that can refute the COP > 50 claim.

          • cashmemorz

            Thank you. What you say “lawyer smoke and no solid technical claim that can refute the COP > 50 claim.” This all it, the court case, is from my thesis about the IH side of the court saga. Accordingly this upholds the thesis that IH is just using the court case not as a serious attempt to discredit Rossi or the E-CAT’ workings. It is all about the final bit of due diligence to see if there might be anything to make investors wary about putting their money into LENR from the side of Industrial Heat and Rossi’s version. When, not if, the E-Cat operation as a dependable source of high COP energy is confirmed by the court then everyone will get their money’s worth, including Rossi’s $89 million, IH/Cherokee their investors

      • Mike Henderson

        Publius:

        The pseudonym used by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay as authors of the Federalist papers.

        The Roman poet known as Virgil was actually named Publius Vergilius Maro.

        A username that EMI Records used when posting hints about a puzzle associated with the Pink Floyd album, The Division Bell. The “Publius Enigma” was supposedly never solved and the prize remains unclaimed.

        Personally, I would go with this username being a paid PR hack. 😉

  • Publius

    Everyone has to be honest with themselves and accept that if even one of the multiple allegations against Rossi is proven true in a court of law, there is little doubt Rossi is a fraud.

    • Ged

      Which allegations, though? For instance, the IH counter makes the point that it could be Rossi didn’t transfer all of the IP to them, and if that is true in some technical way, that wouldn’t necessarily be fraud though it would very much be a break of the LA. “Even one” is a little too broad, unfortunately. This holds true for the claims against IH as well, to which they admit to quite a number of. Some aren’t all that important in magnitude or context compared to others.

      • Publius

        There are plenty of disturbing allegations revolving around a common theme of deception, lies, underhandedness, scheming, conspiracy, and fraud. I highly doubt ALL of them will be disproved.

        • Ged

          Guess we’ll have to see :)! The same is true for IH. That’s the great part about this being in court, as the Court will force all the facts into the open and actually evaluate them all.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Try to disprove god – or prove him.

          It will be down to those given the task of weighing the evidence to decide.

          • Publius

            The court’s task is much easier in this case. Either Rossi can back up his claims or he cannot. Bob, you of all people should see that the mounting evidence of fraud against Rossi is disheartening and if proven true, will be yet another setback for LENR.

          • timycelyn

            You seem to be assuming some of these IH counter-claims are sound. We do not know that yet, at all.

            The fact that there are 20, or 50, or 100 dodgy counter-claims in no way demonstrates fraud by Rossi, just a lot of imagination and creativity by IH’s lawyers.

            As Observer commented, let’s wait for the proof of the pudding.

            Personally, this is starting to smell to me more and more like an attempt to buy time for ?? [something] by slowing Rossi down.

          • Publius

            They better be sound and vetted by Jones Day or someone is going to jail for perjury. You don’t just introduce fraud claims for the fun of it.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yea I said the same thing when Rossi’ filed fraud complaint.

          • Bob Greenyer

            What will be will be, for me, it makes little difference – we have observed in live experiments data that points to an anomaly – including that which shows a source of nuclear origin.

            People say the damnedest things in a divorce – sometimes quite cringe-worthy.

          • Publius

            You fail to see the power in the sworn allegations alone. In the American courts, a large corporation and top law firm don’t decide on a whim or in “anger” to voluntarily bring fraud claims before the court unless you are damn sure you aren’t going to ruin your reputation and get thrown in jail for perjury.

          • Ged

            Works both ways. All lawyers have to verify the Complaints they make on behalf of their clients, otherwise they get Rule 11’d, and terrible things happen to them. And any materially false evidence is perjury, so it’ll be interesting to see the response by Rossi’s lawyer.

          • Publius

            Yes, but alleging fraud and eluding/renouncing fraud are two different things. The alleging of fraud introduces a higher risk of perjury if you lying. It’s much easier to “elude” and dance around fraud claims made against you. Don’t you think Jones Day looked into each allegation with the knowledge that their reputation is hanging on each one which might be false?

          • Michael W Wolf

            You think Johnson doesn’t have the same standards as Day now?

          • Publius

            Jones Day and IH hit Rossi with a whole new level of fraud and deception allegations; ones you don’t casually plead before the court unless you believe them to have a firm basis in fact and law.

          • Ged

            And same for Rossi’s lawyer. That’s the thing. You can’t apply such a rule of logic to one without doing it to the other. It is the weight of evidence that’ll matter in the end, as always. Someone is right and someone is wrong; but both sides could be presenting the facts as true from their point of view, yet incomplete to the actual story (so neither is lying materially, yet either could be wrong about the actual story and the way the law will rule).

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            As I understand the matter, making fraud claims and being unable to substantiate them before a jury can affect the jury’s opinion about your other claims.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Day has nothing to lose if he can’t prove IH claims. To prove he knew that will be even harder for a judge. Lawyers know how to weasel around the law. Don’t you think?

          • Publius

            Bringing frivolous and baseless fraud claims against Rossi is not in the style of a prestigious firm like Jones Day. They have a lot to lose if they haven’t confirmed the voracity of these claims. You don’t get the privilege of wasting a federal court’s time with “nothing to lose” claims.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            No.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Ged keeps claiming this about Rule 11 and has it all confused with perjury.

          • Ged

            Perjury is for evidence, but Rule 11 covers any false statements made in a Complaint or as part of any other claim. As I have previously linked it, it is a very serious matter to make a false statement in a Complaint or any other document submitted to the Court, and one will suffer consequences.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yea Ged, but IH lays out their case, if they can’t prove it by lack of evidence, they lose. But the judge going after them for perjury is unlikely and hard to prove IH didn’t think they were defrauded.

          • Ged

            Here’s the link again, if it’ll help you and others https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-repercussions-for-the-plaintiff-in-a-lawsuit-who-lies-in-their-complaint-What-relief-is-there-for-the-defendant

            Note, that if the Defendant makes factual lies in the Answer, they are also subject to Rule 11 (like any false statement made to the Court) https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/a-defendant-s–answer–to-a-complaint-was-full-of–493362.html , but the best counter is to do Discovery. Lying in Discovery (that is, lying in evidence submitted to the Court) is perjury. Once Rossi’s lawyer makes the counter to IH’s Answer, they will probably both begin demanding Discovery against each other’s factual claims.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Are we now hearing from the anti-Rossi people only now an oath matters? It didn’t matter when it was only Rossi under oath. In fact you folks were implying there were no oaths in civil court. I claimed Rossi took an oath when he filed the lawsuit. I was told I didn’t know anything about the law and Rossi didn’t take an oath. Now you claim IH took an oath. hmmm You guys should get together and get your stories straight.

          • Michael W Wolf

            wait! mounting evidence? You mean mounting IH claims with no evidence yet.

        • Observer

          Disproved, not proved, or proved? Who has the burden of proof?

          • Ged

            Guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty? Some folks seem to like applying the former to Rossi and then the latter to IH, instead of the latter to both.

          • Publius

            I want everyone in LENR to succeed, but I also want Rossi punished and neutered if he is found to be a fraudster. From my desire to see the potential of LENR fully realized, I believe he is hurting the industry and more likely than not deceiving those around him.

          • Observer

            So you have already passed judgement.

            On the basis of the number of accusations?

            Let’s wait and see the pudding (were the proof is).

          • Publius

            I too eagerly await the truth, but don’t see the logic in accepting where IH would commit fraud to prove fraud against Rossi. For example, Rossi needs to come clean about the supposed customer (JM) and the existence or not of one James A. Bass and their affiliation or not with Johnson Matthey.

          • Observer

            What obligations does the customer have in the contract under dispute?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Pay electricity bill – do not enter E-Cat room

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            None. However, participating in a fraudulent scheme, that’s another matter.

          • Ged

            And the fraudulent scheme is squarely involving the purported performance of the plant, so the customer is still irrelevant other than as character evidence really.

          • Ged

            To add to what Observer asked, what relevance does the customer have at all? If the plant worked or not makes no difference who the customer is or isn’t, and there is nothing in the LA or amendments that stipulate who the customer must be (other than to be somewhere to house the plant for a test), so what is the point? And IH certainly doesn’t seem to deny that they were paid for the heat by the customer, so far as I have yet seen.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            What matters is that the plant was moved to Florida to sell power to this customer, not for the Guaranteed Performance Test, which if IH were still willing to allow, they would presumably want to take place where they could supervise it. Take a look at the notifications from Johnson of power delivered. This was an unbelievably clumsy fraud. They don’t bother to come up with believable numbers based on actual measurement, someone pulled these numbers out of their butt.

          • Ged

            Why does that matter though?

            I did take a look at the notice, at least I think, you mean this one right: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/JohnsonMatth.png ? Nothing seems unusual or unbelievable about it as far as I see, so what do you mean? They are also paying IH and asking IH to send them the invoice for them to pay. Do you mean that it’s unbelievable that for four days the power delivered was less than 1 MW?

          • Obvious

            ROTFLMAO.

            The customer doesn’t say how much power they got in the real world.

            Thank goodness the Customer steam-o-matic power meter worked so well.
            IH would otherwise wonder if they made enough steam… Good thing the Customer measures steam power in nice, giant increments….And asks so nicely to send a bill to them. With a grade 5 level invoice.
            OMG

            And I thought it was 6025 Triangle Drive.

          • Ged

            I dunno, I’ve seen invoices similar, but I am by no means an expert in invoices. Large increments would be expected with large amounts of energy like what was supposedly being produced, so I don’t have a problem with that. Averaging and rounding may be expected since this isn’t a utility situation, but a pure win for IH. We definitely need more info about that arrangement.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Heh. “Johnson Matthew.” Did I say “Matthey”? Obviously, a slip of the tongue. Tis purely a coincidence the similarity of these names.

            It’s looking to me like Johnson is screwed, blued, and tattooed unless he gets smart really fast and deals with IH. Still, we will see how he Answers.

          • Ged

            I agree that if he is shown to be committing fraud, he would need to be punished to the full extent of the law, and the same goes for IH. But for now, I have to view them both as innocent until the there is sufficient evidence.

          • sam

            You could view them both as
            incompetent when it comes to building a workable business partnership.

          • Ged

            Happens more often than we think.

          • Michael W Wolf

            I am still inclined to believe Rossi. If he and the rest have been playing us, I want them hanged. I don’t have that kind of anger if IH should be found guilty.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

            – Oscar Wilde

          • Publius

            So it’s better to be in an abusive relationship than no relationship? CF/LENR already has a black eye in the public and any proof of fraud by Rossi will not help.

          • Michael W Wolf

            WOW, you just like to argue. From the perspective of people wanting to be famous, even bad publicity is better than no publicity. Now you are trying to correct Oscar Wilde by comparing apples to oranges, instead of seeing the humor in it.

          • Publius

            I’m sorry, but I fail to see the humour in pretty serious accusations of fraud against Rossi. LENR/Cold Fusion already has such a sad history of bias, disappointment, tarnished careers, and false hope. I don’t think it needs a new chapter with the same old story.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This type of argument serves no one.

          • Publius

            Rossi and his group now have the burden to prove they weren’t committing fraud among the other accusations. It’s important to note with Jones Day representing IH, this law firm has the resources to make sure they aren’t helping assist in perpetuating a fraud upon the court by bringing false or fictitious accusations.

          • Observer

            Really?

            I always thought that the party making the accusation had the burden of proof. Rossi has to prove his accusations against IH and IH has to prove their accusations against Rossi

            But I am not a lawyer (see, still have my soul ;o) ).

          • Publius

            The American justice system. If I sue you and said you wronged me, I have to bring the action, but you better defend yourself and prove you did not wrong me or I win by default.

        • Robert Dorr

          Sure there is a common theme of deception, it’s I.H.s filing of a counter suit against Rossi. Did you think they were going to file a ‘Love Letter’ to Rossi. Get a grip. Now it will be Rossi’s turn to respond. Let’s see how hot this e-cat can get.

          • Publius

            No love letter indeed. You have to think deeper though, this an official pleading with the court, so on some of these allegations either IH is perpetuating a fraud on the court or Rossi actually committed fraud. Either James A. Bass exists or IH lied to the court. JM exists and has products, billing, etc. or not. Someone is going down for fraud.

          • Rene

            Too early to determine any relevance to what you just wrote, and too much binary thinking. Complex court cases have a habit of uncovering totally unexpected results from the plebiscite pundit speculations. There is much private material to be discovered.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yea, that much is becoming clear. The existence of bass however, could be meaningless if IH has no proof that Rossi’s people said that name. You can’t assume IH is telling the truth, they need to back it up, as you and I think Rossi must do. You hold too high of confidence in this Day lawyer. Remember Cochran, highest respect from all too many people. But we know he had no integrity. Let’s see what proof they have. But if you have any humanity, you must hope for Rossi. Not for the sake of Rossi, but for the sake of the world.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Publius, do you have a real name, I have not seen you before and you are hiding your discuss history

      • Publius

        What does it matter? I’ve posted here as a guest for years as Publius and will not be posting my true name. What many of you don’t realize here is that IH is going for the throat and it wouldn’t make sense for them to do so unless Rossi actually defrauded them and they had proof. Jones Day and IH are not going to commit perjury and introduce fraud claims before the court in what essentially began as a contract dispute. Introducing fraud raises the bar and also raises the bar for what proof IH will have to show in order to avoid perjury charges. Some of these allegations leave little room for discussion; fraud will be shown to have been committed by one or more of the parties.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          I’ve pointed this out in the other direction. If the charges against Rossi et al are not proven, Jones Day and IH are not exposed to “perjury charges.” The statements in pleadings are not attested, under oath. There is a general immunity. It is not absolute, there can be exceptions, but nothing here rises to that level, on either side.

          • Ged

            As long as what they say is materially true, they are fine, but not if it is materially false–but they can just be telling a part of the story and the interpretation is wrong once all the facts are known. That’s how works in almost all cases. Also, a Complaint has no immunity after 21 days; so if false statements are not corrected by then, they are in deep trouble with the Court. I already linked you some of the legal stuff about that previously.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Ged, what you linked before did not show what you claimed. You were claiming vulnerability to perjury charges, which is impossible for pleadings that are not attested. 21 days is the time to amend a pleading as a matter of course. “No immunity” to what? Source or citation?

          • Ged

            Here is another interesting legal bit from the Florida bar, discussing “Fraud on the Court”, regarding lying in the charges made against the other party in a lawsuit. It is an interesting, if not very clear, read. http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/c0d731e03de9828d852574580042ae7a/7ee566f4f7305b2085256e24006a34b6!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,disability*

          • Publius

            The overall point being that under Rule 11(b),”[b]y presenting to the court a pleading,
            written motion, or other paper–whether by signing, filing, submitting,
            or later advocating it–an attorney or unrepresented party certifies
            that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief,
            formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” that the
            material presented is not filed for an improper purpose and has the
            requisite degree of evidentiary and legal support. It’s seems highly improbable Jones Day would allow so many fraud allegations and open themselves up to possible sanctions without having a solid factual foundation for them.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Publius,

            If IH’s claims are found to be false, Jones Day would say, they acted in good faith, based on the information supplied to them by their clients.

          • Publius

            My point, as an outsider to the true facts, is what are the odds that IH is making up a dozen or more false allegations of fraud and deception? Again, Jones Day has the DUTY to make sure these accusations are factual in basis and law.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Publius,

            Jones Day bills their clients for following their instructions. That is now they make a living.

            They are not engineers or LENR scientists. They have no ability to know about LENR reactors. They have no ability “to make sure these accusations are factual in basis”.

            The only technical report, item 5, is very weak and easy to defend against.

            As an engineer, who understand the involved engineering, all I see is lawyer smoke and no solid technical claim that can refute the COP > 50 claim.

          • cashmemorz

            Thank you. What you say “lawyer smoke and no solid technical claim that can refute the COP > 50 claim.” This all it, the court case, is from my thesis about the IH side of the court saga. Accordingly this upholds the thesis that IH is just using the court case not as a serious attempt to discredit Rossi or the E-CAT’ workings. It is all about the final bit of due diligence to see if there might be anything to make investors wary about putting their money into LENR from the side of Industrial Heat and Rossi’s version. When, not if, the E-Cat operation as a dependable source of high COP energy is confirmed by the court then everyone will get their money’s worth, including Rossi’s $89 million, IH/Cherokee their investors

      • Mike Henderson

        Publius:

        The pseudonym used by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay as authors of the Federalist papers.

        The Roman poet known as Virgil was actually named Publius Vergilius Maro.

        A username that EMI Records used when posting hints about a puzzle associated with the Pink Floyd album, The Division Bell. The “Publius Enigma” was supposedly never solved and the prize remains unclaimed.

        Personally, I would go with this username being a paid PR hack. 😉

    • Michael W Wolf

      That is why we think it is so unreasonable that Rossi would initiate the lawsuit if just one of those claims are true. Rossi and a bunch others would have to be frauds BTW. Which tips the scales the other way.

  • Ged

    I just noticed e-catworld.com is directly referenced in the Counter Complaint (pg 13). Congratulations, Frank!

    • sam

      August 6, 2016 at 12:32 PM
      Dr Andrea Rossi:
      What do you think of the counterclaims made by IH deposited today ? It seems to me that they shoot at their feet, because they collected millions of dollars based on the reports made by the ERV during the first nine months of the test ! I think they made heavy slanders, you should not have difficulty to defend your position.
      How do you comment ?
      Jeff

      Andrea Rossi
      August 6, 2016 at 1:13 PM
      Jeff:
      I do not comment on issues that have to be treated in Court.
      My Attorney and I are already working to prepare our due response.
      Warm Regards

      • Ged

        IH does admit in their response to raising large amounts of money (including from Woodford) involving all this.

        Still, have to see how Rossi’s attorney responds. With the MTD, we saw a dramatic difference in quality between IH and Rossi’s attorneys in the responses, so it’ll be interesting to see if the same occurs again or if IH’s lawyers have finally stepped up.

      • Obvious

        Jeff, Dexter, whatever

        • Publius

          Bringing frivolous and baseless fraud claims against Rossi is not in the style of a prestigious firm like Jones Day. They have a lot to lose if they haven’t confirmed the voracity of these claims. You don’t get the privilege of wasting a federal court’s time with “nothing to lose” claims.

  • Ged

    I just noticed e-catworld.com is directly referenced in the Counter Complaint (pg 13). Congratulations, Frank!

    • sam

      August 6, 2016 at 12:32 PM
      Dr Andrea Rossi:
      What do you think of the counterclaims made by IH deposited today ? It seems to me that they shoot at their feet, because they collected millions of dollars based on the reports made by the ERV during the first nine months of the test ! I think they made heavy slanders, you should not have difficulty to defend your position.
      How do you comment ?
      Jeff

      Andrea Rossi
      August 6, 2016 at 1:13 PM
      Jeff:
      I do not comment on issues that have to be treated in Court.
      My Attorney and I are already working to prepare our due response.
      Warm Regards

      • Ged

        IH does admit in their response to raising large amounts of money (including from Woodford) involving all this.

        Still, have to see how Rossi’s attorney responds. With the MTD, we saw a dramatic difference in quality between IH and Rossi’s attorneys in the responses, so it’ll be interesting to see if the same occurs again or if IH’s lawyers have finally stepped up.

      • Obvious

        Jeff, Dexter, whatever

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi August 6, 2016 at 3:51 PM
    Peter Gluck:
    Thank you for your link.
    Within several days our Attorney will assess the slanders in due mode. I
    cannot comment anything that has to be issued in Court, but I can say
    we are in possess of all the evidence necessary to dismantle the
    slanders of our foe.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi August 6, 2016 at 3:51 PM
    Peter Gluck:
    Thank you for your link.
    Within several days our Attorney will assess the slanders in due mode. I
    cannot comment anything that has to be issued in Court, but I can say
    we are in possess of all the evidence necessary to dismantle the
    slanders of our foe.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    • LookMoo

      And of course HI knows that. This is just a delaying tactics. I’m sure HI legal team will call in sick and another lawyers is asking for more time to study the case. And then another turn.

  • Bob Greenyer

    9. p26
    Essentially it seams, unless I am mistaken, that they are saying that since they could not get the IP to work as claimed in their own private testing, they conclude that the device must not work.

    They are potentially missing one obvious conclusion, that their testers are incapable of following instructions, perhaps there is some aspect that they have overlooked that was technically in the disclosure of IP that they are inadvertently not adhering to – Piantelli says that in his experiments, there are more than a dozen parameters that if any one of them is not fully conformed to – no excess heat will be seen.

    If there are just 13 parameters, then there are 13! or 6.23 billion ways to get the experiment wrong.

    You need to have understanding and insight into what is going on to get this right – that is to say – just trying to blindly follow instructions is not going to cut it.

    • Ged

      They also admit to the patent filed in Europe, which said the COP was 11, and was by all accounts their test not involving Rossi (and to which they make no counter against that, or at least none I have noticed yet). But then also say they deny that the European office duly and legally published that patent. A big “huh?”

      Have to see what the evidence drags up to untangle all this.

      There are some other weird bits in the Counter, such as saying they can’t confirm or deny that the E-cat is the IP of Rossi, but then admitting Rossi has made numerous patents and other IP related applications. A lot of it is extreme technicalities of language, like allegation that the COP was not more than 10 and that Rossi and Fabiani worked to make it look more than 10; but that still puts it above 2.7 (and 6). Lots of weird stuff; and a great amount of their defense is focused on arguing the difference between the License Agreement and the Second Amendment and which was valid or not. I really can’t wait to see the Exhibitions.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Ged, you don’t understand law and legal process. One may make alternate defenses and charges that appear contradictory. With certain facts claimed by Rossi, they state they can neither affirm nor deny them.

        • Ged

          Lomax… If the E-cat is Rossi’s IP is not something they should say they can’t confirm or deny. It is apropos to their own actions and the statements in the very next paragraph. Come on now.

          • Brent Buckner

            Perhaps they can’t confirm or deny in that they have relied upon LC/Rossi’s attestations.

          • Ged

            But next paragraph acknowledge all the IP related filings by Rossi. Also, how could Rossi sell them what isn’t his IP? They also acknowledge the patents. It is just irrational posturing as they decide what defense to take in regards to the IP challenges.

      • cashmemorz

        Just IH’s way of seeing what will stick. Non or any of it may or may not have merit in actuality. As long as the court case clears up everything that matters for business/investment purposes in favor of their particular E-Cat system ( the one used in the one year test) is all that matters. This is required to convince IH and its investors that this unusual tech is worth investing in. A complex bit of due diligence. Due diligence requires thorough examination. The court case as it is unfolding should be the last and most thorough bit of due diligence examination that can be made. This from a non legal little mind, mine. But it would make sense out of the whole without having to sift through too much. Some times simple answers are the most probable.

    • SG

      They don’t deny producing excess / anomalous heat using their own “modified” version of the e-Cat. The denial language is all directed to the e-Cat IP *directly* received from Leonardo / Rossi.

      • Observer

        Only after realizing that the screws had to be screwed in clockwise and not counter clockwise (which was not specified in the SOP) were we able to get the device working.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Uh, Bob, this is not an “experiment,” it is a commercial device supposedly ready to go. If the device is not described adequately in the IP and patents, Rossi defraued IH from the get-go.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Uh, Abd, I am talking of IHs efforts.

        We don’t know what was disclosed and how much attention was paid by the listeners to the detail. We do know that in our own work, with full cooperation from Celani, we discovered gotchas after well over a year of experiments that Celani took for granted we would know – actually, there was no deliberate deception – it was just a case of it was so obvious to him that someone should know that he didn’t think to mention some things. That is the point about “those skilled in the art” in relationship to patents. We were not skilled in the art – but we are more skilled now – but there are surely many ways to get this to not work.

    • builditnow

      Bob, another possibility makes all the events and arguments make sense.
      The possibility is that Rossi has withheld some key parameter(s) from IH, as a way to balance the power dynamic between him and a 2 billion dollar fund, Cherokee. If he did not do so, he is in a weak position, reliant on only a contract and a few million dollars to go up against a 2 billion dollar fund that would become a 2 trillion dollar fund once they disclose they have the holy grail, “the new fire”. If this possibility is true, one could speculate that Rossi expected IH not to pay, given he knew they couldn’t get the reactor to work, and wants the court case as a way to make the contract much more bullet proof, perhaps renegotiate it, before he hands over that final key parameter.
      Let’s face it, Rossi with a few million, against a 2 trillion fund, is unlikely to prevail, no matter how “right” he is.

      It could be the wise strategic move of an inventor who has been cheated several times in his life. Rossi sued the day after the payment was due, looks like he was prepared and ready and, perhaps, wanted this court case.
      If this scenario is correct, all the arguments and statements so far, make sense, when you look at it from each side.

      From IH’s perspective, there is no excess heat despite them trying for months / years to use Rossi’s instructions. Rossi is either refusing to give the correct instructions or the whole thing is a fraud. Attempts to check the one year test site were unsatisfactory as Rossi blocked their full inquiry.

      From Rossi’s perspective, he is still not comfortable giving the correct instructions to IH because the power dynamic is strongly weighted against him, he knows he has passed the one year test and knows that IH can’t get a reactor to work and likely won’t pay the $89 million. He won’t let them fully evaluate the one year test setup because he wants IH to either accept the terms as they are, or go to court. In this scenario, Rossi has planned to run this through a US federal court “before” IH and Cherokee are worth 2 trillion as a way to remain a player in this technology. Once the case is settled in US federal court, the only way to challenge it is to an appeal to the federal appeals court. If that fails, there is the US supreme court and no further appeals are possible. An appeal does not give many options, basically it has to argue that the lower court made a mistake, hard to do.

      Basically, once this decision is made by this court, it’s quite bullet proof as far as the US is concerned. That might be the whole point of the exercise, a bullet proof agreement.

  • Bob Greenyer

    9. p26
    Essentially it seams, unless I am mistaken, that they are saying that since they could not get the IP to work as claimed in their own private testing, they conclude that the device must not work.

    They are potentially missing one obvious conclusion, that their testers are incapable of following instructions, perhaps there is some aspect that they have overlooked that was technically in the disclosure of IP that they are inadvertently not adhering to – Piantelli says that in his experiments, there are more than a dozen parameters that if any one of them is not fully conformed to – no excess heat will be seen.

    If there are just 13 parameters, then there are 13! or 6.23 billion ways to get the experiment wrong.

    You need to have understanding and insight into what is going on to get this right – that is to say – just trying to blindly follow instructions is not going to cut it.

    • Ged

      They also admit to the patent filed in Europe, which said the COP was 11, and was by all accounts their test not involving Rossi (and to which they make no counter against that, or at least none I have noticed yet). But then also say they deny that the European office duly and legally published that patent. A big “huh?”

      Have to see what the evidence drags up to untangle all this.

      There are some other weird bits in the Counter, such as saying they can’t confirm or deny that the E-cat is the IP of Rossi, but then admitting Rossi has made numerous patents and other IP related applications. A lot of it is extreme technicalities of language, like allegation that the COP was not more than 10 and that Rossi and Fabiani worked to make it look more than 10; but that still puts it above 2.7 (and 6). Lots of weird stuff; and a great amount of their defense is focused on arguing the difference between the License Agreement and the Second Amendment and which was valid or not. I really can’t wait to see the Exhibitions.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Ged, you don’t understand law and legal process. One may make alternate defenses and charges that appear contradictory. With certain facts claimed by Rossi, they state they can neither affirm nor deny them.

        • Ged

          Lomax… If the E-cat is Rossi’s IP is not something they should say they can’t confirm or deny. It is apropos to their own actions and the statements in the very next paragraph. Come on now.

          • Brent Buckner

            Perhaps they can’t confirm or deny in that they have relied upon LC/Rossi’s attestations.

          • Ged

            But next paragraph acknowledge all the IP related filings by Rossi. Also, how could Rossi sell them what isn’t his IP? They also acknowledge the patents. It is just irrational posturing as they decide what defense to take in regards to the IP challenges; but such is legal matters.

      • cashmemorz

        Just IH’s way of seeing what will stick. Non or any of it may or may not have merit in actuality. As long as the court case clears up everything that matters for business/investment purposes in favor of their particular E-Cat system ( the one used in the one year test) is all that matters. This is required to convince IH/Cherokee and its investors that this unusual tech is worth investing in. A complex bit of due diligence. Due diligence requires thorough examination. The court case as it is unfolding should be the last and most thorough bit of due diligence examination that can be made. This from a non legal little mind, mine. But it would make sense out of the whole without having to sift through too much. Some times simple answers are the most probable.

    • SG

      They don’t deny producing excess / anomalous heat using their own “modified” version of the e-Cat. The denial language is all directed to the e-Cat IP *directly* received from Leonardo / Rossi.

      • Observer

        Only after realizing that the screws had to be screwed in clockwise and not counter clockwise (which was not specified in the SOP) were we able to get the device working.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Uh, Bob, this is not an “experiment,” it is a commercial device supposedly ready to go. If the device is not described adequately in the IP and patents, Rossi defraued IH from the get-go.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Uh, Abd, I am talking of IHs efforts.

        We don’t know what was disclosed and how much attention was paid by the listeners to the detail. We do know that in our own work, with full cooperation from Celani, we discovered gotchas after well over a year of experiments that Celani took for granted we would know – actually, there was no deliberate deception – it was just a case of it was so obvious to him that someone should know that he didn’t think to mention some things. That is the point about “those skilled in the art” in relationship to patents. We were not skilled in the art – but we are more skilled now – but there are surely many ways to get this to not work.

    • builditnow

      Bob, another possibility makes all the events and arguments make sense.
      The possibility is that Rossi has withheld some key parameter(s) from IH, as a way to balance the power dynamic between him and a 2 billion dollar fund, Cherokee. If he did not do so, he is in a weak position, reliant on only a contract and a few million dollars to go up against a 2 billion dollar fund that would become a 2 trillion dollar fund once they disclose they have the holy grail, “the new fire”. If this possibility is true, one could speculate that Rossi expected IH not to pay, given he knew they couldn’t get the reactor to work, and wants the court case as a way to make the contract much more bullet proof, perhaps renegotiate it, before he hands over that final key parameter.
      Let’s face it, Rossi with a few million, against a 2 trillion fund, is unlikely to prevail, no matter how “right” he is.

      It could be the wise strategic move of an inventor who has been cheated several times in his life. Rossi sued the day after the payment was due, looks like he was prepared and ready and, perhaps, wanted this court case.
      If this scenario is correct, all the arguments and statements so far, make sense, when you look at it from each side.

      From IH’s perspective, there is no excess heat despite them trying for months / years to use Rossi’s instructions. Rossi is either refusing to give the correct instructions or the whole thing is a fraud. Attempts to check the one year test site were unsatisfactory as Rossi blocked their full inquiry.

      From Rossi’s perspective, he is still not comfortable giving the correct instructions to IH because the power dynamic is strongly weighted against him, he knows he has passed the one year test and knows that IH can’t get a reactor to work and likely won’t pay the $89 million. He won’t let them fully evaluate the one year test setup because he wants IH to either accept the terms as they are, or go to court. In this scenario, Rossi has planned to run this through a US federal court “before” IH and Cherokee are worth 2 trillion as a way to remain a player in this technology. Once the case is settled in US federal court, the only way to challenge it is to an appeal to the federal appeals court. If that fails, there is the US supreme court and no further appeals are possible. An appeal does not give many options, basically it has to argue that the lower court made a mistake, hard to do.

      Basically, once this decision is made by this court, it’s quite bullet proof as far as the US is concerned. That might be the whole point of the exercise, a bullet proof agreement.

  • kasom

    Does it really take Jones Day to sample all the confused allegations from Jed, MY and some musl** over the last months into a court document? Ask yourself!

    As the Jugde looks at this wall of words, she/he will recognise that the reason of all this mountain of text is the lack of any one really strong argument.

    • Publius

      The one strong argument is the sum of multiple fraud claims and she will ask herself why Jones Day and IH would risk perjuring themselves if they didn’t have proof of these allegations. Rossi and his group will have some explaining to do.

      • Michael W Wolf

        According to you anti-Rossi folks , there is no oath by IH.

      • Ged

        The same goes the other way, Publius. The Judge kept the claim of Fraud against IH in the case, so Rossi and his lawyer are risking the same if they made up material for that, just as IH and Jones Day would be in hot water if they made up evidence for their side.

    • JedRothwell

      You wrote: “Does it really take Jones Day to sample all the confused allegations from Jed, MY . . .”

      These allegations did not come from me! That’s crazy. I have nothing to do with this.

  • Michael W Wolf

    Seem like the only proof they have is that they can’t reproduce the IP. Which is contrary to their patent claims. I admit, this response gives IH more credibility in my mind. But none of the allegations are backed up by proof yet. Also this, whining about being tricked by Rossi and no reference to any proof of that. It is beyond belief for me to believe Rossi filed a suit, knowing the Jm products will have to testify and prove they are a real company. If they are fake, Rossi goes to prison. But IH will need some real proof to get me on their side at this point. They admit and stand behind their claims made in the European patent. They need square this before I take them seriously.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Try reading the exhibits. All the case files are available in the newvortex filespace. It’s easy to join and get them all. Basically, the Answer simply outlines a defense and counterclaims. It does not attempt to be conclusive proof. That comes later. There are many nifty details, such as the Terms agreed to for the rental of the 1 MW Unit by Johnson for JM Chemicals. Which does not prohibit IH from entering the “customer area,” it appears Rossi lied about that.

      When there was denial of access, it was Rossi who denied it.

      The first report of power used, from Johnson, has letterhead for J.M Products, Inc. — “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthew Palladium Sponges.” Anyone who knows the history of cold fusion would know Johnson Matthey, which does make Platinum Sponges. But it’s Matthey, not Matthew.

      The email from Rossi urging IH to allow the plant to go to Florida is priceless. Supposedly the Customer is itching to go so they better agree quick or they will lose the opportunity. Money, you can make money! How Rossi thinks is … very primitive. He is also obviously thinking about the “demonstration value.” That’s his concern for a long time. It will look better if it is an independent customer. Yeah, right, an “independent customer” with the President of Leonardo as President.

      • Michael W Wolf

        There is not one thing that is incriminating to Rossi in that email. That email would constitute evidence. But it seems it is their only evidence they have provided. Funny that that is the only evidence they have brought forth and we learn nothing from it. Now if they had an email where Rossi mentions Bass’s name, now you have a smoking gun. We’ll see. You don’t bring up a guys name and tell the court Rossi told you his name. You have to show it.

      • JedRothwell

        Matthew is Matthey’s kid brother. The black sheep of the family. Always making trouble!

      • Ged
        • Gotta be a typo. There’s a Johnson Matthey Technology Centre.

          • Ged

            Some cool research to boot.

      • Publius

        Rule #1 in a fake or misleading letterhead is to spell the company name correctly. Notice how this is left off subsequent letterhead?

        • Obvious

          Probably a bad idea to have “someone not connected to the company” fill in the request for billing also.
          Not to mention, shouldn’t IH/Leonardo/the Plant manager be telling the Customer how much steam power they sent, not the Customer saying how much they received…

          • Ged

            Since it’s a test, it looks like they set it up so IH received payment for what the customer said they received. Since IH isn’t actually acting a utility. It does mean the customer could receive less than they did and give IH less money than they should, but for this sort of situation it doesn’t seem like it mattered to anyone.

  • Michael W Wolf

    Also this team IH hired, got their hands on the 1mw reactor after the test was completed. It cannot be used in court now, it is corrupted evidence. And if that team is from establishment science, They have a conflict of interest and should recuse themselves from any judgement of authenticity of a fund competing technology. You might as well bring back all the players that stopped cold fusion from being scientifically studied to evaluate the ecat.

  • Michael W Wolf

    Also apologies to Jed and company. They did seem to convey what they were told. If what they said wasn’t true, it is because of what IH told them. It is all on IH now.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      thanks for acknowledging that. Jed, however, probably did not get his information from IH. He has claimed it came from Rossi himself, distributed before the lawsuit, if I’m correct. He has said he saw the same data from multiple sources and it matched what Rossi disclosed to Lewan in that interview in Sweden. We still have not seen this data as to what Jed was talking about there, only some snippets.

      • JedRothwell

        My information came from multiple sources. Rossi himself confirmed some key parts of it in his interview with Lewan. I mentioned one or two numbers from the interview, but actually there were several other numbers and details. You might say he leaked more than he intended to.

        I think that some of his data is inaccurate. I do not think the flow rate was actually 36,000 kg per day, for the reasons described in I.H. Exhibit 5. However, I am sure this is actually his data. (Or Penon’s.)

        • Engineer48

          Hi Jed,

          The flow meter has a pulsed flow rate output. Do you know what was the flow per pulse? I read it was 1, 000kg per pulse. If so the real flow rate could vary between 35,000kg/day to 37,000kg/day?

          Also the container floor was elevated approx 1.5ft above the slab. Assuming the return condensate tank sat on the floor, would that not suggest the flow meter was installed below the fluid level inside the condensate tank and below the bottom of the lowest reactor in the elevated container? If so it is difficult to see how the flow meter was not always full, during the time the reactor’s fluid circulation system was active?

          BTW what happened to the various example attachments from item 5?

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “The flow meter has a pulsed flow rate output. Do you know what was the flow per pulse? I read it was 1,000kg per pulse.”

            Correct.

            “If so the real flow rate could vary between 35,000kg/day to 37,000kg/day?”

            That would not be the “real” flow rate. It would be the distorted flow rate. Distorted because it was too low for this meter, and because the pipe was only half full. However, you are right that if the flow was extremely steady, it would have been recorded somewhere between 35,000 and 37,000 per day. However, it was listed in the data as 36,000 per day, for every day, including days when the reactor was shut down and disassembled. So I suspect that data is not real.

            “If so it is difficult to see how the flow meter was not always full, during the time the reactor’s fluid circulation system was active?”

            There is no doubt it was not full. That was clear to observers, and as noted in the letter, when they disassembled the pipe they found stains showing it had only been half full.

            “BTW what happened to the various example attachments from item 5?”

            I have no idea. Please bear in mind I have no connection to I.H. or the law firm. Now that you have read Exhibit 5 you know as much as do.

  • Barbierir

    At least some fog has cleared, next stage will be Rossi’s attorney answer to the counterclaims. I can’t wait to see the next chapters. I am always amazed by people that take a very strong position when there is so much to explain for every possible scenario. A new thing here is that Hydrofusion may not like Rossi’s past attitude, but we already knew that he can be a very ruthless businessman from how
    he revoked the licenses to Prometeon and others when he believed to have found a better
    partner.

    Regarding the fraud scenario I have some general observations:
    1. Either the Ecat works or it is a very very large fraud involving many accomplices in the span of years. Rossi could never have pulled it alone. For example I can believe that Fabiani has told the truth or I can believe that he is an accomplice but I can’t believe that he’s an utter idiot.
    2. The lawsuit has been initiated by Rossi himself and I can’t explain why a fraudster would do that, and much less why the accomplices would go along with him.
    3. If it is fraud, why Rossi has always choose the most unlikely targets like Enel, Defkalion, Nasa, IH while spending huge amount of money without return for years? He could have easily made millions by selling licenses, pre-orders and shares to less savy people but always refused to do so.
    4. How do we explain the positive tests made when Rossi wasn’t present or the fact that he offered the Ecat to independent tests? Never heard a scammer doing so or being so incredibly lucky.

    I don’t have any answer, I just want to remind people that whatever way this story will end it must answer all the open questions and not just a part of them.

    • Rene

      As to your #1, there is more wiggle room:
      1b. The e-cat does work but not well. It has problems maintaining high output under certain to be discovered conditions.
      But wow, IH is going full bore on this one, and there are snippets of truth: fake/shell company is the big one. Anyway, the process of discovery will dig out the truth wherever it lies.

      • Ged

        And we already know from when the Judge dismissed the Conspiracy count from Rossi’s Complaint that IH and IPH are just shells for Cherokee, though they attempt to pretend otherwise (and then still admit it). Perhaps business is all just one big shell game ;).

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          No, we don’t know that about Cherokee. Rather, the judge simply took Rossi’s crazy claim that Cherokee wholly owned IH. In fact, it appears that no Cherokee money went into IH at all. IH was formed because Darden et al wanted to jump into LENR, and they did their research and they knew what they were doing. They could not have ethically invested Cherokee money in this kind of venture. So could the conspiracy claim come back? I noticed the problem back then. It could, but it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of making it past Summary Judgment, my opinion.

          • Ged

            Hm, I’ve been going through the Exhibitions, but I haven’t yet come across evidence that IH was not owned by Cherokee. Did they provide an exhibition on that, and if so, do you have the number handy, as it takes awhile to read through each one properly.

            I have noticed the e-mail addresses of Darden and Vaughn change from @cherokeefund.com to @industrialheat.co. Seems to perhaps belie when they deny Vaughn was a manager at Cherokee (he had his own e-mail address there before IH, so what was he if still high enough up to more or less lead IH?). Just little details, as these companies being shells isn’t really important to the main Complaints.

      • SG

        Shell companies are par for the course in business circles. JM might be “fake” who knows. It is wonderfully orchestrated if so, including a multi-person conspiracy and even a possible hired actor. And IH has made it a central theme. In fact, they have bet nearly all of it on this. Time and some discovery will tell.

        • Publius

          Shell companies and deception are two different things. If you purposely organize a shell company and purport it to be a third-party customer and it is not, you have committed fraud.

          • Omega Z

            Have you payed attention to how many shell companies Industrial heat has created to deal with Rossi and the E-cat technology in multiple jurisdictions.

            It’s as if to minimize financial liabilities in case of legal issues.

    • LuFong

      >The lawsuit has been initiated by Rossi himself and I can’t explain why a fraudster would do that, and much less why the accomplices would go along with him.

      If Rossi didn’t respond then it would be a tacit admission of guilt. It would be known that IH is no longer in a business relationship with Rossi and the reasons would make themselves apparent to any investor thinking of Rossi. What would people think?

      When a liar is caught his frequent reaction is to restate that lie even more loudly. (We’ve seen this doubling down by certain of our politicians lately). Rossi’s best defense was offense hoping that IH would settle out of court because to me this is as embarrassing to IH as Rossi. I mean would you invest money with IH given what has transpired? If Rossi was going down so would IH.

      And as to accomplices, it appears that one is in Canada somewhere unwilling to exchange his final month’s pay for an owed report and some raw data and the other is in Italy, both totally incommunicado.

      • Publius

        Hypothetically speaking of course, a fraudster emboldened by a career built on deception and deluded by his own sense of grandeur and backed by unquestioning followers might just initiate such a lawsuit.

        • LuFong

          We should leave Donald Trump and politics for another site.

        • Problem here is that the followers would have to be morons.

          One moron maybe. Many morons and you have a hypothesis with a moron density problem.

          • jimbo92107

            Moron: noun. The fundamental, irreducible particle of uninformed opinion.

      • Engineer48

        Hi LuFong,

        We have no idea what legal advise he and the others have been given and are following.

        Which means this forum is not where you nor anybody else should be making personal allegations.

        Debate the opinions & statements all you wish, but do not engage on a personal level as you have no knowledge of their situation nor legal advise they may be following.

      • Omega Z

        LuFong,

        If the test was negative, Rossi could just walk away and keep the $11.5 million he already received. Rossi is 65 years old. He would be set for life.

        Note, I haven’t read all of their claims yet, but as of yet, they didn’t say there is no Rossi effect. Only that it doesn’t meet their requirements.

        • GiveADogABone

          IH Answer Page 1 :
          Defendents deny that the energy catalyzer(E-cat) technology generates a low energy nuclear reaction resulting in an exothermic release of energy

  • Barbierir

    At least some fog has cleared, next stage will be Rossi’s attorney answer to the counterclaims. I can’t wait to see the next chapters. I am always amazed by people that take a very strong position when there is so much to explain for every possible scenario. A new thing here is that Hydrofusion may not like Rossi’s past attitude, but we already knew that he can be a very ruthless businessman from how
    he revoked the licenses to Prometeon and others when he believed to have found a better
    partner.

    Regarding the fraud scenario I have some general observations:
    1. Either the Ecat works or it is a very very large fraud involving many accomplices in the span of years. Rossi could never have pulled it alone. For example I can believe that Fabiani has told the truth or I can believe that he is an accomplice but I can’t believe that he’s an utter idiot.
    2. The lawsuit has been initiated by Rossi himself and I can’t explain why a fraudster would do that, and much less why the accomplices would go along with him.
    3. If it is fraud, why Rossi has always choose the most unlikely targets like Enel, Defkalion, Nasa, IH while spending huge amount of money without return for years? He could have easily made millions by selling licenses, pre-orders and shares to less savy people but always refused to do so.
    4. How do we explain the positive tests made when Rossi wasn’t present or the fact that he offered the Ecat to independent tests? Never heard a scammer doing so or being so incredibly lucky.

    I don’t have any answer, I just want to remind people that whatever way this story will end it must answer all the open questions and not just a part of them.

    • Rene

      As to your #1, there is more wiggle room:
      1b. The e-cat does work but not well. It has problems maintaining high output under certain to be discovered conditions.
      But wow, IH is going full bore on this one, and there are snippets of truth: fake/shell company is the big one. Anyway, the process of discovery will dig out the truth wherever it lies.

      • Ged

        And we already know from when the Judge dismissed the Conspiracy count from Rossi’s Complaint that IH and IPH are just shells for Cherokee, though they attempt to pretend otherwise (and then still admit it). Perhaps business is all just one big shell game ;).

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          No, we don’t know that about Cherokee. Rather, the judge simply took Rossi’s crazy claim that Cherokee wholly owned IH. In fact, it appears that no Cherokee money went into IH at all. IH was formed because Darden et al wanted to jump into LENR, and they did their research and they knew what they were doing. They could not have ethically invested Cherokee money in this kind of venture. So could the conspiracy claim come back? I noticed the problem back then. It could, but it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of making it past Summary Judgment, my opinion.

          • Ged

            Hm, I’ve been going through the Exhibitions, but I haven’t yet come across evidence that IH was not owned by Cherokee. Did they provide an exhibition on that, and if so, do you have the number handy, as it takes awhile to read through each one properly.

            I have noticed the e-mail addresses of Darden and Vaughn change from @cherokeefund.com to @industrialheat.co. Seems to perhaps belie when they deny Vaughn was a manager at Cherokee (he had his own e-mail address there before IH, so what was he if still high enough up to more or less lead IH?). Just little details, as these companies being shells isn’t really important to the main Complaints.

      • SG

        Shell companies are par for the course in business circles. JM might be “fake” who knows. It is wonderfully orchestrated if so, including a multi-person conspiracy and even a possible hired actor. And IH has made it a central theme. In fact, they have bet nearly all of it on this. Time and some discovery will tell.

        • Publius

          Shell companies and deception are two different things. If you purposely organize a shell company and purport it to be a third-party customer and it is not, you have committed fraud.

          • Omega Z

            Have you payed attention to how many shell companies Industrial heat has created to deal with Rossi and the E-cat technology in multiple jurisdictions.

            It’s as if to minimize financial liabilities in case of legal issues.

  • I thought that some Johnny Cash would be appropriate, given all of this, and I think that it could fit both sides:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8i5NLyXZdc

    • Chapman

      When is it NOT a good time for a little Cash Break?

      NICE…

      I think I will just play this in a loop for a while. There is no point in trying to have a conversation here while the trolls are loose and running amok!

      Maybe tomorrow, when the sun comes up and they all retreat back under the bridge, then maybe the rest of us can have a little intelligent conversation.

      Till then, let the music play…

  • LuFong

    IH’s Answer is only a set of partially substantiated allegations countering Rossi’s claims. I see a number of inconsistencies or missing answers and not enough to completely condemn Rossi. Should these allegations stand up in court with additional data and lack of a defense then it will be over for Rossi but that is going to be quite a while from now, should we ever get there.

    IMO Rossi can shut this entire thing down now by a) producing a credible customer, or b) producing a credible E-Cat. I don’t think this will happen anytime soon.

    • Dr. Mike

      LuFong,
      Thanks for making the exhibits available. I immediately checked Exhibit 5. It looks like it contains some valid concerns. What do you think? I can see why Rossi is withholding the report if the questions in Exhibit 5 can not be answered.
      Dr. Mike

      • Ged

        But why is IH not publishing the report, particularly if it would support them? So many unknowns about why no one will release the ERV report. At the very least, Discovery will bring it out.

        • Omega Z

          Rossi is withholding the report for the same Reason Industrial heat are. Their legal counsel told them to. It wont be disclosed until they go to court.

      • LuFong

        Yes, Exhibit 5 is one of the more interesting ones. I don’t follow all the technical details and until we see the ERV report which presumably has more detail everything is speculation but I think it’s some of the strongest evidence against Rossi’s suit.

        But, for example, I don’t buy 100% into an out of spec flow meter. The daily flow was just under the flow meter’s minimum, but not evidently always. Would it be off by that much? How would the amount of water in the pipes be modulated? It would be the pumps and the pressure they provide I would think. And the rust stain indicating a partially filled pipe–that could be remnant from a previous time. Why would there be rust unless it was in the water? From the Iron pipes? What is needed would be someone just clanging on the pipe while in operation to determine if full or some other indicator.

        The points raised are good but we’ll have to see more data and Rossi’s response. And then there are the points he didn’t raise but alluded to that could be even more damning.

        I’m not sure why Penon didn’t respond since IH was paying for his salary (or at least 1/2 of it). And also why did IH engage Penon as an ERV if IH is claiming that the 1MW Plant was not the GPT? At what point did IH realize it was the GPT?

        As I said earlier, IH’s Answer is just partially substantiated allegations and needs to be fully vetted in court. Having the ERV report would be nice–not sure why we didn’t get it. So many questions!

        • Obvious

          Lots of good questions.
          I bet that Rossi’s response will be full of shocking details.
          Does he get a response to this? Or do we now wait for the trial proper to hear anything else?

        • Engineer48

          Hi LuFong,

          I too doubt the ERV would have used the wrong flow meter range. Need to see a photo of it installed to confirm the claimed model number.

          Please note the reactor container is mounted about 1.5ft above the slab. Would assume any flow meter was installed on the outlet of the condensate tank, which would be sitting on the slab and thus installed at least 2ft below the lowest reactor.

          Hard to see how the meter was not continually full of fluid.

          Should also point out this was a recycling fluid system, where highly accurate self metering pumps assured a constant flow of fluid.

          Would also suggest that just maybe the reactors can operate at a much higher COP than 50, such that the loss of a few reactors or even a whole slab, could be made up by the other reactors increasing their thermal gain to ensure steady superheated steam production from a fixed input flow rate.

          I find several statements in item 5 to be almost intentionally misleading and the lack of a date to be somewhat concerning.

        • Ged

          One of the weird things about Exhibit 5 that I immediately noticed was that there is no name or data ascribed to it. It is also written and formatted like a legal document, not a letter, in contrast to the photocopied or copy-pasted other exhibits. From the image of the flow meter we have seen, it doesn’t seem to match the one they claim either in connection style or head style, but we don’t have the best photo–it’ll be easy to confirm or disprove the model number at least http://www.apator.com/en/offer/water-and-heat-metering/volume-parts-for-heat-meters/mwn130-nc-mp130-nc .

          The flow is still above the minimal start flow for the meter however, but I too don’t know exactly what a flow so very close to the qi would do, if the model number is correct. Generally, it means one is no longer in the linear range of a measuring device, so it begins to deviate, but not by a huge amount unless you are far away from the linear range. Be interesting to see the data on this and then we’ll know for sure.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Ged,

            Rossi did say the ERV had all his instruments pre calibrated. Also said the flow meter was calibrated at the expected flow rate and fluid temperature.

            Plus after the trial, the ERV had all the instruments re calibrated.

            Very hard to see how the flow meter could report 50x more flow than recorded.

          • Ged

            It couldn’t, even if the model number claimed is what was used, it is not nearly far enough out of range to make that remotely possible. It would only be a small percentage off of the calibration line. But if it was pre-calibrated to put the dynamic range lower, that would fix the issue too.

            Now that Penon has been dragged in, all he has to do is show the pre and post calibrations.

          • US_Citizen71

            I believe the flowmeter at worst would be reporting a lower flow than reality, a higher flow rate coupled with the same temperatures recorded would indicate an even higher COP.

          • cashmemorz

            Can hot air>120 degrees celsius be substituted for superheated steam to fake high cop?

      • Omega Z

        Rossi is withholding the report for the same Reason Industrial heat are. There legal counsel told them to until it’s revealed in court.

        • Mats002

          Most often truth is found in middle ground. Rossi is truthful about his LENR effect which also is replicated at COP 1.1 – 1.3 over long time (weeks) but in his quest for commersialization he decieve in hope and believe to find the last piece of the puzzle for high COP in time. He is running out of time.

          My two cents at the moment.

      • Mats002

        Hi LT, I wonder the same.
        Also it seams that Abd and Jed are working hard to put the last post on all pro Rossi posts,
        while questioning Rossi do not render keyword efforts from them.
        It reminds me of a certain Thomas Clarke over at LENRForum and other blogs. It is not a sign of health to put in that much effort for nothing. This goes for sifferkoll as well.

  • Publius

    The one strong argument is the sum of multiple fraud claims and she will ask herself why Jones Day and IH would risk perjuring themselves if they didn’t have proof of these allegations. Rossi and his group will have some explaining to do.

    • Ged

      The same goes the other way, Publius. The Judge kept the claim of Fraud against IH in the case, so Rossi and his lawyer are risking the same if they made up material for that, just as IH and Jones Day would be in hot water if they made up evidence for their side.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    thanks for acknowledging that. Jed, however, probably did not get his information from IH. He has claimed it came from Rossi himself, distributed before the lawsuit, if I’m correct. He has said he saw the same data from multiple sources and it matched what Rossi disclosed to Lewan in that interview in Sweden. We still have not seen this data as to what Jed was talking about there, only some snippets.

  • I haven’t digested all of it yet but the most interesting thing to me so far is Rossi boasting to Cherokee people how he intentionally tanked a test for the Hydrofusion folks so that they would go away and he could commit completely to (what would become) Industrial Heat instead. This is direct evidence of Rossi intentionally appearing inept or fraudulent when it suits his purpose. Perhaps he did the same with NASA when they started to get on his nerves by asking for too much. Perhaps he’s doing the same now with IH?

    It’s going to take awhile to unpack all of this, plus whatever is in Rossi’s pending response.

    I hope James Bass, or the actor who played him, enjoys his weekend. He’s now a man hunted by a thousand Internet sleuths.

    Release the videos to the public and we’ll wrap all this up in a few days. Crowd source this puppy and let’s be done with it.

    • Ged

      No one can hide from the long arm of the internet. Particularly organizations like IDI http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-05/this-company-has-built-a-profile-on-every-american-adult .

      • Well that’s comforting…or not.

        • Ged

          Sobering at least. Everything here is minuscule compared to some of the other fundamental societal battles going on right now.

    • Chapman

      LENR G,

      You know from my rants and temper tantrums that I have been a Rossi cheerleader. But I have to confess – I am shocked and dismayed by the E-mail issue. This revelation shakes my confidence in the man himself. I see a man not only willing to falsify a test and manipulate a trusting partner into abandoning a potentially profitable contract, but then also one who is dishonorable enough to then boast about his act of deceit and refer to it as a “masterpiece”. This is not a man who showed regret for a necessary deception that had to be tolerated, but a man who revels in his trickery and prides himself on deceitful cunning, as though it was an achievement and a source of self satisfaction.

      I cannot support such a man. It is morally, and ethically abhorrent to me, and goes against everything I believe, teach, and hold dear.

      There is nothing that Darden could have said that could so undermine Rossi’s character and reputation as simply disclosing this one communication from Rossi himself. This is not Jeb, Lumox or Weevel demeaning and debasing Rossi – it is Rossi himself displaying (if true) his true character.

      I am deeply, DEEPLY troubled by this.

      But for all we know, this could be a total fake authored by Jeb himself. Who knows?

      My only hope and prayer is that Rossi comes back and proves the e-mail is fraudulent and Libelous, and then files a second 100 million suit for defamation of character through fraudulent publication.

      • Yes, I hear you, Chapman. An illuminating data point that forces a fresh look at all demos for re-binning: didn’t work, didn’t work on purpose, worked…

        …and reveals Rossi as a cunning and unscrupulous businessman.

        • wpj

          Yes, but he also says things about Hydrofusion, but it appears that they are still bosom buddies with the Swedish plant. Maybe the Rossi words were just for effect with IH?

          • Well, there really was a falling out between Rossi and Hydrofusion for a period of time, and now we know why. It’s unclear how the fence was mended.

      • roseland67

        G

        My only hope and prayer is that someone somewhere replicates Ecat energy out > energy in.
        I don’t care who is guilty/innocent.
        As always, I ain’t holding my breath and I’m still from Missouri.

      • Teemu Soilamo

        The ‘masterpiece’ part is what go to me, as well. Speaks very ill of Rossi’s character.

    • GiveADogABone

      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
      Reassemble URL from below if needed
      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
      Reassemble URL from below if needed
      http://
      http://www.matthey.com/
      contactus/
      whereweoperate

      Cambridge
      28 Cambridge Science Park
      Milton Road
      Cambridge

      • Engineer48

        Hi GiveADogABone,

        Both links are broken.

        Please check & edit them.

      • wpj

        Interesting, as that is their research division rather than the production site; this is where my ex colleague used to work. Most of the work done there is contracted research.

        I happen to be very good friends with one of their consultants and will ask him if he knows the chap.

        • GiveADogABone

          Brilliant!!

          • wpj

            Pity that my ex-colleague parted on bad terms, otherwise I could have contacted him.

            My other contact can also contact the person that headed up the unit who retired a few months ago.

          • wpj

            Actually, he may be based at the production site at Royston, which is still in the Cambridge area.

          • wpj

            Looking at the football listings, that is for 2005-2006. The JM Technology Centre (based in the Cambridge Science Park) did not move there until about 2006; they were previously in the North East of the country and actually owned by (I think) ICI.

          • GiveADogABone

            I feel you are close and could crack this one.

      • James Bass has also played for Royston Town in his earlier carreer. And in Royston we will find the HQ of Johnson Matthey Chemical Products manufacturing among other things platinum catalysts… Is that a coincidence or what?

        http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/mystery-man-james-bass-playing-soccer-for-johnson-matthey-of-royston-uk-the-hq-of-johnson-matthey-chemical-products/

        • GiveADogABone

          On balance and what with one thing and another I would say no. Still hoping wpj can get some inside info.

          • I wonder if James Bass is one of Mats Lewan’s sources.

            Paging Mats… paging Mats… We need your investigative skills again.

          • wpj

            My consultant contact says that he is not in the Technology Services side of things- to be expected as these are research rather than production people; I will get him to check with the retired boss of the TS side who had a lot of dealings with the Royston production facility

          • wpj

            Forgot to mention that he had heard the name though, but he can’t remember in what context

        • wpj

          So, why can’t the IH lawyers use the internet?

          • Obvious

            I would think they have already called him.
            If the “actor” (if there was one), was not merely using an alias, but actually impersonating someone, that would be far more serious.

        • wpj

          Also played for the “A”s in 2010 and scored an important goal for them to win a trophy (I searched the local newspaper).

    • Omega Z

      The only problem is that Hydrofusion is still with Rossi.
      That is the Swedish contingent.

      • Yes, in the long run, Hydrofusion was not so easily dissuaded and are now a key element of the story.

  • James Rice

    I don’t know man. After looking at the Answer and all the exhibits, to be honest it doesn’t look good for Rossi. What I see is a good faith effort by IH which is eroded by deceptive dealing on Rossi’s side. Three examples:

    1. The probable fake steam customer (Henry W. Johnson, CEO of the company, is actually a Miami real estate lawyer),
    2. Rossi initially blocked IH’s technical representative (Joe Murray) from inspecting the plant, which was absolutely contrary to the agreement. When Murray finally got a chance to look at it and asked Fabiani about the problems he found, Fabiani didn’t respond (despite being IH’s consultant and getting $10,500 a month from IH during the test).
    3. IH didn’t pay Fabiani the last month’s consulting payment because they hadn’t received the raw data from the test. IH offered to hand Fabiani a check upon receiving the final data, but Fabiani never gave IH the data.

    • Ged

      We’ll see if Rossi and co. can offer up any counter Answers or not, and then it’s on to Discovery to actually bring out all the evidence. Still half a year away for that unfortunately.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Johnson is not only Rossi’s real estate lawyer, he is President of Leonardo Corporation, Rossi’s company. This thing sucked from the beginning, it sucked in the middle and it still sucks. Read Exhibit 16, Rossi’s email to IH, trying to convince them to rent the 1 MW unit to JMC. Compare that with his story in the Complaint. It’s very, very different.

      IH wanted to do the test in North Carolina, at their own facility. Dewey said that Rossi refused. This mail from Rossi is consistent with the Dewey story, not with the Rossi story. And this shows that the move to Doral was not for a “Guaranteed Performance Test,” and IH’s acceptance of the move was not accepting it as such a test, which is crucial to the Rossi argument that their behavior accepted the test even though there was no agreement as explicitly required.

  • James Rice

    I don’t know man. After looking at the Answer and all the exhibits, to be honest it doesn’t look good for Rossi. What I see is a good faith effort by IH which is eroded by deceptive dealing on Rossi’s side. Three examples:

    1. The probable fake steam customer (Henry W. Johnson, CEO of the company, is actually a Miami real estate lawyer),
    2. Rossi initially blocked IH’s technical representative (Joe Murray) from inspecting the plant, which was absolutely contrary to the agreement. When Murray finally got a chance to look at it and asked Fabiani about the problems he found, Fabiani didn’t respond (despite being IH’s consultant and getting $10,500 a month from IH during the test).
    3. IH didn’t pay Fabiani the last month’s consulting payment because they hadn’t received the raw data from the test. IH offered to hand Fabiani a check upon receiving the final data, but Fabiani never gave IH the data.

    • Ged

      We’ll see if Rossi and co. can offer up any counter Answers or not, and then it’s on to Discovery to actually bring out all the evidence. Still half a year away for that unfortunately.

    • Guest

      Henry W. Johnson is also listed as “President” of Leonardo Corp

    • Grégory

      What seems certain: someone is lying. *normally* IH word should matter more as neutral new player with no apparent interest in demolishing eCat vs Rossi who’s been accused of lies (although this remains up to debate).

      Thing is, by putting these statements IH paint itself in a doubtless self contradiction between what they claim in court vs Rossi and what they claim earlier vs investors. So they’ve proved themselves to be prone to lie. While Rossi’s track record let some room for the benefit of the doubt. Also with money stake IH clearly isn’t neutral at all. They may very well have been unable to raise the money they were supposed to to keep their end of the deal and are trying to get out of it that way.

      All in all, the show goes on for another season, as it seems…

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Johnson is not only Rossi’s real estate lawyer, he is President of Leonardo Corporation, Rossi’s company. This thing sucked from the beginning, it sucked in the middle and it still sucks. Read Exhibit 16, Rossi’s email to IH, trying to convince them to rent the 1 MW unit to JMC. Compare that with his story in the Complaint. It’s very, very different.

      IH wanted to do the test in North Carolina, at their own facility. Dewey said that Rossi refused. This mail from Rossi is consistent with the Dewey story, not with the Rossi story. And this shows that the move to Doral was not for a “Guaranteed Performance Test,” and IH’s acceptance of the move was not accepting it as such a test, which is crucial to the Rossi argument that their behavior accepted the test even though there was no agreement as explicitly required.

  • jimbo92107

    If IH’s allegations are true, then we are witnessing a good example of “the big con,” where a smooth-talking, unscrupulous pseudo-scientist teams up with a collection of co-conspirators to defraud a rich investor.

    This would certainly explain why nobody has been able to replicate Andrea Rossi’s magic recipe for achieving nuclear levels of power gain. It would also explain why people that claim to have replicated the phenomenon never seem to get their process into the public domain.

    Months ago I commented that either way this story pans out, it would be fascinating. Now it appears that Andrea Rossi’s freedom will depend on his ability to prove that his claimed invention actually works, in a court of law. Will it work, fail, or will Rossi mysteriously disappear before the trial?

    Fellow fanboys, it’s getting close to betting time.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Jimbo,

      And if IH’s allegations are not true, well the one doing the “the big con” is not Rossi.

      So far IH have not presented a technical defense to counter the COP 50 claim. The water flow meter claim is very weak at best.

      Nothing about faulty steam pressure nor faulty steam temperature measurements.

      The only technical claim they have made is the model of the flow meter’s min range was just above the measured flow. So what? Not a biggie if the ERV had the unit certified at the 1, 500kg/hr flow rate before & after the test as Rossi has claimed the ERV did. If so that certification destroys item 5.

      Why was the flow rate constant? Because the pumps used have in built period based flow rate monitoring & control. If you want 1, 500kg/hr, you dial in 1, 500kg/hr and that is what you get. Maybe the IH “expert” doesn’t understand what modern pumps can do?

      • jimbo92107

        The crucial phrase in all of this is, “if so.”

        My $100 dollars is now on Rossi being a fraud.

        If you are sure that Rossi did not know the ERV, and that Rossi’s metal boxes actually contain nuclear processes, rather than useless junk, let us wager.

        I assume that con man Rossi will continue to find reasons to delay his fateful court date, culminating in either his flight from justice or his complete humiliation in court. For that reason I believe we should stipulate that if he runs away, I win. If he shows up in court and fails, I win. If he shows up in court and succeeds, you win.

        Please understand that it would make me very happy to lose this wager, for it would mean boundless, dirt cheap energy for mankind. All I get if I win is a measly hundred bucks, and the knowledge that another unscrupulous con man got exposed. Go solar.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Jimbo,

          Might I suggest you take you “con man” accusations to another forum, that is unless you can prove your claim.

          Here on ECW we debate the data we have and try to not get personal nor to make statements we can’t back up.

          • jimbo92107

            So you have no real confidence in your beliefs. I understand.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jimbo,

            There you go again. Trying to make it personal.

            Would suggest you review a few of my posts.

          • Omega Z

            Bronco Billy

      • Andy Kumar

        “Engineer”,
        You have dealt with Rossi in your capacity as a consultant for your clients who “breathe steam” or was it “eat steam for breakfast.” What is your gut feeling about the fresh slanders by IH? If you are sure about Rossi, take up Jimbo on his bet.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Jed,

    The flow meter has a pulsed flow rate output. Do you know what was the flow per pulse? I read it was 1, 000kg per pulse. If so the real flow rate could vary between 35,000kg/day to 37,000kg/day?

    Also the container floor was elevated approx 1.5ft above the slab. Assuming the return condensate tank sat on the floor, would that not suggest the flow meter was installed below the fluid level inside the condensate tank and below the bottom of the lowest reactor in the elevated container? If so it is difficult to see how the flow meter was not always full, during the time the reactor’s fluid circulation system was active?

    BTW what happened to the various example attachments from item 5?

  • malkom700

    The main point of the question that the COP is 0, 4 or 50. The other conditions are almost incidental to us.

    • Obvious

      Nope.
      The main question is “was this a real attempt with experimental technology that works sometimes with some flaws, or was it scam complete with coverups on every level”

      • GiveADogABone

        If the ERV report is completely accurate to reality, then where is the scam?
        How do you decide if the ERV is completely accurate to reality?
        IH claim a CoP of 1. The ERV report seems to claim a CoP of 50.
        The answer is numbers and the derivation thereof.

        • Obvious

          IF grandma had wheels, she could be a wheelbarrow…
          COP = 1 is normal. The data that shows otherwise should easily demonstrate that. There should be no easy answer to COP = 1 if the COP really = 50.

          Re: Exhibit 20
          http://www.alaksir.net/news/

          • GiveADogABone

            ‘The data that shows otherwise should easily demonstrate that.’
            Absolutely right.

            And you do not need any interfering lawyers to help get that decision right. Start with the instruments and the accuracy thereof. Also find all the duplicate instruments and data and cross-compare. That gives you a start.

            If the CoP=1 and the electrical supply trips at, say, 250kw then it is a bit awkward to explain how the plant produces 1MW of steam, let alone doing with only 20kw of electricity. How many meters were there on the electrical supply? More than one for sure.

            I do appreciate that the lawyers will come along later and start trying to find holes. Fixing all this is the job of the ERV report.

          • Ged

            http://acidcow.com/pics/16423-plants-in-japan-35-pics.html looks like a vacation resort for Godzilla!

        • The ERV report is real and it shows COP~50. IH even states it “speaks for itself” in their counterFUD, but without releasing it … They only deny the plant being the actual GP test in the same way as in the MTD, ie. signature missing and being too late … They completely dodge the performance issue …

          http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/darden-ih-cherokee-goes-full-ad-hominem-on-fabiani-and-penon-in-counterclaim/

          • GiveADogABone

            Well, that tells you where to hammer IH hardest. In their numbers …

            … and when people start proving your numbers wrong things can rapidly slide to total collapse. Bring on the numbers, I say.

          • The performance window argument is so slimy.

  • malkom700

    The main point of the question that the COP is 0, 4 or 50. The other conditions are almost incidental to us outsiders.

    • Obvious

      Nope.
      The main question is “was this a real attempt with experimental technology that works sometimes with some flaws, or was it scam complete with coverups on every level”

      • GiveADogABone

        If the ERV report is completely accurate to reality, then where is the scam?
        How do you decide if the ERV is completely accurate to reality?
        IH claim a CoP of 1. The ERV report seems to claim a CoP of 50.
        The answer is numbers and the derivation thereof.

        • Obvious

          IF grandma had wheels, she could be a wheelbarrow…
          COP = 1 is normal. The data that shows otherwise should easily demonstrate that. There should be no easy answer to COP = 1 if the COP really = 50.

          Re: Exhibit 20
          http://www.alaksir.net/news/

          • GiveADogABone

            ‘The data that shows otherwise should easily demonstrate that.’
            Absolutely right.

            And you do not need any interfering lawyers to help get that decision right. Start with the instruments and the accuracy thereof. Also find all the duplicate instruments and data and cross-compare. That gives you a start.

            If the CoP=1 and the electrical supply trips at, say, 250kw then it is a bit awkward to explain how the plant produces 1MW of steam, let alone doing it with only 20kw of electricity. How many meters were there on the electrical supply? More than one for sure.

            I do appreciate that the lawyers will come along later and start trying to find holes. Fixing all this is the job of the ERV report.

          • Ged

            http://acidcow.com/pics/16423-plants-in-japan-35-pics.html looks like a vacation resort for Godzilla!

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            The above link is to a page that hosts pop-up ads linking to possible malware. Beware. This link is to the image itself and should be safe: http://cdn.acidcow.com/pics/20110113/japan_17.jpg

        • The ERV report is real and it shows COP~50. IH even states it “speaks for itself” in their counterFUD, but without releasing it … They only deny the plant being the actual GP test in the same way as in the MTD, ie. signature missing and being too late … They completely dodge the performance issue …

          http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/darden-ih-cherokee-goes-full-ad-hominem-on-fabiani-and-penon-in-counterclaim/

          • GiveADogABone

            Well, that tells you where to hammer IH hardest. In their numbers …

            … and when people start proving your numbers wrong things can rapidly slide to total collapse. Bring on the numbers, I say.

          • The performance window argument is so slimy.

  • wpj

    Where is West in all of this?

    Is he the “good guy” in IH’s books (DW did say that he was a nice guy and was off fishing somewhere, so that sort of damns him)?

    • Obvious

      Maybe he actually fulfilled his contract.

    • Barbierir

      I wonder too. When Fabiani posted on Facebook his photo inside the Ecat, West wrote positive comments to his buddy. They seem to get along very well and they had the same assignment from IH.

      • wpj

        Not really, he just wrote “And I was there too”. Nothing positive (or negative).

        • Barbierir

          that sounded like a positive endorsement

      • Publius

        Perhaps West is a star witness for IH and has come clean with what he knows.

        • sam

          I wonder who else was part of A.R. Team as he called it
          and could be called as a witness by either side.
          Or a security guard with his in and out person book might no something about
          the activity of the customer.

  • wpj

    Where is West in all of this?

    Is he the “good guy” in IH’s books (DW did say that he was a nice guy and was off fishing somewhere, so that sort of damns him)?

    • Obvious

      Maybe he actually fulfilled his contract.

    • Barbierir

      I wonder too. When Fabiani posted on Facebook his photo inside the Ecat, West wrote positive comments to his buddy. They seem to get along very well and they had the same assignment from IH.

      • wpj

        Not really, he just wrote “And I was there too”. Nothing positive (or negative).

        • Barbierir

          that sounded like a positive endorsement

      • Publius

        Perhaps West is a star witness for IH and has come clean with what he knows.

        • sam

          I wonder who else was part of A.R. Team as he called it
          and could be called as a witness by either side.
          Or a security guard with his in and out person book might no something about
          the activity of the customer.

  • Mats002

    Most often truth is found in middle ground. Rossi is truthful about his LENR effect which also is replicated at COP 1.1 – 1.3 over long time (weeks) but in his quest for commersialization he decieve in hope and believe to find the last piece of the puzzle for high COP in time. He is running out of time.

    My two cents at the moment.

  • Pedro

    These fraud claims are very damaging…
    – If they stick, it’s of course end of story for Rossi
    – But even if they don’t stick, and Rossi can fight all these claims, for the next 20 years all the stories on the internet will still be there and sceptics (like Krivit, MaryYugo) will use them to make Rossi look bad, just like they do now with the Petrol Dragon issue.
    These claims will be enough to bury Rossi and the eCat, unless Rossi manages to get production going.
    There is nothing positive about this, and if the purpose of IH is to delay Rossi, then these claims do a good job, even if they are unprovable or even disproved in a later stage… the sceptics will make sure the mud sticks

  • Pedro

    These fraud claims are very damaging…
    – If they stick, it’s of course end of story for Rossi
    – But even if they don’t stick, and Rossi can fight all these claims, for the next 20 years all the stories on the internet will still be there and sceptics (like Krivit, MaryYugo) will use them to make Rossi look bad, just like they do now with the Petrol Dragon issue.
    These claims will be enough to bury Rossi and the eCat, unless Rossi manages to get production going.
    There is nothing positive about this, and if the purpose of IH is to delay Rossi, then these claims do a good job, even if they are unprovable or even disproved in a later stage… the sceptics will make sure the mud sticks

    • clovis ray

      Agreed, there is nothing positive about this mess, it is delaying the most positive thing on earth that is a crime, that must demand just compensation.

  • Gerald

    If I read think right, IH claim to have an email where Rossi says to make a fake customer for the plant and that is better for Rossi and IH. (my own interpertation). And afterwards they claim that it was a fake customer and fraud? So they didn’t have problems with it, but know when things starting to get ungly they start bringing it up? Please tell me I didn’t read it well.. it from 67. and further.

  • Gerald

    If I read think right, IH claim to have an email where Rossi says to make a fake customer for the plant and that is better for Rossi and IH. (my own interpertation). And afterwards they claim that it was a fake customer and fraud? So they didn’t have problems with it, but know when things starting to get ungly they start bringing it up? Please tell me I didn’t read it well.. it from 67. and further.

  • GiveADogABone

    Time to get those spreadsheets out and see what IH are really saying about the E-cat performance. The spreadsheet formulae are at the bottom. Now that IH have stated no anomalous heat(CoP=1) here is the numerical data of IH’s case.
    e.g. A steaming reactor with Elec In of 250kw produces a feed flow rate of 9.57m^3/day with an Enthalpy Transfer of 250kw.

    Mass Flow Rate = CoP * Elec In / Enthalpy Diff

    THIS MODELS A FLOODED REACTOR
    Enthalpy Diff 144.6 kJ/kg
    CoP Elec In Mass Flow Rate Mass Flow Rate Enthalpy Xfer
    …..kJ/s or kW…..M (g/s)……….. M^3/day…………kJ/ s
    1 1…. 6.92……….. 0.60.. 1
    1 20.. 138.31. ….11.95. 20
    1 40.. 276.63….. 23.90. 40
    1 60.. 414.94….. 35.85. 60
    1 80.. 553.25….. 47.80. 80 …….Feed flow getting excessive
    1 200 1383.13 119.50 200 …….Normal max Elec In
    1 250 1728.91 149.38 250
    1 300 2074.69 179.25 300 …….Elec In = Elec Out in all cases

    THIS MODELS A REACTOR PRODUCING STEAM
    Lt Ht Vap 2257 kJ/kg
    CoP..Elec In..Mass Flow Rate Mass Flow Rate Enthalpy Xfer
    ..kJ/s or kW……. M(g/s)……….. M^3/day…………… kJ/ s
    1 1… 0.44……… 0.04.. 1
    1 50. 22.15……. 1.91. 50
    1 100 44.31….. 3.83 100
    1 150 66.46….. 5.74 150
    1 200 88.61…. 7.66 200 …….Normal max Elec In. Feed flow 20% of normal max.
    1 250 110.77.. 9.57 250
    1 300 132.92 11.48 300 …….Elec In = Elec Out in all cases

    Normal max Mass Flow Rate is about 38M^3/day
    Normal max Enthalpy Transfer is 1000kJ/s

    A: CoP – Input Data Range 1-50
    B: Elec In – Input Data Range 1-300
    C: =A7*B7*1000/$B$3 : $B$3 is Enthalpy Diff. 1000 converts to g/s.
    D: =C7*60^2*24/10^6 : 10^6 converts to M^3 from g
    E: =A7*B7
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/11/a-lightweight-proof-of-the-minimum-cop-during-the-1mw-test-paul-dodgshun/

    • Mats002

      If the customer was fake, payments is not evidence for steam or energy, it’s only paper work.

      So: the secret customer must be dragged out in the light or Rossi loose this case.

      • wpj

        Well, seeing as they are named in the litigation they will have to if they are real.

      • GiveADogABone

        I think the dichotomy is building now that IH have nailed themselves to CoP=1. No normal electricity supply to the plant can deliver 1MW of heat.

        If the ERV was measuring 1MW, Rossi was measuring 1MW on his own instruments and the ‘Customer’ was measuring 1MW for the purposes of billing, then that is three sets of data. There is the possibility of a fourth on the secondary side of the customer process but that would be down to the customer again.

        What potentially defeats this data is the allegation of conspiracy and faking. However, IH was accepting payments for 1MW of steam delivery, so it would seem. That could be awkward to explain.

        • If they were being conned, then the payments from JM Products to Industrial Heat were just part of the con.

          What better way to keep Industrial Heat complacent than throw a little money their way?

          You’re absolutely correct; the assertion of 1 MW heat and high COP is strong and redundant. The only way around it is a fraudulent conspiracy by Rossi, Penon, Fabiani and Johnson (maybe more, Levi, Fioravanti, Focardi?). That’s exactly what they are asserting in their filing.

          Extrapolating, it would mean that this conspiracy has been going on since 2012 and has passed several acceptance gates, independent testing on another continent, makes zero sense in terms of risk reward and has included hundreds of prototypes and a believable engineering evolution.

          • Mats002

            …which make a 100% fraud scheme improbible. Too much luck on the way.

            More plausible is that part of the COP is real but on top of that we find fraud – “I did not mean to… but the circumstances…”

            On the other side we have “yes we exaggerated the allegations but now we know the truth…”

          • Explain Rossi’s, Penon’s and Fabiani’s behavior after they supposedly divvied up $11.5M.

            Rossi: “Hey let’s channel some money back to IH, set up a fake customer, run the test for a year, and continue to pretend to advance the technology through R&D! Get us another $89M!!

            Fabiani: I could even give an interview to Mats that backs the whole thing up.

            Penon: Shouldn’t we just find a nice beach somewhere with our millions and tell stories of our conquests to incredulous natives while sipping Champagne?

            Rossi: Where’s your sense of adventure? I’ll even spend every waking hour in the shipping crate just to sell it better.

            Penon: I don’t know Andrea, seems awfully risky. We could wind up in jail; they’re bound to figure it out at some point and we’ll wind up in court.

            Rossi: Court? Screw court. I’ll sue them first when they refuse to pay.

            Penon: But wouldn’t that mean a bunch of lawyers will get a bunch of our money?

            Johnson: I resemble that remark.

            Rossi: Henry, can you make it look like Johnson Matthey is the customer?

            Johnson: Sure I’ll just set up a shell company and call it JM Chemicals or something like that. The blogosphere will run with it.

            Fabiani: I love those useful idiots.

            Penon: I don’t know guys. Shouldn’t we just cash in? I mean we’ve been pretty lucky to get this far.

            Rossi: You owe me this, Alfonse. You’d still be living in that dump if it weren’t for me. I’m having too much fun to stop now.

            Penon (pausing); Alright, Andrea, but after this I’m out.

          • Mats002

            ^^ ^^ ^^ LOL!

          • Barbierir

            LoL…

          • Gerard McEk

            I believe that it is impossible for a (non technical) jury to judge who is right. IH has a point that the steam flow was not measured and that they were unable to check the amount of heat production. (It is possible that a water flow runs to the customer side through a (maybe insulated) pipe in the steam or water return pipe. They were not allowed to check that and they would have to trust Pepon that he checked that.
            Obviously it is quite unlikely that this happend, but not impossible.

            So how would the court continue? Would they demand a second test? I believe the plant is still mothballed, therefore it can be easily checked if the assumed pipe is there. If not than all claims of IH regarding COP are bullshit. So who owns the plant, AR or IH? CHECK IT!

          • There are many black and white issues here that should be easily discernible to the court once discovery begins. It’s going to flow one way or another pretty quickly.

            Meanwhile in the real world either Johnson Matthey is helping Leonardo get to market or they are not. We might be able to discern the truth there before the court.

          • Mats002

            That plant is a crime scene now. Keep Out!

          • Gerard McEk

            I think a check in presence of the judge should be allowed: The technical peep show ;), I mean pipe show…, hm, whatever.

          • The court appointed mediator may have this authority.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            No. Mediators help the parties to negotiate agreements but have no “authority.”

          • Mats002

            Rossi et al never delivered the last months of data. Maybe the special piping was reset in november 2015 and that will show in the data IH never got?

          • Ged

            Knock knock, here comes Discovery :D!

          • Michael W Wolf

            But IH admits they brought in their own expert to examine the reactor after the test was over. The evidence has now been corrupted.

          • wpj

            You should note that the IH/JMC contract was for TWO years which may explain why the warehouse is still “occupied” by them (and a padlocked plant).

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            This is all a clear sign that the Customer was fake. It appears as IH has laid it out: Rossi engineered the move to Florida so he could create a phony GPT to collect $89 million. If the reactor had been real and if the Customer had been real, why was this all shut down when the “test” was completed? This is such a clumsy fraud it is amazing, “Johnson Matthew” and all. But Rossi was accustomed to getting away with much.

          • Publius

            Nobody is paying me Clovis. I just want the truth and an unimpeded path to LENR and if Rossi turns out to be a fraud, I want him and his sort out of the way.

          • Jed, the face plate can show 1.6 (as a reasonable approximation of the 1.575 in the spec sheet for steam at 130 deg C). But the spec sheets also clearly show that the flow meter’s minimum flow rate for warm water is much lower.

            I’ve pegged you a straight-shooter so far. I’d hate to have to modify that opinion.

            But you went on for weeks about how the flow meter was inadequate and now that I finally know the model and did a little research I come up with the opposite conclusion. Your argument seems to be based on a face plate number where the real situation is more nuanced.

            So this is your chance to persuade me.

            What am I missing?

            BTW people, you can use blockquote tags to make your posts clearer as to your own words and quoting others.

          • Billy Jackson

            Its very simple.. the customer provides the specifications on how much energy it takes to run the plant (which they said they know) .. they then compare the energy required to run the plant under rossi’s ecat.. its basic math all the proof is in the power meter outside the building the electric company knows exactly how many watts were used.. now its just a simple comparison..

          • Mats002

            Johnson Matthey is key witness then. We’ll see.

          • Gerard McEk

            I think we all agree that the customer is a key figure in this. Let us hope he is available as a witness. But according IH he belongs also to AR’s fraudulent group (probably we all belong to that group). How would the jury assess the fact that everyone who says: ‘the plant had a COP well over 10’ is framed by IH as ‘belonging to the fraudulent group of AR’?

          • cashmemorz

            It is up to the legal system to be impartial via its expert witnesses. How impartial a witness is is also based partly on currently accepted state of the art in science. By accepted means the mainstream and how closely that witness toes the line for of the mainstream. This is where the proverbial “mud hits the wall”. Hot times are ahead in this court proceeding on this point and other points of doubt.

          • sam

            This is a comment from Lenr forum.
            THHuxley
            User Avatar
            Professional
            8 hours ago+2
            OK, so I’ve just read through a few pages of comment on the other thread.

            I also read through the entire IH answer (though I’ve not yet checked most of the exhibits).

            Putting the two together, I’m unwilling to re-argue points here – the answer is almost precisely as would have been expected and IH’s story of how and why they were defrauded by Rossi is entirely consistent. That there are some here who don’t see it that way is predictable – but it does them no credit. Paras 79-86 of the counterclaim are well worth reading carefully.There are just a few points that I’d like to bring out:

            (1) The GPT errors. IH are giving, in their example, some exemplary ways in which the test clearly contravened good practice to an extent that is negligent, in several ways. The fan being just one of those, another being the existence of “cooked” data. Given such provable errors, they do not have to precisely account for how the fudges results are what they are. The point is that once you leave specs – running flowmeters wrong, substituting estimates for real data, it is very difficult afterwards to know how large is the error. You just know “dragons go here” and rightly don’t trust it. Also, given provable errors of this kind it can be reasonably supposed that there are other similar, but undetected, issues. Hence the arguments from some that because COP=50 is so large, and accounting for all of that is difficult, the device must have worked, would fail even if the exemplary errors were indeed provably limited.

            (2) The exemplary errors are not provably limited. For one reason: if some data is proven fudged no limit can be put on how much more fudge. For context please read Exhibit 5, in detail.

            (3) Flowmeter specifics.The (claimed) average flowrate is just below the minimum flowmeter spec. That is unprofessional and means the results cannot be reliable, but I’d not expect large errors just from this. Other things make the matter worse.

            (a)You remember the ill-fated DGT demo where they were able to generate arbitrary high apparent flow rates with near zero real flow rate by reducing the rate below meter spec and allowing turbulence to make the impellor run backwards? This flowmeter has the same issue, and being mounted with vapour in the tube as well as water makes this infinite error mechanism possible as well as the obvious large over-reading due to a partially filled pipe.

            (b) The evidence in exhibit 5 that the reported data on flowrate is just wrong is unmistakable (how could it remain so constant over large working reactor number changes etc?). Given this, the actual flow rate could be much lower than that reported.

            (4) IH behaviour. The arguments here from some, specifically Shane, are just scientifically and logically wrong. I know Shane does not claim to be a technical guy – but then he should not argue technical arguments with such confidence. It is actually very difficult to prove COP = 1 to any good accuracy. Much easier to prove COP is higher than some limit (if it is really greater than 1) then to prove there is no excess heat. In fact it is logically impossible to prove there is no excess heat. All you can do is say that you have not been able to measure anything convincingly above errors. IH’s care on this issue will be especially strong because until they got high power tech help in (Murray) they were influenced by Fabiani and others and relying on test methods that were just wrong. Look at their believing the Lugano results until rather late in the day when they seem to have located TC’s report. I guess Jed told them, because it is published on lenr-canr?

            (5) Armchair critics here think that IH would be certain there was no excess heat early on. That cannot be true. They would have doubts, which got larger with more experimentation. They can never say there was no excess heat, only that they have no evidence of this and certainly any actual excess is provably below some value given by their total setup errors. Correct estimation of those errors is not simple for any setup.

            Regards, THH

          • cashmemorz

            “IH has another agenda.” **Due diligence** to make sure they have the actual goods. When proven out, by court no less, then what better due diligence? And if it takes a few more years, extraordinary tech requires such diligence. Everything else is just weird talk. and gets nowhere.

          • cashmemorz

            Excellent detail and analysis. And if the court proceedings can overcome such on purpose wrong data then Industrial Heat will have won their purpose in presenting such data. Industrial Heat will have confirmed that, even in the face of severe FUD, that the E-CAT has been shown to work as the ERV shows. This is the exact reason why the ERV is not published as yet. So that only the inner circle of those in the know can put in roadblocks that will test the system and not just anybody outside that circle so as not to muddy the waters in a manner that is uncontrolled. And in so doing IH will have accomplished due diligence of the highest order. All will be friends, Rossi will receive the balance of what is due him by IH and everyone will be vindicated.

          • Ged

            It’s interesting I haven’t seen anyone else pointing out how Exhibit 5
            has no name or date, is not an original document (obviously, with
            references to Exhibits and all), and is formatted the same as the rest of
            the legal Answer with the same language as well. It’s a surprising contrast to the other Exhibits. Be
            interesting to see the original engineer-to-engineer letter.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Is a copy of an email an “original document”? On the face, this is a Letter. The Answer formally attributes this to Joe Murray. The document is not complete. It had attachments, it appears, called “Exhibits.” This request to Penon was obviously after the “test” was complete, it contains references to events of February 17, and there is reference to the obvious issue of whether or not this work was the GPT. At this point, the relationship with Rossi was already badly broken,see the demand letter from Jones Day to Annesser, Rossi’s attorney, February 17 (Exhibit 23), so I expect that Rossi was already preparing to sue. Not much later, IH issued a statement to Mats Lewan and some others, and Rossi was asked if there was a problem. He claimed everything was fine with IH. He was lying.

            We can see the breakdown much earlier, with Exhibit 19, where Rossi refused access to Joe Murray “until the tests have been completed.” But the whole move of the reactor to Florida had been presented to IH as an opportunity to sell power, not as a “test,” per se, and certainly not as the Guaranteed Performance Test, and the Term Sheet (Exhibit 17) represented that IH representatives would have full access — and did not prohibit entry to the “customer area,” as Rossi has claimed.

            Rossi behaved as if it was his reactor.

            This is all not difficult to show to a jury, it’s not complicated, assuming that the appropriate evidence and testimony can be presented.

          • Publius

            I’m also open to the possibility a fraudster has a lot of lies to keep straight, including making sure their letterhead correctly spells the name of the company they are trying to misrepresent.

          • Robert Dorr

            Rossi has repeatedly said that Johnson Matthey is not the customer so forget about the misspelling of Matthey as Matthew. They are not directly related although possibly fourth cousins.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I cannot get over Exhibit 18. http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/0029.18_Exhibit_18.pdf

            Rossi claims that Johnson Matthey is NOT the customer, but the letterhead (promptly removed in latter mails) read “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthew Platinum Sponges”. This implies three distinct possibilities:

            1. ‘Johnson Matthew’ was a misspelling of ‘Johnson Matthey’ –> Rossi is a liar
            2. It really did mean to read ‘Johnson Matthew’, which is a nonexistent entity –> Rossi is a liar AND purposely misleaded IH with a red herring
            3. Fabrication by IH –> IH are liars

            The only reasonable defense that Rossi can muster up is pure fabrication, which really sets up a larger IH conspiracy theory.

          • Ged

            JM Chemical Products is the customer. Doesn’t matter who is behind them when one says who the customer is, same with IH and Cherokee. That is how the business shell game works and why it is done. Technicalities!

          • Teemu Soilamo

            But do you really believe that a shell company with possibly no employees and Rossi’s lawyer as its President is going to hold up in court? All these sneaky allusions to JM will not go unexplored, as they serve as vital pieces of evidence to Rossi’s persona and integrity. The parent company will have to come forward, as they’re a key witness in all of this.

          • Ged

            Indeed, they will be fully explored and parent pulled out of the dark, which is great!

            But shells let businesses do weird stuff that makes little reasonable sense from our view, like IPH which is literally just IH by a different name, without actually lying… technically. The Court will cut through the crud, thank goodness.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            JMP employees could have been on loan and paid by their Tennessee employer JM Catalysts. So it is very possible for JMP to have had no, on balance sheet, employees.

            As for the JMP parent coming forward, I believe IH need to prove to the court their counter claims are valid, especially as they claim fraud by their own employees, consultants and IP licensor.
            .
            BTW shell companies happen all the time as do lawyers being the company president. Nothing special in that.
            .

          • BillH

            If you add that up there were at least 50 days in which the plant operated at less than full power. the test only ran for 352 days, therefore the test failed because it did not produce the required output for the required duration. As this information is incomplete we can’t be sure that there were no further outages. On these figures alone, the test would have had to continue till day 365 in order to provide 1MWth 24hrs a day for 350 days. Also, why wasn’t JM not complained about loss of production on so many days and asking for a refund? Clearly the plant was running unreliably and yet JM didn’t complain once.

          • Ged

            They paid less for the lower production, so no refund needed.

          • BillH

            No refund asked for, there is a subtle difference.

          • Ged

            Err. No refund would be asked for since they did not overpay, but scaled payments to what they got.

          • Nice discussion here. Interesting to see core elements in IH’s Answer being pulled apart by people like Engineer 48 and Ged, even though they don’t have any direct knowledge of existing evidence from either part. I’m looking forward to seeing this unfold when evidence is presented. To be honest, I don’t think it looks good for IH, although I wouldn’t underestimate what Jones Day and APCO can obtain.

            A few notes:

            – The Italian Law mentioned in section 49 in IH’s Answer can be found here: http://efficienzaenergetica.acs.enea.it/doc/dpr551-99.pdf – which is an adjustment to this original law on installation and maintenance of heating devices: http://efficienzaenergetica.acs.enea.it/doc/dpr412-93.pdf
            The law mentions the limit 35kW several times and Rossi’s statement, that IH refers to, seems absolutely reasonable to me, knowing Italian society and bureaucracy.

            – After the failed HotCat demo on September 6, 2012—the one IH claims that Rossi made failing on purpose—I actually asked myself if it was a pattern, a way for Rossi to get out of deals that he decided he didn’t want to make. Here’s what I wrote in my book An Impossible Invention (Chapter 18):

            “The whole situation was reminiscent of what had happened when the American investor group lost confidence in Rossi after the failed test with the older E-Cat in Bologna, ironically a year earlier to the day. I asked myself again if there was any pattern behind this, if Rossi consciously or unconsciously made sure it ended in discord and distrust.”

            A few months later I asked Rossi about this and he then vaguely admitted that the failure could be his fault, or maybe not. So I wouldn’t be surprised if what IH claims is true. It also seems obvious to me that this part of IH’s answer is specifically intended to try to sow discord between Rossi and Hydrofusion, but I really don’t think that will work.

            BTW, I also remember some calculations showing that using the correct electricity input readings at the September 6, 2012, experiment, there was a small sign of excess heat starting to show up at the very end of the run.

            – James A. Bass is the person that people who visited the plant talked to. I don’t know more about him.

          • BTW, I really appreciated the message in this recent piece in NY Times—that journalists’ most sacred duty is to be true to the facts, not “balanced” (in that case regarding the ongoing presidential campaign):

            “…journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.”

            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Jolly good. Looking forward to v3.0 of “An Impossible Invention”!

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats,

            Can your contacts comment on if James A. Baas has an English accent?
            .

          • Obvious

            I believe he could have a Canadian accent

          • Engineer48

            Hi Obvious,

            James Bass has a Canadian accent? Did I miss something important? Or do have intel to share?

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Just finished reading the 66 pages of IH’s answer to Rossi claims. In the second paragraph on page one this is legalize for admitting the E-Cat works! IH denies the E-Cat works except, “along the lines claimed by Plaintiffs – which is that a reactor using the E-Cat technology produces more than 50 times the energy it consumes.”
            This is legalize meaning, the E-Cat works, but Rossi outsmarted us and our little plan to steal his IP did not work, so our only “out” is to convince people it was a fraud.
            Whatever they said after the above statement is delaying puffery tactics and does not negate the fact that both Rossi and IH are bound by ERV’s report. IH loses unless they can prove fraud and that is what pages 2-66 are all about. IH‘s attorneys are good, but not that good.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            What I find interesting is in their conspiracy theory IH tied together the ‘Italian Mob’ – Rossi, Penon and Fabiani – but no speaking ill of Barry West. Maybe we should bar all Italians from entering the country until we can figure out what’s going on?

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Oh, really? Is that what you call my inquiry for accurate information and holding someone accountable?

            This guy has been pulling rank on me like a hornet since yesterday, has an inflated ego and a bad temper. He sounded hurt by my words, like I insulted his religion or something. “Arrogantly snotty” is what fundamentalists often call rational scientists.

          • Mats002

            Thanks to LENR G, this is the IH counterclaims for dummies:

            Explain Rossi’s, Penon’s and Fabiani’s behavior after they supposedly divvied up $11.5M.

            Rossi: “Hey let’s channel some money back to IH, set up a fake customer, run the test for a year, and continue to pretend to advance the technology through R&D! Get us another $89M!!

            Fabiani: I could even give an interview to Mats that backs the whole thing up.

            Penon: Shouldn’t we just find a nice beach somewhere with our millions and tell stories of our conquests to incredulous natives while sipping Champagne?

            Rossi: Where’s your sense of adventure? I’ll even spend every waking hour in the shipping crate just to sell it better.

            Penon: I don’t know Andrea, seems awfully risky. We could wind up in jail; they’re bound to figure it out at some point and we’ll wind up in court.

            Rossi: Court? Screw court. I’ll sue them first when they refuse to pay.

            Penon: But wouldn’t that mean a bunch of lawyers will get a bunch of our money?

            Johnson: I resemble that remark.

            Rossi: Henry, can you make it look like Johnson Matthey is the customer?

            Johnson: Sure I’ll just set up a shell company and call it JM Chemicals or something like that. The blogosphere will run with it.

            Fabiani: I love those useful idiots.

            Penon: I don’t know guys. Shouldn’t we just cash in? I mean we’ve been pretty lucky to get this far.

            Rossi: You owe me this, Alfonse. You’d still be living in that dump if it weren’t for me. I’m having too much fun to stop now.

            Penon (pausing); Alright, Andrea, but after this I’m out.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Ha, ha, ha, right

          • Engineer48

            Interesting variation on the flow meter:

            http://www.apator.com/uploads/files/Produkty/Przetworniki_przeplywu_do_cieplomierzy/MWN130-NC_MP130-NC/Karta_katalogowa_MP130-NC.pdf

            makes one question if item 5 has reported the correct flow meter version as this version is compliant with the expected flows.
            .

          • Obvious

            There are photos of, and labels on, the meter.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Obvious,

            Care to share the photos of the installed 1MW 1 year trial flow meter?

            Even more important are the pre and post 1MW 1 year trial calibration data for ALL the ERV instruments. Do you also have that data?
            .

          • Obvious

            Care to show the video of the Lugano reactor being fuelled and emptied?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Obvious,

            Fair call.

            Although the Lugano team didn’t have several 100 millions, at that time, riding on their data, which I suggest does increase their ability to be trusted. Or are you now suggesting all the Lugano team are also involved in some fraud with Rossi and they all looked away and switched off the video camera when Rossi loaded and sealed the reactor and then again later when he had to break open the test reactor to extract the used fuel sample?

            Have you ever asked yourself why IH, well Weaver, claim IH “lost” the Lugano reactors? Sort of makes it very hard for anyone to do another post test fuel analysis.
            .

          • Obvious

            I am pretty sure Rossi claimed there were no video cameras at Lugano. I would have to look that up, though.

            Dewey claims the fuel chain of custody was broken on the way to Lugano. They don’t know for sure if the fuel that IH made went in.

            Losing the spare reactors is very odd. How do these get lost among all those professors? And then why were they so concerned about breaking one and there being no replacement?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Obvious,

            The Lugano team claimed 24/7 video coverage with multiple cameras.

            Weaver told me they lost contact with the kit IH sent to Lugano after the test was over and further told me they had no idea where they were. Just a bit more than strange!

          • Obvious

            Three reactors and only fuel for one? That makes no sense.
            Edit: never mind. I see what you mean.
            Edit2: then leaving the parts makes no sense.
            But we digress….

            Pump photos will show up, if the case goes that far.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Obvious,

            I wrote:
            “Weaver claimed IH sent 3 reactors, the necessary fuel and control box.”

            One would assume as they sent 3 reactors (being 2 backups), they also sent the fuel to load 3 reactors so as to support the 2 backup reactors.

            Well claiming the entire Lugano kit was lost does give IH cover to ‘loan” it to another. There are rumors this may have happen.

          • Obvious

            I found the camera remark from Rossi. I guess there were 4 cameras. I wonder where that footage is.
            “In the lab there are four videocameras that make the registration of any leaf that can fly in any part of the laboratory.”
            JoNP April 1, 2014

          • Engineer48

            Hi Obvious,

            There are also claimed certifications of all the ERV instruments both pre and post the 1 year test. Rossi did state the ERV was having additional certification tests done on the flow meter at the measured flow rate, flow temperature and flow pressure.
            .

          • DrD

            Possibly one of the reasons Andrea’s laughung his socks off, saying it’s a gold mine.

          • GiveADogABone

            Rossi can squash all this before it even gets to mediation.
            Don’t worry – Rossi will be fine

            I shall relax, knowing that my concerns are in safe hands unless …

          • GiveADogABone

            Never been to Texas, or indeed anywhere in the good old USofA.
            You have picked up my real concerns at the second attempt. Thanks.

          • GiveADogABone

            ‘Defendants deny that the energy catalyzer (“E-Cat”) technology “generates a low energy nuclear reaction resulting in an exothermic release of energy” along the lines claimed by Plaintiffs –‘

            Which is not the same as “Defendants deny that the energy catalyzer (“E-Cat”) technology “generates a low energy nuclear reaction resulting in an exothermic release of energy” “

            So it can work but under what circumstances? CoP=6 will do. $89M please.

            ‘which is that a reactor using the E-Cat technology produces more than 50
            times the energy it consumes.‘
            Who cares? CoP=6 will do. $89M please.

            ‘Such claims [CoP>=50] are not scientifically verifiable or reproducible. ‘
            What about CoP>=6?

            I take your point but …
            … if the ERV report is true to reality in all respects where is the fraud?

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Well, clearly they’re saying the ERV report is NOT ‘true to reality in all aspects’.

            “– –Such claims [CoP>=50] are not scientifically verifiable or reproducible. ‘” Hence, a scientifically non-verifiable report.

          • GiveADogABone

            Interesting because that puts the argument in the hands of the engineers and scientists. You have to take the ERV report and forensically examine it and its supporting numbers and instruments.

            Who has the burden of proof?

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            This is a civil case. The standard is preponderance of the evidence, not proof.

          • GiveADogABone

            Which is exactly my point.
            ‘ that puts the argument in the hands of the engineers and scientists.
            You have to take the ERV report and forensically examine it and its
            supporting numbers and instruments.’
            On the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ how is IH’s case going? Early indications are not good.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bernie,

            Not that good:

            TheNewFire (@The_New_Fire) tweeted at 10:51 PM on Tue, Aug 09, 2016:
            #LENR #ECAT Case – Jones(Bad)Day – “Defendants deny that Vaughn is a Manager at Cherokee” https://t.co/PQv8jzULHL https://t.co/QwHTFJ5rWm
            (https://twitter.com/The_New_Fire/status/763002369219100672?s=03)

          • SG

            Yep, and a similar qualifier exists in every other spot where this kind of allegation arises in the answer. Sometimes the qualifier is the word “direct,” as in “the stuff directly received from Rossi” doesn’t work. The unspoken escape hatch is “but we have our own version that works.”

          • Obvious

            No Intel. Probably a coincidence.
            The sort of coincidence like J & C Chemical Products ends up in the phone book with the 7861 address in Doral, when there is/ was a J & C Imports just a block away.

          • Frost*

            I found a James A.Bass (age 63) who has a connection to a woman called Shirley A. Johnson. This is probably pure coincidence. It’s so easy to draw conclusions from stuff like this but we need to keep to hard verifiable facts if this puzzle is to be solved.

          • Is that Henry Johnson’s wife’s name?

            If so, might be worth fleshing out and seeing where it leads you.

          • Obvious

            I don’t want to delve into details. I didn’t note any other name coincidences, but I didn’t look too hard either. The last thing some poor guy with a coincidental name needs is to be bombarded with a million questions from a strange group of strangers. It is one thing when the people are directly involved with the businesses and they are already part of the record, and their public business details are being examined. It is another to snoop around at private details around coincidences.

          • No clear British accent, according to my sources, with the excuse of not remembering for sure.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats,

            Thanks for asking.

            Most appreciated.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bill,

            There is no requirement for the plant to achieve 1MW x 24 x 350. Just that the COP was 6 or greater over 350 days of the trial.

            All a lower MWh generation effected was the amount JMP paid IH for the heat.

          • GiveADogABone

            Yes. The control systems in the E-cat core must stabilise the core output. Seems to be electronic pulses that do it. Also, the load must be equally capable.

            There are 4 Tigers(sometimes called slabs) in the E-cat and they can be individually switched off, so you can achieve steps of 100%, 75%, 50%, 25% and 0% in a straight forward manner. Within the slabs there are 16? separate heater modules and they can be controlled individually. Rossi spent 18 hours a day in the container trying to keep things at 1MW. When one slab came off line drops of power to 750kw(75%) are recorded in the logs.

            The E-cat runs steady-state at 1MW producing slightly superheated steam
            at close to 1.2barA and 105C. The load must be ultra-reliable 350/24/7.
            The ideal load to achieve this is an evaporator working at atmospheric
            pressure that will swallow everything it is given.

          • BillH

            I highly dubious reading of the facts. Day 1, COP 6.1, write up the report and let’s go home…what about the customer?….oh sod them, let’s collect the cash…

          • Zeddicus23

            Regarding possibility 1: Henry Johnson made the letterhead and only used it once – it was a typo. This makes sense since JMC is just a shell company with Johnson the representing agent, which we already knew.

            Possibility 4: “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthe[y] Platinum Sponges” actually means that this company buys Johnson Matthey Platinum Sponges and then makes something else, e.g. “advanced derivatives” out of them. This company could be connected to Johnson Matthey or maybe it’s not. The point is that just because the letterhead says “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthe[y] Platinum Sponges” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s directly connected to Johnson Matthey.

            All this being said, I agree that a number of things are somewhat fishy. On the other hand, the license agreement regarding the 1 year test says nothing about a customer. What counts is whether or not the plant produced excess heat or not. More specifically regarding the license agreement, whether or not it produced on the order of 1 MW with a COP > 4 for 350 days.

            On the other hand it also seems clear that IH never intended to pay the $89M, since apparently they delayed the test and now claim that the delay means that that they don’t have to pay even if it worked! All this despite the fact that they signed an amendment agreement allowing for a delay in the test! What we’re talking about here is a one-sided (in terms of contracts and territories) agreement in favor of IH, their rapacious desire to patent something which they claim does not work, including in Rossi’s territory of Europe (and also including an obscure shell company in the Netherlands which again is in Rossi’s territory, and an apparent attempt to “steal” Rossi’s IP – worth trillions if it works – for a mere $10M (rather than the $100 M promised following a successful test). So right now things look fairly bad for both sides, although I think that we still need to wait for two things before coming to a firm conclusion:

            (1) the results of the court case/trial and

            (2) whether or not Rossi can demonstrate successful technology before then.

          • Adam Lepczak

            Rossi is hiding something. If he will turn out to be a sophisticated fraud it will most likely kill the LENR research for a while. Really bad. I have been following up this story since 2011 and it seems like the tide is turning against Mr. Rossi. But then trying to run a con when the entre world is watching is…….insane….

          • Ged

            Thankfully the Court will pull out anything being hidden by either party through Discovery. Excitement still ahead!

          • Ok, here’s just one factoid for you.

            Leonardo Corp, which has a board of directors, is reportedly investing in a factory in Sweden.

            How does this happen if the technology is not real? Is a new Swedish factory so key to an ongoing scam, organized and executed by many more than just Rossi (even by IH’s estimation) that they would need to sink hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions?) into it?

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            Wonder why IH did not charge the Leonardo board with being a part of the alleged measurement fraud?

          • Ged

            Or Barry West since he was there working on it too. Will be interesting to hear his testimony, as he could be key to either side depending on what is true.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Ged,

            I agree with Rossi. IH has nothing and has showed they have nothing.

            Suggest all they can do to stop Rossi being awarded the $89m is to try a desperate last ditch attempt to slander Rossi, the lawyer and the 2 engineers with alleged fraud allegations.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            It might be useful in understanding this case to recognize who first raised claims of fraud. By the way, yes, they are actual allegations, real allegations, with a first level of evidence presented, they are not merely alleged allegations, but, of course, all allegations are alleged or they wouldn’t be allegations.

            There is much more evidence for fraud presented, regarding Rossi, Johnson, Penon, and Fabiani (the weakest case, my opinion) than Rossi presented re Darden and Vaughn. However, this must be kept in mind. Full evidence is not presented in Complaints and Answers. These lay a foundation, a case to be made, not the full case.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Abd,

            For sure interesting times ahead.

            But for now IH have shot themselves in the foot in regard to item 5 claims, the totally laughable claims Vaughn is not a Cherokee manager and that Darden did a last moment before signing switcheroo with IH being registered 2 days before Darden dropped it on Rossi that he was signing the License Agreement with a clean skin startup IH instead of the expected Cherokee.

            If I was there I would have walked as credibility is blown when a potentially new partner does the last moment before inking switcheroo act.

            In the US that may be considered fair game but in my neck of the woods it is considered a VERY BAD move as it reveals a lack of good faith from a potentially new partner.

            Old Italian saying:

            “Cui nun voli pagari, s’assuggetta ad ogni pattu”

            English translation: Who doesn’t intend to pay, signs any contract.
            .

          • Barry West manages to stay out of everything despite being at the center of it all.

            Amazing.

            Barry, if you’re out there, how about sending Mats Lewan an email. Tell us what you know, dude.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Barry West could be subpoenaed by Rossi if needed. He might also be called to testify by IH.

          • Darn Europeans take the whole summer off and disappear to some beach in France or Spain.

            MFMP is gearing up for a new GlowStick generation run — quiet but not dormant.

          • Ged

            Our purchasing department was shocked this past June when a company we needed to buy some stuff from completely went on vacation for that entire month–every single one of their employees, without so much as a notice till after they got back. Thankfully it wasn’t anything time sensitive. I wish I could do that!

          • Engineer48

            Hi Ged,

            In Aussie almost all manufacturing and fabrication shuts down mid Dec to mid Jan as all workers get 20 days / 4 weeks annual leave, plus 17.5% additional leave loading and 10 sick days a year.

            Nice place to be employed. Not so nice to be the employer.
            .

          • The employers that are enlightened enough to understand that a healthy, happy and rested worker is a productive and loyal worker like the arrangement I’m sure.

          • Hard to implicate a board member with anything related to day to day operations of a company.

          • wpj

            I thought that Darden was part of the Leonardo board (sure that I read it somewhere).

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            JMP is the customer.

            What Rossi has said is JM is not the UK parent, which seems to be technically correct as Alan Smith found the UK parent and it is just another shell company but this time a UK shell company.

          • Can you provide a link that Alan Smith discovery please?

          • Engineer48
          • Engineer48

            Hi Mike,

            I expect to get my 2 x 1MW plants 1st, then the 10 x 1MW plants, then the 5 x 50kW QuarkX reactors then finally the 5 x domestic 10kW reactors.
            .

          • Mats002

            Guys, you will find a killer suggestion on the ‘always open thread’ from Jamie Sibley: the explanation of the secret customer and it’s secret chemical process. Check it out, what do you think?

          • pelgrim108

            I agree. I hope someone with some technical expertise will look at Jamie’s comment. It is very interesting. Here is the direct link to the comment http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/10/26/always-open-e-cat-world-thread/#comment-2826103258

          • Ged

            Hexanes are basically just gasoline (slightly more refined than the typical gas we use in a car), so wouldn’t be hard to procure or use. Any leak would make the distinctive smell of gasoline, so easy to trace if it occurred. Dunno if we have any evidence to prove or deny this yet.

          • wpj

            See my reply below.

            I forgot to add that, if you wanted to store any significant quantities of hexane, there are lots of rules and storage both in and outside the buildings. There was no obvious external storage outside, so they would need specially designed facilities inside. These don’t come cheap; we are just having one delivered next week for external use (though this could be used internally due to the spec) which is costing £22K and still only allows storage of up to 1000 litres of flammables.

          • Ged

            Yeah, and I don’t seen any flammable a sign anywhere. It’s easy to disprove at least.

          • Check comment by wpj below on “preparation of the Ni (rather than Pt) sponges”.
            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/06/industrial-heat-responds-to-rossis-complaints/#comment-2827320393

          • Teemu Soilamo

            “What Rossi has said is JM is not the UK parent”

            On the JONP? I have never seen this, please provide a link.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu.

            Time for you to wear out a bit of your own shoe leather.

            It is there.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I have provided links for my arguments. Only fair you should do the same and stop being condescending.

          • Ged

            “I believe that it is impossible for a (non technical) jury to judge who is right.”

            That is why Courts bring in expert witnesses :). Happens in pretty much every single case.

          • Private Citizen

            Call James Bass 🙂

          • Publius

            Juries decide on technical matters well beyond their expertise hundreds of times a day. This is why litigants are allowed to call qualified expert witnesses to explain matters to laymen. It is then up to the jury to decide who has the most credibility.

          • Gerard McEk

            So they ask a professor in nuclear science how he thinks about the Ecat plant….. I do not understand why AR has so much confidence in the US juristic system.

          • cashmemorz

            Rossi has stated several times that the USA is a great country. I suppose it is a comparison to what Italy had done to Rossi via the Italian mafia corrupted business and some of its legal system. Based on what happened to Rossi in that history some who are contra LENR used it as cherry picked items to imply that it was Rossi that was corrupt.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            They would not have an engineer testify on LENR or nuclear reactions. The engineer would testify on the basic measuring process and is it reasonable to accept the 1 MW output based on the plant input and output.

            So in lots of cases a doctor etc. will be brought on as an expert witness to explain how “reasonable” such positions are to laypeople or in this case the jury.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            You forget. With what they did, and I assume with full disclosure, they raised $50 million from Woodford for LENR research, and may have raised much more. They did not lose, they gained. Rossi can’t touch that money, because it went into IHHI, which owns IH. However, if Rossi were to deliver on working IP, as he promised, it could all turn around. It would then be worthwhile for IHHI to put money into IH to pay Rossi, together with other money they could easily raise.

            I find it funny that it seems to be common that people think that IH managers are “dumb.” They know what they are doing and they have been quite successful at it. Rossi fans feed Rossi “questions” that point to Cherokee “frauds,” but Cherokee has never been found responsible for a fraud. What happens is that Cherokee invests in risky projects, and these not uncommonly lose money and go bankrupt. If they do, Cherokee loses their investment (typically $25 million), but if the project is successful, they make a lot of money. These projects, individual limited partnerships — which means qualified investors, not the general public — raise a lot of money from other investors, often local to projects, and from environmental funds, state money, the like. And if the market turns and/or the project turns out to be much more expensive than thought, the investors lose some or all of their investments, and also there can be state government losses. And then some investigative reporter claims fraud. But it’s never been actually shown And it’s unlikely. They have a very good business going without fraud, and committing fraud would be truly stupid.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            IH owns the plant. That’s not in dispute, except that Rossi apparently wants it padlocked, so there it sits. There was no squawk from the “customer,” who supposedly need this power badly for the process. I very much doubt that the “court” will require another test. I hate to break it to you, but the court is probably not going to care if the plant “actually worked” or not. Remember, Rossi asked for a jury trial. The jury will decide matters of fact, based on what the plaintiffs and defendants present. The judge will advise on points of law. There are very specific claims in the Complant and Answer and Counter-Complaint. Those are what will be adjudicated..

          • Ged

            Brilliant. You are now our lead writer for the HBO miniseries!

          • I’ve already got a movie script in my head. I just don’t have an ending yet ;p

          • Mars002

            Make a multimedia production, it can hold many different scenarios in parallell, different endings too 🙂

          • Ged

            They didn’t provide any photo proof about it either yet, so we just have a vague description in the unsigned exhibit to go on. Actual photos would do wonders so I wonder why they aren’t here. Hopefully eventually.

          • clovis ray

            Fairy tales, i could make up a fraudulent story, with i/h as the star conspirator, how many votes will that get,,.,,, .

          • F7.

          • sam

            Can you give us your take on
            what I.H. said if they did receive the millions from
            the Chinese and British
            investors.
            Maybe they said we can’t
            believe they fell for the B.S.
            story we told them.

          • .F7.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            What is your conjecture as to how Rossi planned to win the court case when it was quite obvious from the start that the fraudulent nature of the JMP customer would be revealed to IH sooner or later?

          • cashmemorz

            The only outcome that matters is to have the court overcome any and all false points in order to get to the key point, that being that the E-Cat works and works as per the EVR report. That works for IH since IH and Cherokee need a positive outcome of the court case to convince investors that the E-Cat despite being unusual has been proven in court. Its all about being a successful investment firm and a clean energy product promoter.

          • Gah. I evaluate this as wishful thinking and very unlikely, but would love to be wrong.

            There’s so much that doesn’t make sense when you take the view of one side or the other… and when you take the perspective of them working in concert for a larger purpose then a few more things make sense… so I don’t rule it out, but still a lot remains inexplicable.

            If they are just acting, they’re doing a pretty convincing job of it.

          • cashmemorz

            That is why I am posting this version of what I see. I want it to all be positive and so far it all makes sense to me under the scenario I am building up. If only I were I a fly on the wall in Darden’s office(cell phone?) then I could be sure .

          • Pedro

            Jed, over and over again I see how you manipulate the dialog by jumping on any thing that you feel can “gain points” for IH. At the same time you are avoiding very simple questions.
            You yourself have been full of critique about the flow meters for the last 3 months, and now that LENR G comes up with some technical details about the minimum flow rate being compatible with the reported flow rate, you completely ignore that. Instead you respond to the pipe issue.I strongly question your intellectual honesty; it is clear to me that you have an agenda and use your discussion skills and your LENR prestige to further that agenda. You have fallen to the level of MaryYugo… anything goes as long as it is damaging to the “enemy”. Fairness is for sports, not for war, seems to be your motto. In my eyes you have fallen very deep, no matter who turns out to be right in the end.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Michael,

            Technically the JMP UK parent could be a shell company set up to further isolate JM. So when Rossi states JM is not the parent UK company he is probably correct.

            As for IH and their reported conversation with Rossi about JM’s desire to be involved, it would be VERY simple for IH to call JM and confirm Rossi’s claim.

            So it seems highly likely that JM were involved in the 1 year trial in some way but that the UK parent of JMP is not directly JM but a UK shell company set up to further isolate JM.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Or, maybe JM were directly involved but denied it to IH for reasons?

          • Engineer48

            Hi My2c,

            All the ERV instruments had electronic data reporting to the ERV’s data logging computer.

            Would suggest there was a laptop showing real time data.

          • See F7.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            What the heck is F7?

          • For those of whom English is not their first language or whose sarcasm meter is busted, this fictional dialog is meant to point out elements of the absurdity, in my opinion, of the conspiracy to commit fraud that Industrial Heat is alleging.

            It would be flat out bizarre for Rossi to file suit against Industrial Heat if all they say is true. But, ok maybe he’s dealing with some kind of mental issue.

            However, it is incomprehensible to me that his lawyers and his posse of co-conspirators would allow him to act in such a reckless way. His lawyers would have never gone forward with such a weak case, and his co-conspirators would have clocked him over the head before he put pen to paper.

            I dub this explanation as F7.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            If Rossi, in fact, is a fraud, I would cite mental issues. Perhaps it is not money that he’s after–after all, he could’ve walked away with millions–but keeping the freak show rolling for as long as possible. Rossi knew that getting sued first by IH would’ve been catastrophic to his person and erased all goodwill and benefit of the doubt. Knowing Rossi as the shrewd and cunning man that he is, we must assume nothing less than this outcome being the optimal path for prolonging the fraud and feeding his narcissistic ego.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            If Rossi, in fact, is a fraud, I would cite mental issues. Perhaps it is not money that he’s after–after all, he could’ve walked away with millions–but keeping the freak show rolling for as long as possible. Rossi knew that getting sued first by IH would’ve been catastrophic to his person and erased all the remaining goodwill and the benefit of the doubt. Knowing Rossi as the shrewd and cunning man that he is, we must assume nothing less than this outcome being the optimal path for prolonging the fraud and feeding his narcissistic ego.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Penon, seeing the counterclaim: “I’m outa here.”
            Fabiani “Me too!”
            Johnson:”Shit! Andrea, you told me this would be fine”
            Rossi:”I never said that. You lie.”

  • GiveADogABone

    Time to get those spreadsheets out and see what IH are really saying about the E-cat performance. The spreadsheet formulae are at the bottom. Now that IH have stated no anomalous heat(CoP=1) here is the numerical data of IH’s case.
    e.g. A steaming reactor with Elec In of 250kw produces a feed flow rate of 9.57m^3/day with an Enthalpy Transfer of 250kw.

    Mass Flow Rate = CoP * Elec In / Enthalpy Diff

    THIS MODELS A FLOODED REACTOR
    Enthalpy Diff 144.6 kJ/kg
    CoP Elec In Mass Flow Rate Mass Flow Rate Enthalpy Xfer
    …..kJ/s or kW…..M (g/s)……….. M^3/day…………kJ/ s
    1 1…. 6.92……….. 0.60.. 1
    1 20.. 138.31. ….11.95. 20
    1 40.. 276.63….. 23.90. 40
    1 60.. 414.94….. 35.85. 60
    1 80.. 553.25….. 47.80. 80 …….Feed flow getting excessive
    1 200 1383.13 119.50 200 …….Normal max Elec In
    1 250 1728.91 149.38 250
    1 300 2074.69 179.25 300 …….Elec In = Elec Out in all cases

    THIS MODELS A REACTOR PRODUCING STEAM
    Lt Ht Vap 2257 kJ/kg
    CoP..Elec In..Mass Flow Rate Mass Flow Rate Enthalpy Xfer
    ..kJ/s or kW……. M(g/s)……….. M^3/day…………… kJ/ s
    1 1… 0.44……… 0.04.. 1
    1 50. 22.15……. 1.91. 50
    1 100 44.31….. 3.83 100
    1 150 66.46….. 5.74 150
    1 200 88.61…. 7.66 200 …….Normal max Elec In. Feed flow 20% of normal max.
    1 250 110.77.. 9.57 250
    1 300 132.92 11.48 300 …….Elec In = Elec Out in all cases

    Normal max Mass Flow Rate is about 38M^3/day
    Normal max Enthalpy Transfer is 1000kJ/s

    A: CoP – Input Data Range 1-50
    B: Elec In – Input Data Range 1-300
    C: =A7*B7*1000/$B$3 : $B$3 is Enthalpy Diff. 1000 converts to g/s.
    D: =C7*60^2*24/10^6 : 10^6 converts to M^3 from g
    E: =A7*B7
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/11/a-lightweight-proof-of-the-minimum-cop-during-the-1mw-test-paul-dodgshun/

    Let’s try for some deductions.
    1: For a steaming reactor at CoP=1 max feed flow is about 20% of normal max. Prove the feed flow is at much higher values and this case fails.

    2: For a steaming reactor at CoP=1 Enthalpy Transfer equals Elec In. At normal max Elec In of 200kW Enthalpy Transfer also equals 200kw. If there is proof that 1MW of steam was supplied to the production plant then this case fails by a factor of five.

    3: If Elec In=20kw then Enthalpy Out=20kw, barely enough to heat a couple of houses in winter. If there is proof that 1MW of steam was supplied to the production plant then this case fails by a factor of fifty.

    4: A steaming reactor with CoP=1 is totally incapable of producing 1MW of steam. I am not quite sure how well that ties in with the payments records from the production plant. So far, I would say that it is impossible.

    • Mats002

      If the customer was fake, payments is not evidence for steam or energy, it’s only paper work.

      So: the secret customer must be dragged out in the light or Rossi loose this case.

      • wpj

        Well, seeing as they are named in the litigation they will have to if they are real.

      • GiveADogABone

        I think the dichotomy is building now that IH have nailed themselves to CoP=1. No normal electricity supply to the plant can deliver 1MW of heat.

        If the ERV was measuring 1MW, Rossi was measuring 1MW on his own instruments and the ‘Customer’ was measuring 1MW for the purposes of billing, then that is three sets of data. There is the possibility of a fourth on the secondary side of the customer process but that would be down to the customer again.

        What potentially defeats this data is the allegation of conspiracy and faking. However, IH was accepting payments for 1MW of steam delivery, so it would seem. That could be awkward to explain.

        • If they were being conned, then the payments from JM Products to Industrial Heat were just part of the con.

          What better way to keep Industrial Heat complacent than throw a little money their way?

          You’re absolutely correct; the assertion of 1 MW heat and high COP is strong and redundant. The only way around it is a fraudulent conspiracy by Rossi, Penon, Fabiani and Johnson (maybe more, Levi, Fioravanti, Focardi?). That’s exactly what they are asserting in their filing.

          Extrapolating, it would mean that this conspiracy has been going on since 2012 and has passed several acceptance gates, independent testing on another continent, makes zero sense in terms of risk reward and has included hundreds of prototypes and a believable engineering evolution.

          • Mats002

            …which make a 100% fraud scheme improbible. Too much luck on the way.

            More plausible is that part of the COP is real but on top of that we find fraud – “I did not mean to… but the circumstances…”

            On the other side we have “yes we exaggerated the allegations but now we know the truth…”

          • Explain Rossi’s, Penon’s and Fabiani’s behavior after they supposedly divvied up $11.5M.

            Rossi: “Hey let’s channel some money back to IH, set up a fake customer, run the test for a year, and continue to pretend to advance the technology through R&D! Get us another $89M!!

            Fabiani: I could even give an interview to Mats that backs the whole thing up.

            Penon: Shouldn’t we just find a nice beach somewhere with our millions and tell stories of our conquests to incredulous natives while sipping Champagne?

            Rossi: Where’s your sense of adventure? I’ll even spend every waking hour in the shipping crate just to sell it better.

            Penon: I don’t know Andrea, seems awfully risky. We could wind up in jail; they’re bound to figure it out at some point and we’ll wind up in court.

            Rossi: Court? Screw court. I’ll sue them first when they refuse to pay.

            Penon: But wouldn’t that mean a bunch of lawyers will get a bunch of our money?

            Johnson: I resemble that remark.

            Rossi: Henry, can you make it look like Johnson Matthey is the customer?

            Johnson: Sure I’ll just set up a shell company and call it JM Chemicals or something like that. The blogosphere will run with it.

            Fabiani: I love those useful idiots.

            Penon: I don’t know guys. Shouldn’t we just cash in? I mean we’ve been pretty lucky to get this far.

            Rossi: You owe me this, Alfonse. You’d still be living in that dump if it weren’t for me. I’m having too much fun to stop now.

            Penon (pausing); Alright, Andrea, but after this I’m out.

          • Mats002

            ^^ ^^ ^^ LOL!

          • Barbierir

            LoL…

          • Ged

            Brilliant. You are now our lead writer for the HBO miniseries!

          • I’ve already got a movie script in my head. I just don’t have an ending yet ;p

          • Mars002

            Make a multimedia production, it can hold many different scenarios in parallell, different endings too 🙂

          • clovis ray

            Bull_hit, that all that is, what the hell’s wrong with telling the real story, of how this man has saved the world, not interesting enough for you. you had rather hear full blown lies, mmmmmm.

          • F7!

          • clovis ray

            Fairy tales, i could make up a fraudulent story, with i/h as the star conspirator, how many votes will that get,,.,,, .

          • F7.

          • sam

            Can you give us your take on
            what I.H. said if they did receive the millions from
            the Chinese and British
            investors.
            Maybe they said we can’t
            believe they fell for the B.S.
            story we told them.

          • .F7.

          • Chapman

            You just sent chills down my spine!

            I pray you are wrong. But fair disclosure – I also prayed for the Seahawks to win the SuperBowl…

          • …F7…

          • Teemu Soilamo

            What is your conjecture as to how Rossi planned to win the court case when it was quite obvious from the start that the fraudulent nature of the JMP customer would be revealed to IH sooner or later?

          • cashmemorz

            The only outcome that matters is to have the court overcome any and all false points in order to get to the key point, that being that the E-Cat works and works as per the EVR report. That works for IH since IH and Cherokee need a positive outcome of the court case to convince investors that the E-Cat despite being unusual has been proven in court. Its all about being a successful investment firm and a clean energy product promoter.

          • Gah. I evaluate this as wishful thinking and very unlikely, but would love to be wrong.

            There’s so much that doesn’t make sense when you take the view of one side or the other… and when you take the perspective of them working in concert for a larger purpose then a few more things make sense… so I don’t rule it out, but still a lot remains inexplicable.

            If they are just acting, they’re doing a pretty convincing job of it.

          • cashmemorz

            That is why I am posting this version of what I see. I want it to all be positive and so far it all makes sense to me under the scenario I am building up. If only I were I a fly on the wall in Darden’s office(cell phone?) then I could be sure .

          • See F7.

          • clovis ray

            They I/H are so clueless huh, they themselves were to produce the customer, but didn’t care, at that point and shoved it off on Dr R , he found jmp and I/H signed off on them, no do digelince , they were negligent in their action, for some reason, i wonder why,

          • Frechette

            How do you explain the results which Michael McKubre, Japanese, Russian, Israeli, and a host of other researchers in the field have achieved and reported on at international conferences?

            Also fraudsters engaged in a world wide conspiracy you suppose.

          • For those of whom English is not their first language or whose sarcasm meter is busted, this fictional dialog is meant to point out elements of the absurdity, in my opinion, of the conspiracy to commit fraud that Industrial Heat is alleging.

            It would be flat out bizarre for Rossi to file suit against Industrial Heat if all they say is true. But, ok maybe he’s dealing with some kind of mental issue.

            However, it is incomprehensible to me that his lawyers and his posse of co-conspirators would allow him to act in such a reckless way. His lawyers would have never gone forward with such a weak case, and his co-conspirators would have clocked him over the head before he put pen to paper.

            I dub this explanation as F7.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            If Rossi, in fact, is a fraud, I would definitely cite a mental issue. Perhaps it is not money that he’s after–after all, he could’ve walked away with millions–but keeping the freak show rolling for as long as possible. Rossi knew that getting sued first by IH would’ve been catastrophic to his person and erased all the remaining goodwill and the benefit of the doubt. Knowing Rossi as the shrewd and cunning man that he is, we must assume nothing less than this outcome being the optimal path toward prolonging the fraud and feeding his narcissistic ego.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Penon, seeing the counterclaim: “I’m outa here.”
            Fabiani “Me too!”
            Johnson:”Shit! Andrea, you told me this would be fine”
            Rossi:”I never said that. You lie.”

  • georgehants

    No court case necessary, no 1MW plant necessary, no arguments necessary, just Mr. Rossi after five and a half wasted years for the World allowing the testing of any of his most basic devices, showing a COP above 1 for a few days, this testing being done openly and repeatably by, for example the experts of MFMP.
    The waste of time on who wins this legal bullshit does not confirm anything to the people on page whose only concern is Cold Fusion
    Everything else is irrelevant to the needed Evidence that Rossi has made an important discovery.

  • georgehants

    No court case necessary, no 1MW plant necessary, no arguments necessary, just Mr. Rossi after five and a half wasted years for the World allowing the testing of any of his most basic devices, showing a COP above 1 for a few days, this testing being done openly and repeatably by, for example the experts of MFMP.
    The waste of time on who wins this legal bullshit does not confirm anything to the people on page whose only concern is Cold Fusion
    Everything else is irrelevant to the needed Evidence that Rossi has made an important discovery.
    ———-
    What is the definition of scientific evidence?
    Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

  • wpj

    Having re-read the document today (rather than very late last night) it appears about half of the assertions are based on the fact that IH believes that it OWNS the technology rather than licensing it for commercial use; the fact that AR spoke with Cook and posted updates on his blog apparently are in breach of the licence agreement according to them.

    Reading some of the exhibits, AR was firmly of the belief (in 2012) that he was dealing with Cherokee.

    From the payments made, it also seems that only 750MW was being supplied for a large amount of the time (in only one instance does it say that this was at JMC’s request).

    • GiveADogABone

      Here is a copy of LuFong’s earlier post with some numbers. The data is not complete but you can see that Rossi had a lot of work to do. The 1MW Plant had four Tigers (sometimes called slabs). The drop from 1MW to 750kw is one of the Tigers coming 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
      Oct —–
      Nov —–
      Dec 20/11

      So 50 days over 5 months (no data for Oct/Nov and other months of test).

      • wpj

        Yes, about a third of the time; just wanted to know how this fitted with the constant flow which is claimed.

        • GiveADogABone

          When a Tiger(slab) comes off line two main things have to happen. The feed flow to that Tiger stops and the electrical supply to the heaters is tripped. There may well be isolator valves on the inlet and outlet pipes. So both feed (and steam) flow and electricity drop 25% as one Tiger comes off line.

          • wpj

            Yes, but everyone (Jed, etc) is saying that the flow was constant and did not vary from the 36,000 litres.

            I accept what you say and would expect to to be the case.

          • GiveADogABone

            36,000 litres/day is 1MW of heat
            With CoP=1 1MW of heat is impossible.
            That means IH’s case fails.
            Why would Jed say that IH’s case is a failure?

          • Ged

            Neither IH nor Jed have actually produced the data showing that actually occurred (we have no idea of the accuracy what is said in the unusual Exhibit 5), so we have no basis to say if they are mistaken or not. Hopefully when Rossi response he’ll publish some of the actual data, otherwise it’s off to DIscovery for us.

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            These pumps are computer controlled, with internal flow monitoring and constant flow output.

            I suspect there is a diverter value at the other end of the slab that allows flow through the reactor to continue but dumps the non heated water into the condensate tank.

            Doubt the slabs are field repairable.

            Also suspect the slabs are do well over COP 50. More like over COP 100. So 3 Tigers could possibly carry a down tiger with no change in flow. Might reduce fuel life though.

          • GiveADogABone

            http://www.e-catworld.com/rossis-1mw-plant-performance-updates/
            August 4, 2015 (Day 165)

            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.

            + other log entries showing a drop from 1MW to 750kw as a reactor comes off line. In the log Rossi mentions the thought of starting the reserve reactors if he cannot fix a problem.

            There is a separate but related issue. If individual reactors (16 I think) in a slab fail, how many are needed to maintain 250kW?

        • GiveADogABone

          I am looking at a post from Abd immediately above where he thinks LuFong’s data is nominal. My view is that it is actual and actual in the production plant. Can you see Abd’s post?

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        That’s interesting. But it indicates nominal performance, then, not actual. The whole point of the situation was as one where a customer would pay for actual power, not for what was obviously based on what Rossi told Johnson.

        If there was actual commercial activity there, chemical processing, this will come out.

        • GiveADogABone

          http://www.e-catworld.com/rossis-1mw-plant-performance-updates/
          August 4, 2015 (Day 165)
          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.

          + other entries in the log. It seems it is always a drop from 1MW to 750kw as a reactor (1 of the 4) comes off line.

          The letter with the ‘w’ in ‘Matthew’ states :-
          the amount of energy of 1MWh/h for a total of 624MWh for 26 days and 4 days we received750kwh/h for a total of 72MWh.

          On this evidence 1MW was being received on most days but when one reactor slab was off line the energy received dropped to 750kw. That letter was from Johnson to Vaughn. I see no Rossi involvement.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      AR believed he was dealing with Cherokee. However, it also appears that Darden and Vaughn disabused him of that idea, and the Agreement signed contains a standard Whole Agreement provision, and it does not mention Cherokee. Those are there to avoid the kinds of arguments Rossi brought up, which sometimes come up years later. There is also the Statute of Frauds, which applies.

      Those power statements from Johnson are, ah, odd. Power is at only one of two different numbers for each day. Only 1 MW or 0.75 MW. These are obviously not measurement results. The difference, by the way, is $250, because the payment was to be $1000 per megawatt-day. This was a radically clumsy fraud. Hardly even trying.

  • wpj

    Having re-read the document today (rather than very late last night) it appears about half of the assertions are based on the fact that IH believes that it OWNS the technology rather than licensing it for commercial use; the fact that AR spoke with Cook and posted updates on his blog apparently are in breach of the licence agreement according to them.

    Reading some of the exhibits, AR was firmly of the belief (in 2012) that he was dealing with Cherokee.

    From the payments made, it also seems that only 750MW was being supplied for a large amount of the time (in only one instance does it say that this was at JMC’s request).

    • GiveADogABone

      Here is a copy of LuFong’s earlier post with some numbers. The data is not complete but you can see that Rossi had a lot of work to do. The 1MW Plant had four Tigers (sometimes called slabs). The drop from 1MW to 750kw is one of the Tigers coming 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
      Oct —–
      Nov —–
      Dec 20/11

      So 50 days over 5 months (no data for Oct/Nov and other months of test).

      • wpj

        Yes, about a third of the time; just wanted to know how this fitted with the constant flow which is claimed.

        • GiveADogABone

          When a Tiger(slab) comes off line two main things have to happen. The feed flow to that Tiger stops and the electrical supply to the heaters is tripped. There may well be isolator valves on the inlet and outlet pipes. So both feed (and steam) flow and electricity drop 25% as one Tiger comes off line.

          • wpj

            Yes, but everyone (Jed, etc) is saying that the flow was constant and did not vary from the 36,000 litres.

            I accept what you say and would expect to to be the case.

          • GiveADogABone

            36,000 litres/day is 1MW of heat (that is a calculation, not an assertion)
            With CoP=1 1MW of heat is impossible.
            That means IH’s case fails.
            Why would Jed say that IH’s case is a failure?

          • Ged

            Neither IH nor Jed have actually produced the data showing that actually occurred (we have no idea of the accuracy what is said in the unusual Exhibit 5), so we have no basis to say if they are mistaken or not. Hopefully when Rossi response he’ll publish some of the actual data, otherwise it’s off to DIscovery for us.

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            These pumps are computer controlled, with internal flow monitoring and constant flow output.

            I suspect there is a diverter value at the other end of the slab that allows flow through the reactor to continue but dumps the non heated water into the condensate tank.

            Doubt the slabs are field repairable.

            Also suspect the slabs are do well over COP 50. More like over COP 100. So 3 Tigers could possibly carry a down tiger with no change in flow. Might reduce fuel life though.

          • GiveADogABone

            http://www.e-catworld.com/rossis-1mw-plant-performance-updates/
            August 4, 2015 (Day 165)

            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.

            + other log entries showing a drop from 1MW to 750kw as a reactor comes off line. In the log Rossi mentions the thought of starting the reserve reactors if he cannot fix a problem.

            There is a separate but related issue. If individual reactors (16 I think) in a slab fail, how many are needed to maintain 250kW?

        • GiveADogABone

          I am looking at a post from Abd immediately above where he thinks LuFong’s data is nominal. My view is that it is actual and actual in the production plant. Can you see Abd’s post?

          To add something else about flow, the IH Answers say something about a month of steady log entries of 36,000 kg/day and they believe it is fake data. Looking at LuFong’s data for June/July of 26/4 and 26/4 again, it is not impossible that the plant really did run for thirty days at full load and full feed flow over the June/July boundary.

          This references your other post a bit further down the thread.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        That’s interesting. But it indicates nominal performance, then, not actual. The whole point of the situation was as one where a customer would pay for actual power, not for what was obviously based on what Rossi told Johnson.

        If there was actual commercial activity there, chemical processing, this will come out.

        • GiveADogABone

          http://www.e-catworld.com/rossis-1mw-plant-performance-updates/
          August 4, 2015 (Day 165)
          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.

          + other entries in the log. It seems it is always a drop from 1MW to 750kw as a reactor (1 of the 4) comes off line.

          The letter with the ‘w’ in ‘Matthew’ states :-
          the amount of energy of 1MWh/h for a total of 624MWh for 26 days and 4 days we received750kwh/h for a total of 72MWh.

          On this evidence 1MW was being received on most days but when one reactor slab was off line the energy received dropped to 750kw. That letter was from Johnson to Vaughn. I see no Rossi involvement.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      AR believed he was dealing with Cherokee. However, it also appears that Darden and Vaughn disabused him of that idea, and the Agreement signed contains a standard Whole Agreement provision, and it does not mention Cherokee. Those are there to avoid the kinds of arguments Rossi brought up, which sometimes come up years later. There is also the Statute of Frauds, which applies.

      Those power statements from Johnson are, ah, odd. Power is at only one of two different numbers for each day. Only 1 MW or 0.75 MW. These are obviously not measurement results. The difference, by the way, is $250, because the payment was to be $1000 per megawatt-day. This was a radically clumsy fraud. Hardly even trying.

  • Yes, I hear you, Chapman. An illuminating data point that forces a fresh look at all demos for re-binning: didn’t work, didn’t work on purpose, worked…

    …and reveals Rossi as cunning and unscrupulous businessman.

    • wpj

      Yes, but he also says things about Hydrofusion, but it appears that they are still bosom buddies with the Swedish plant. Maybe the Rossi words were just for effect with IH?

      • Well, there really was a falling out between Rossi and Hydrofusion for a period of time, and now we know why. It’s unclear how the fence was mended.

  • The paragraph below is very important. Either Rossi and Johnson decided to invoke the name of Johnson Matthey to make their fake customer seem real to IH, or Johnson Matthey is really involved.

    That and the issue of independent ownership of JM Products that Rossi/Johnson asserted in documents submitted to the court is directly contradicted.

    The truth in both these matters should came out rather easily in discovery and one side will be blown to bits.

    Also in furtherance of this scheme, Rossi, both in his individual capacity and as

    the representative of Leonardo, and Johnson, both in his individual capacity and as the

    representative of JMP, traveled to North Carolina in August 2014 to meet with individuals from

    Industrial Heat. During this meeting, Rossi and Johnson made a number of false representations

    to Industrial Heat, most notably that JMP (at the time called J.M. Chemical Products, Inc.) was a

    confidential subsidiary of Johnson Matthey p.l.c. (“Johnson Matthey”), and that Johnson

    Matthey was interested in using the E-Cat technology in connection with a confidential

    manufacturing process it wanted to operate in Florida. In fact, in August 2014 Johnson on behalf

    of JMP even warranted in writing that JMP “[was] owned by an entity formed in the United

    Kingdom, and none of Leonardo, Dr. Andrea Rossi, Henry W. Johnson nor any of their

    respective subsidiaries, directors, officers, agents, employees, affiliates, significant others, or

    relatives by blood or marriage [had] any ownership interest” in JMP. See Compl. Ex. B. (last

    page of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit). JMP, however, has never been a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey,

    was not operating or planning to operate any manufacturing process in Florida, and was in fact

    owned by persons whom Johnson represented in writing did not have any ownership interest in

    JMP.

  • The paragraph below is very important. Either Rossi and Johnson decided to invoke the name of Johnson Matthey to make their fake customer seem real to IH, or Johnson Matthey is really involved.

    That and the issue of independent ownership of JM Products that Rossi/Johnson asserted in documents submitted to the court is directly contradicted.

    The truth in both these matters should came out rather easily in discovery and one side will be blown to bits.

    Also in furtherance of this scheme, Rossi, both in his individual capacity and as

    the representative of Leonardo, and Johnson, both in his individual capacity and as the

    representative of JMP, traveled to North Carolina in August 2014 to meet with individuals from

    Industrial Heat. During this meeting, Rossi and Johnson made a number of false representations

    to Industrial Heat, most notably that JMP (at the time called J.M. Chemical Products, Inc.) was a

    confidential subsidiary of Johnson Matthey p.l.c. (“Johnson Matthey”), and that Johnson

    Matthey was interested in using the E-Cat technology in connection with a confidential

    manufacturing process it wanted to operate in Florida. In fact, in August 2014 Johnson on behalf

    of JMP even warranted in writing that JMP “[was] owned by an entity formed in the United

    Kingdom, and none of Leonardo, Dr. Andrea Rossi, Henry W. Johnson nor any of their

    respective subsidiaries, directors, officers, agents, employees, affiliates, significant others, or

    relatives by blood or marriage [had] any ownership interest” in JMP. See Compl. Ex. B. (last

    page of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit). JMP, however, has never been a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey,

    was not operating or planning to operate any manufacturing process in Florida, and was in fact

    owned by persons whom Johnson represented in writing did not have any ownership interest in

    JMP.

  • Whew. Industrial Heat really are claiming a years-long conspiracy by Rossi, Penon, and Fabiani (etc).

    The only alternative is that Industrial Heat is conspiring with various parties to halt or slow introduction of the E-Cat to society.

    Conspiracy Wins!

    Now we just have to figure out whose conspiracy theory is less ridiculous!

  • Whew. Industrial Heat really are claiming a years-long conspiracy by Rossi, Penon, and Fabiani (etc).

    The only alternative is that Industrial Heat is conspiring with various parties to halt or slow introduction of the E-Cat to society.

    Conspiracy Wins!

    Now we just have to figure out whose conspiracy theory is less ridiculous!

  • Jerry Soloman

    James Bass – IH mystery man – FOUND, playing soccer for the Johnson Matthey team in Royston, UK. Surprisingly also the HQ of Johnson Matthey Chemical Products

    amazingly IH making all this stuff up …

    sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/myste…atthey-chemical-products/

    $100 million at stake and IH let Rossi choose what to measure, then complain about it later?

    Darden and Industrial Heat have made fools of themselves.

  • Ciaranjay

    Looks like this is not heading for settlement.
    Six months till Discovery then more time to the trial.
    In the meantime if Rossi thinks he can progress with his plans then it is going to be harder to get funding or sign sales deals with such a big question mark over his credibility.
    Rossi needs to demonstrate, for real, that he has something, and soon.

    • Maybe but with huge Johnson Matthey involved, ordering three more plants, partnering with Leonardo and privy to the amazing QuarkX developments, I would say Rossi is in a great position to move forward. In the it works scenario, of course.

      If this is the case we might see some tangible signs of progress, like standing up a factory in Sweden or manual construction and eventual delivery of three 1 MW plants.

      Johnson Matthey may be content to let the lawsuit play out as it preserves their strategic advantage, but they can squash it like a bug whenever they want.

      Unless, it’s all BS and a lawyer over at Johnson Matthey this morning is reading these court documents and saying “WUT?”

      • Mats002

        Is it not likely that IH already approached head of Johnson Matthey to know if they are involved? Is it not likely that the top secret part of their US business already answered back about this? Is it not likely that their lawyers are already on this case, on one side or the other?

        • Yes that is likely, IMO.

          But they also say they couldn’t find a James Bass and people here found a reasonable candidate in hours.

          Remember the two viable scenarios here are Rossi conspiracy and Industrial Heat conspiracy. Measurement error and miscommunication are not viable for a thousand reasons.

          In the IH conspiracy scenario, where their purpose is obstruction by any means necessary, nothing they allege can be taken at face value (just the same as Team Rossi).

          • Mats002

            We the followers are the only ones that care for the truth in this story. Darden et al and Rossi et al both stride for their own gain. We are only readers of this book.

          • ‘Tis a good mystery, no?

          • Brent Buckner

            No, IH didn’t state that they couldn’t find *a* James Bass, they alleged that they couldn’t find James A. Bass, Director of Engineering of J.M. Products Inc. in keeping with the business card Exhibit. Perhaps they characterized trying the telephone number and doing a LinkedIn search for that name and title as “diligent search”.

          • Yes, Brent, we get the difference between a Bass and the Bass.

            We knew that before you felt the need to point it out 20 times.

          • Brent Buckner

            Then why did you write “But they also say they couldn’t find a James Bass” when you know that they didn’t assert that?

          • You’re an English teacher, aren’t you?

            The point remains that a reasonable candidate was found in hours. I have no idea if the defendants found him too and eliminated him.

          • It appears that document was altered after creation (the ‘w’ was inserted in place of the ‘y’).

            I don’t know by who or why. I speculate that even though Rossi was telling IH that Johnson Matthey was involved that felt it unwise to put that name on any official documents because either:
            a) it was false and they didn’t want Johnson Matthey to have any legal reason to sue
            or b) they wanted to preserve plausible deniability of any involvement for Johnson Matthey.

            There are other possible explanations too. But it appears to be an intentional typo.

          • I find Industrial Heat’s technical case underwhelming. For all the whooping and hollering going on from Planet Zero I thought the information they presented would be damning and comprehensive.

            But the flow meter is fine, iron deposits in the pipe don’t mean much to me without much more discovery and analysis, the constant flow is easily explained by pumps/flow regulators designed to make it so, the steam pressure argument is weak, the changes in the number of active reactors are interesting but hardly a smoking gun if redundancy was built into the reactors for just such outages, and things changing after the system was shut down is to be expected.

            The argument that Rossi missed the performance window is just plain slimy. All the he said/they said and document forensics is tiring. Rossi and company being uncooperative once the Murray team was hired seems predictable. I await Rossi’s response and then we’ll be better able to hash things out.

            I could use some MFMP or me356 news. Or a Mats Lewan interview with James Bass.

          • “There are none so blind…”

      • Ged

        Be easy enough for JM to release a statement.

        • If they want to.

          They have reasons not to, IMO. Avoid the circus until necessary. Protect first mover advantage.

          • cashmemorz

            Or go after those libeling their company by false allegations. If it could hurt their business then JM could get into the fray as a side issue in this saga.

  • Quick comment on all of the beefs that IH has after about mid-2015, when they hired Murray, that they weren’t getting access, information, etc. That’s around the time when Rossi got very suspicious of IH’s activities and began exploring alternatives.

    Rossi stiff-arming Murray’s engineering team, Fabiani’s refusing to provide results and data, and Penon sticking to contractual obligations and ignoring Murray’s/IH’s requests for explanations and more data all point to an evolving adversarial relationship between Leonardo and Industrial Heat.

    Rossi began collecting evidence, suspecting he was going to wind up in court, and gave nothing to IH that he didn’t have to. Just pointing out that the lack of cooperation once Murray was hired has a mundane explanation and does not necessarily indicate fraud.

  • Ciaranjay

    Looks like this is not heading for settlement.
    Six months till Discovery then more time to the trial.
    In the meantime if Rossi thinks he can progress with his plans then it is going to be harder to get funding or sign sales deals with such a big question mark over his credibility.
    Rossi needs to demonstrate, for real, that he has something, and soon.

    • Maybe but with huge Johnson Matthey involved, ordering three more plants, partnering with Leonardo and privy to the amazing QuarkX developments, I would say Rossi is in a great position to move forward. In the it works scenario, of course.

      If this is the case we might see some tangible signs of progress, like standing up a factory in Sweden or manual construction and eventual delivery of three 1 MW plants.

      Johnson Matthey may be content to let the lawsuit play out as it preserves their strategic advantage, but they can squash it like a bug whenever they want.

      Unless, it’s all BS and a lawyer over at Johnson Matthey this morning is reading these court documents and saying “WUT?”

      • Mats002

        Is it not likely that IH already approached head of Johnson Matthey to know if they are involved? Is it not likely that the top secret part of their US business already answered back about this? Is it not likely that their lawyers are already on this case, on one side or the other?

        • Yes that is likely, IMO.

          But they also say they couldn’t find a James Bass and people here found a reasonable candidate in hours.

          Remember the two viable scenarios here are Rossi conspiracy and Industrial Heat conspiracy. Measurement error and miscommunication are not viable for a thousand reasons.

          In the IH conspiracy scenario, where their purpose is obstruction by any means necessary, nothing they allege can be taken at face value (just the same as Team Rossi).

          • Mats002

            We the followers are the only ones that care for the truth in this story. Darden et al and Rossi et al both stride for their own gain. We are only readers of this book.

          • ‘Tis a good mystery, no?

          • Brent Buckner

            No, IH didn’t state that they couldn’t find *a* James Bass, they alleged that they couldn’t find James A. Bass, Director of Engineering of J.M. Products Inc. in keeping with the business card Exhibit. Perhaps they characterized trying the telephone number and doing a LinkedIn search for that name and title as “diligent search”.

          • Yes, Brent, we get the difference between a Bass and the Bass.

            We knew that before you felt the need to point it out 20 times.

          • Brent Buckner

            Then why did you write “But they also say they couldn’t find a James Bass” when you know that they didn’t assert that?

          • You’re an English teacher, aren’t you?

            The point remains that a reasonable candidate was found in hours. I have no idea if the defendants found him too and eliminated him.

          • “There are none so blind…”

      • Ged

        Be easy enough for JM to release a statement.

        • If they want to.

          They have reasons not to, IMO. Avoid the circus until necessary. Protect first mover advantage.

          • cashmemorz

            Or go after those libeling their company by false allegations. If it could hurt their business then JM could get into the fray as a side issue in this saga.

  • Quick comment on all of the beefs that IH has after about mid-2015, when they hired Murray, that they weren’t getting access, information, etc. That’s around the time when Rossi got very suspicious of IH’s activities and began exploring alternatives.

    Rossi stiff-arming Murray’s engineering team, Fabiani’s refusing to provide results and data, and Penon sticking to contractual obligations and ignoring Murray’s/IH’s requests for explanations and more data all point to an evolving adversarial relationship between Leonardo and Industrial Heat.

    Rossi began collecting evidence, suspecting he was going to wind up in court, and gave nothing to IH that he didn’t have to. Just pointing out that the lack of cooperation once Murray was hired has a mundane explanation and does not necessarily indicate fraud.

  • One thing we can take solace in: we were right about Johnson Matthey being behind JM Products (either in reality or fictionally).

    At least we can put that one to bed.

    • Mats002

      If Rossi et al is a company of fraud they wanted IH and any one watching (we did) to make that assumption. If this is fraud they succeeded longer than I would ever expect but maybe because they are partly correct in the COP claims, I want to know the truth.

      I am still open for the scenario that the US elite is taking control of a viable technology and if so I will be terrified!

      • A government-led campaign to stall or kill E-Cat technology is becoming plausible.

        White House visits… APCO involvement… Murray engineering team from government contractors. Murray’s associate activated on forums (as pointed out by Sifferkoll).

        It’s starting to smell like an operation.

        Reminder: Saudi Arabia is scheduled to complete its divestment from oil in 2017.

        • Mats002

          You can’t lay away a good book! 😉

        • Ged

          That and Exhibit 5 is not a letter (real or an electronic e-mail), has no name or date, and is formatted exactly like the rest of the legal document. Thankfully, its claims are easy to prove or disprove with actual data, which Discovery will draw out.

          • Interesting point about Exhibit 5 formatting. Either it was fabricated, was prepared initially by Jones Day on behalf of Murray, or for some reason they decided to reformat the original document…

            Perhaps to hide something on the original document. Identities? Unfavorable info omitted?

            The court should demand the original communication.

          • Ged

            Yes, it is definitely not the original, and has no intrinsic proof Murry made it (or when), so it’ll be interesting to see how the Court views it. Rossi could challenge it pretty easily on that basis too, particularly if he can produce data that directly contradicts what it says. Fun stuff!

          • cashmemorz

            Will E-Cat world be used as a paper trail for all original documentation. What is Frank Acland’s position on this point? Could you or your site be subpoenaed for the court proceedings? If so it could put this site on the map big time.

          • Ged

            Only if Frank had inside documents, but everything is published to the public here on the site, so no reason for a subpoena for hidden stuff. IH already cited e-catworld.com, but it’s just a news and databank.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Basically, no. They used the Rossi dialogue here for convenience, that’s all. In court, someone would present a transcript and attest how they obtained it (under oath), And in discovery, Rossi may be asked if he wrote this or that. Under oath.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Total unclarity on process here. This is an Answer. They can basically allege anything. (as could Rossi in the Complaint). At this point, for legal purposes, all the Exhibits will be considered true. However, for trial, they will need to be attested. What they gave may be the original communication, except that it is missing attachments. It may have been a Letter, formal, possibly delivered with delivery confirmation. By this time they were looking at legal problems with Rossi. Now, Annesser can request any document from IH, that is part of the discovery process. The court isn’t going to do it, period. The court — i.e., the judge — is not sitting judging these documents and may not be reading them at this time. The judge basically has nothing to do right now, because no motions are pending.

            I am looking foward to seeing the Reply of Rossi and the Answers, if they show, of Penon, Fabiani, and Johnson. Johnson is the big fish. If Penon doesn’t show, there goes Rossi’s case.

    • We can also be proud of our conclusion that Industrial Heat would have to assert a large conspiracy to commit fraud — involving at a minimum Rossi, Penon and Fabiani — in order to discredit the results and avoid payment.

      That’s exactly what’s happened.

      • Mats002

        OK, tap from me on all peanut shoulders! 🙂

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Plus Johnson.

        • Yup. Plus Johnson, a lawyer with a positive rating.

  • One thing we can take solace in: we were right about Johnson Matthey being behind JM Products (either in reality or fictionally).

    At least we can put that one to bed.

    • Mats002

      If Rossi et al is a company of fraud they wanted IH and any one watching (we did) to make that assumption. If this is fraud they succeeded longer than I would ever expect but maybe because they are partly correct in the COP claims, I want to know the truth.

      I am still open for the scenario that the US elite is taking control of a viable technology and if so I will be terrified!

      • A government-led campaign to stall or kill E-Cat technology is becoming plausible.

        White House visits… APCO involvement… Murray engineering team from government contractors. Murray’s associate activated on forums (as pointed out by Sifferkoll).

        It’s starting to smell like an operation.

        Reminder: Saudi Arabia is scheduled to complete its divestment from oil in 2017.

        • Mats002

          You can’t lay away a good book! 😉

        • Michael W Wolf

          Yea, I am getting worried. Bass is real and IH falsely accused him of being non existent. How could they not know?

          • Maybe Bass is real.

            We have found a candidate, but I wouldn’t come to any conclusions yet about that.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yaa I know. Rossi and company could have plucked his name out of a Johnson Matthey hat. But is that really realistic to think Rossi would think he could get away with that. And file a suit risking jail time? Just plain implausible to me.

        • Ged

          That and Exhibit 5 is not a letter (real or an electronic e-mail), has no name or date, and is formatted exactly like the rest of the legal document. Thankfully, its claims are easy to prove or disprove with actual data, which Discovery will draw out.

          • Interesting point about Exhibit 5 formatting. Either it was fabricated, was prepared initially by Jones Day on behalf of Murray, or for some reason they decided to reformat the original document…

            Perhaps to hide something on the original document. Identities? Unfavorable info omitted?

            The court should demand the original communication.

          • Ged

            Yes, it is definitely not the original, and has no intrinsic proof Murry made it (or when), so it’ll be interesting to see how the Court views it. Rossi could challenge it pretty easily on that basis too, particularly if he can produce data that directly contradicts what it says. Fun stuff!

          • cashmemorz

            Will E-Cat world be used as a paper trail for all original documentation. What is Frank Acland’s position on this point? Could you or your site be subpoenaed for the court proceedings? If so it could put this site on the map big time.

          • Ged

            Only if Frank had inside documents, but everything is published to the public here on the site, so no reason for a subpoena for hidden stuff. IH already cited e-catworld.com, but it’s just a news and databank.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Basically, no. They used the Rossi dialogue here for convenience, that’s all. In court, someone would present a transcript and attest how they obtained it (under oath), And in discovery, Rossi may be asked if he wrote this or that. Under oath.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Total unclarity on process here. This is an Answer. They can basically allege anything. (as could Rossi in the Complaint). At this point, for legal purposes, all the Exhibits will be considered true. However, for trial, they will need to be attested. What they gave may be the original communication, except that it is missing attachments. It may have been a Letter, formal, possibly delivered with delivery confirmation. By this time they were looking at legal problems with Rossi. Now, Annesser can request any document from IH, that is part of the discovery process. The court isn’t going to do it, period. The court — i.e., the judge — is not sitting judging these documents and may not be reading them at this time. The judge basically has nothing to do right now, because no motions are pending.

            I am looking foward to seeing the Reply of Rossi and the Answers, if they show, of Penon, Fabiani, and Johnson. Johnson is the big fish. If Penon doesn’t show, there goes Rossi’s case.

        • roseland67

          G,

          IF, this “operation” you suggest is real, could they not simply steal the Ecat
          or a single reactor, reverse engineer the IP and build it themselves?

          Why will you not even consider the possibility that the ECAT
          has never worked as stated?

          Saudi will take ARAMCO public, but will still own the overwhelming majority
          of oil, they have zero plans of completely divesting from oil by 2017.

          • I consider all possibilities.

          • roseland67

            G,
            Kinda sounds like you’re stuck on only 1 possibility?
            I guess I got it wrong

          • If this is a delay or obstruct operation, then the gov’t already has the tech and wouldn’t need to steal anything.

            I remain open-minded. Do you?

    • Michael W Wolf

      Not only that. IH said bass was not a person. Now we find out Bass actually works for Johnson Matthey. How could IH not know that? Seems that is IH’s first false allegation.

      • Brent Buckner

        IH alleges that there was no such person as James A. Bass, Director of Engineering for J.M. Products, Inc. (per Exhibit 20). That’s different from alleging that there’s no James A. Bass.

        • Michael W Wolf

          Well when reading it, IH sure made me feel it was a made up person who did not exist. Didn’t they also say an imposture represented himself as James A. Bass, but was not? What are the odds that James a bass works for Matthy if he was not real? I know what you are trying to say, but I also know what IH was trying to make us think. Very sketchy at best. As far as I am concerned this is strike 1 for IH. Heck, I could be wrong, but it is just my feeling about it. I refuse to think this was the most elaborate scam in the history of mankind. Think how many people would have to be involved. The most plausible answer is IH has another agenda.

          • Brent Buckner

            In the scenario of fraud by Rossi it wouldn’t add for me much more implausibility for the actor playing Director of Engineering to be assigned a name of one of Johnson Matthey’s suitable employees.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yea, could be. But do you really think Rossi is that stupid? We already know IH is pretty incompetent. Do you really believe they could not find James Bass? NO, so why didn’t they check with Johnson Matthey to see if they had an employee of that name? They obviously didn’t since they now claim he doesn’t exist. IH can’t be telling the truth. I think they lied when they said they couldn’t find him. Or else they are incompetent beyond belief.

          • Brent Buckner

            IH does not claim that James Bass of Johnson Matthey does not exist. They claim that “James A. Bass, Director of Engineering of J.M. Products, Inc.” does not exist.

          • Michael W Wolf

            I guess we’ll see sooner or later.

          • Brent Buckner

            You ask whether I “really think Rossi is that stupid?”

            I’m open to the possibility that he has a personality disorder.

          • Publius

            I’m also open to the possibility a fraudster has a lot of lies to keep straight, including making sure their letterhead correctly spells the name of the company they are trying to misrepresent.

          • Robert Dorr

            Rossi has repeatedly said that Johnson Matthey is not the customer so forget about the misspelling of Matthey as Matthew. They are not directly related although possibly fourth cousins.

          • cashmemorz

            “IH has another agenda.” **Due diligence** to make sure they have the actual goods. When proven out, by court no less, then what better due diligence? And if it takes a few more years, extraordinary tech requires such diligence. Everything else is just weird talk. and gets nowhere.

        • Robert Dorr

          If he exist, and apparently he does, JM Products can bestow on him whatever title they wish. In this instance they gave him the title ‘Director of Engineering’. They could have called him ‘President of Engineering’. So what?

          • Brent Buckner

            You’re conflating the existence of James Bass of Johnson Matthey with the existence of James A. Bass, Director of Engineering for J.M. Products, Inc.

            IH could stipulate the existence of the first and still allege the non-existence of the second – that wouldn’t be logically inconsistent. We’ll see how the legal process proceeds.

        • Michael W Wolf

          80.
          Leonardo, Rossi, JMP, Johnson and Fabiani even went so far as to create a
          fictional JMP employee – James A. Bass, Director of Engineering for JMP. Despite diligent
          search, Counter-Plaintiffs have not been able to id
          entify or locate this individual, for the simple
          reason that he does not exist. Rather, Leonardo, Rossi, JMP, Johnson and
          Fabiani created this
          fictional person as a means of making JMP appe
          ar to be a real manufacturing company that
          would need a Director of Engineering and to cr
          eate a person with whom they would allegedly
          interact on technical issues i
          nvolving JMP’s non-existent operat
          ions and operational needs.
          Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2016 Page 46 of 66
          – 46 –
          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 th
          e business card provided by this
          JOHN DOE representing hi
          mself as JMP’s “Director of Engineering.”

          It is pretty clear to me. IH claims they could not find him and he was made up. It seems he not only exists but works for Johnson Matthey. This appears to be a false allegation by IH. I don’t care why they made this allegation, but it does seem false.

          • Brent Buckner

            For all I know IH telephoned James Bass of Johnson Matthey and he denied having been Director of Engineering for JMP. We’ll see how the legal process plays out.

          • Michael W Wolf

            IH refutes your claim.

            Despite diligent
            search, Counter-Plaintiffs have not been able to id
            entify or locate this individual, for the simple
            reason that he does not exist. But think of this, they said Diligent search. but yet Bass was found easily. More like half ass search. Like the half ass replication they also claim as diligent.

          • Brent Buckner

            To my mind that’s not a refutation of that scenario – under that scenario IH did not find “James A. Bass, Director of Engineering of J.M. Products, Inc.”, they found James Bass of Johnson Matthey.

            I note that James Bass of Johnson Matthey denying that he held the position of Director of Engineering of J.M. Products, Inc. wouldn’t rule out some other individual being James A. Bass, Director of Engineering of J.M. Products, Inc.

    • We can also be proud of our conclusion that Industrial Heat would have to assert a large conspiracy to commit fraud — involving at a minimum Rossi, Penon and Fabiani — in order to discredit the results and avoid payment.

      That’s exactly what’s happened.

      • Mats002

        OK, tap from me on all peanut shoulders! 🙂

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Plus Johnson.

        • Yup. Plus Johnson, a lawyer with a positive rating.

    • JedRothwell

      You mean Johnson Matthew. Not Matthey.

      • Don’t tell me what I mean, Jed.

        Why are you so hung up on a typo?

        • JedRothwell

          A typo?! Are you kidding? They were pretending to have a connection to Johnson Matthey, and they were so inept at committing fraud, they spelled the name wrong on their letterhead!

          That’s no mere typo. That’s hilarious.

          Every part of this particular fraud was ham-handed. No one who say the equipment or the data was fooled. It took me all of 5 minutes to see it was garbage from the data alone.

          • It appears that document was altered after creation (the ‘w’ was inserted in place of the ‘y’).

            I don’t know by who or why. I speculate that even though Rossi was telling IH that Johnson Matthey was involved that felt it unwise to put that name on any official documents because either:
            a) it was false and they didn’t want Johnson Matthey to have any legal reason to sue
            or b) they wanted to preserve plausible deniability of any involvement for Johnson Matthey.

            There are other possible explanations too. But it appears to be an intentional typo.

          • gameover

            Below is a reproduction of the document made with the same fonts. You can see theres some distance between the ‘e’ and the ‘w’ in Matthew, but no space was deliberately inserted between both letters. This is because of inherently bad kerning of the font “Century Schoolbook Bold” used for the header. You can download this font from the internet and verify for yourself with your favorite word processor.

            http://i.imgur.com/lU9Y0g4.png

          • Tried it myself and can confirm that the spacing is the same as typing.

            The ‘w’ still appears to be slightly lower and rotated a bit, but not enough for me to make any definitive claims.

            Going forward I will assume that the document has probably not been altered.

            Thanks for checking, gameover.

  • Stanny Demesmaker

    The following paragraph about Lugano is interesting:

    “66. In late 2013 and early 2014, Leonardo and Rossi made arrangements with the
    team of scientists who had published the Ferrara Report to conduct another test of a single E-Cat
    reactor (not an entire Plant or an entire Six Cylinder Unit) over a roughly one month time period
    in February and March 2014 in Lugano, Switzerland. At the conclusion of the experiment, the
    scientists concluded in their report (the “Lugano Report”) that the E-Cat reactor produced a COP
    of 3.2 and 3.6 across two different “runs” of the reactor (which is still less than the lowest COP
    number reflected in the License Agreement). See Ex. 14. This conclusion was subsequently
    criticized in a series of publications identifying flaws in the methodology the scientists employed
    which led to overstatement of their COP calculations. These publications, however, did not
    surface until 2015.”

    First they state that the performance of Lugano isn’t enough to validate the agreement. Then
    they try to dismiss the Lugano Report without adding an exhibit with the specific critiques. Which speaks volumes about the credibility of those critiques.

    • Ged

      Critiques came out immediately, of course, and we can show that by simply linking the relevant e-catworld.com thread (as they themselves reference e-catworld.com), so it is not true for them to state critiques didn’t come out till 2015.

  • Stanny Demesmaker

    The following paragraph about Lugano is interesting:

    “66. In late 2013 and early 2014, Leonardo and Rossi made arrangements with the
    team of scientists who had published the Ferrara Report to conduct another test of a single E-Cat
    reactor (not an entire Plant or an entire Six Cylinder Unit) over a roughly one month time period
    in February and March 2014 in Lugano, Switzerland. At the conclusion of the experiment, the
    scientists concluded in their report (the “Lugano Report”) that the E-Cat reactor produced a COP
    of 3.2 and 3.6 across two different “runs” of the reactor (which is still less than the lowest COP
    number reflected in the License Agreement). See Ex. 14. This conclusion was subsequently
    criticized in a series of publications identifying flaws in the methodology the scientists employed
    which led to overstatement of their COP calculations. These publications, however, did not
    surface until 2015.”

    First they state that the performance of Lugano isn’t enough to validate the agreement. Then
    they try to dismiss the Lugano Report without adding an exhibit with the specific critiques. Which speaks volumes about the credibility of those critiques.

    • Ged

      Critiques came out immediately, of course, and we can show that by simply linking the relevant e-catworld.com thread (as they themselves reference e-catworld.com), so it is not true for them to state critiques didn’t come out till 2015.

  • Barbierir

    I’m happy I’m watching for free season 6 of the Ecat series, after a slow 5th season the show is now more compelling than ever and it has already been renewed for another year!

  • Barbierir

    I’m happy I’m watching for free season 6 of the Ecat series, after a slow 5th season the show is now more compelling than ever and it has already been renewed for another year!

  • Gerrit

    Since I started to follow the story in 2011, Rossi hasn’t shown any credible proof (to me, member of the public). The only partner giving credence to the whole story has now turned his back on Rossi for not showing credible proof to them.

    My tiny brain can only come to the logical conclusion that Rossi cannot provide credible proof.

    All other possible explanation might be true, but my tiny brain cannot handle those.

    • Ged

      Don’t worry, there’s still plenty of more fun to be had, and the Court will help you out!

    • Billy Jackson

      then you are both blind and ignorant, and cherry picking what you want to believe. There is no possible way that you can dismiss the findings over the past 5 years if you have been following this story since 2011. I dont mean to be rude but you are exhibiting all the signs of close minded individual who wants someone to tell him the truth rather than look at the evidence themselves.

      • cashmemorz

        Don’t you know that is how “tiny brains” work? It’s not Gerritt’s fault his brain is that way. Most of the public has that kind of physiology, which is why LENR is hard to break into the public mind. The way that the experts during the court trial explain LENR and/or the E-Cat could be mined to use for public explanations. A sort of LENR for dummies. Can I copyright that?

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          While LENR may be important to us, it is not important for the ttrial. There are issues of law, behavior with respect to a contract, and possible fraud. If it is considered important, the question will be how much heat was delivered, and the COP, not the energy source. Given that IH is heavily committed to investment in LENR, it is extremely unlikely that IH will pull out the “LENR impossible” card.

    • However this winds up, the truth is turning out to be ridiculous.

    • Barbierir

      He offered the Ecat for independent tests in Ferrara and Lugano, if those results are still debated the fault is only with the professors and not with Rossi.

  • Gerrit

    Since I started to follow the story in 2011, Rossi hasn’t shown any credible proof (to me, member of the public). The only partner giving credence to the whole story has now turned his back on Rossi for not showing credible proof to them.

    My tiny brain can only come to the logical conclusion that Rossi cannot provide credible proof.

    All other possible explanation might be true, but my tiny brain cannot handle those.

    • Ged

      Don’t worry, there’s still plenty of more fun to be had, and the Court will help you out!

    • Billy Jackson

      then you are both blind and ignorant, and cherry picking what you want to believe. There is no possible way that you can dismiss the findings over the past 5 years if you have been following this story since 2011. I dont mean to be rude but you are exhibiting all the signs of close minded individual who wants someone to tell him the truth rather than look at the evidence themselves.

      • Michael W Wolf

        Gerrit is making a reasonable assumption. From an outsider not understanding the difficulty in proving a new tech when it was just anomalous heat. And since Rossi has been accused from all angles, he has clammed up and gave up giving proof to the public. But at the level Rossi is producing now, it may indeed convince the general public. But Rossi is stubborn and made up his mind to keep it away from the public. I don’t agree with him, but who can blame him after all the libel he has received?

      • cashmemorz

        Don’t you know that is how “tiny brains” work? It’s not Gerritt’s fault his brain is that way. Most of the public has that kind of physiology, which is why LENR is hard to break into the public mind. The way that the experts during the court trial explain LENR and/or the E-Cat could be mined to use for public explanations. A sort of LENR for dummies. Can I copyright that?

        • Michael W Wolf

          Cmon guys, no need to insult the guy. I think he was being sincere. And a man self deprecating his own intelligence usually means he is not stupid. He was just paying half attention and asked a question. You guys are not only smart, but tenacious, you can’t expect everyone to be that way.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          While LENR may be important to us, it is not important for the ttrial. There are issues of law, behavior with respect to a contract, and possible fraud. If it is considered important, the question will be how much heat was delivered, and the COP, not the energy source. Given that IH is heavily committed to investment in LENR, it is extremely unlikely that IH will pull out the “LENR impossible” card.

      • roseland67

        Billy,

        Couldn’t the exact same be said about all of the Rossi zealots?
        I mean “cherry picking what they want to believe”.
        Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
        “Exhibiting all the signs of close minded individuals”.
        I will believe what I am told to believe because I want it to be so.

        Imagine yourself in a court of law and you are on the witness stand.

        Lawyer to Billy:

        Have you ever met Rossi
        Do you know anyone that has
        Have you ever been present for a test
        Do you know anyone that has
        Have you ever see the test protocol
        Do you know anyone that has
        Do you know if the test data was manipulated or changed.
        Would Rossi manipulate test data to his benefit for money
        Do you know how the Ecat works
        Do you know anyone that does
        Do you know where I can see an Ecat
        What are Rossi’s politics
        What is his religion
        Does Rossi have any ties to terrorism
        Dose Rossi owe anyone money
        Etc, etc, etc

        You would have no answer NO, or you don’t know, to ALL of these questions, but yet somehow, you KNOW the Ecat works?

        Can’t have it both ways Billy.
        Maybe the Ecat works and maybe it doesn’t, but you seem to be afflicted with the same disease you suggest the the non believers are.

        • Billy Jackson

          If i was basing my decision making off “just” Rossi then I would answer in the manner you describe.

          since the original post was based on evidence gathered since 2011. I find it hard to believe that the poster in question has truthfully weighed all the evidence from the different factors we have discussed over these past few years, and could logically come to his conclusion.

          • roseland67

            Billy,

            So was Gerritt,
            He has been following this story, “Rossi and the Ecat” for 5 years
            And so far, his conclusions are that Rossi has delivered nothing
            And these conclusions are correct.

    • However this winds up, the truth is turning out to be ridiculous.

    • Barbierir

      He offered the Ecat for independent tests in Ferrara and Lugano, if those results are still debated the fault is only with the professors and not with Rossi.

  • Gerard McEk

    I believe that it is impossible for a (non technical) jury to judge who is right. IH has a point that the steam flow was not measured and that they were unable to check the amount of heat production. (It is possible that a water flow runs to the customer side through a (maybe insulated) pipe in the steam or water return pipe. They were not allowed to check that and they would have to trust Pepon that he checked that.
    Obviously it is quite unlikely that this happend, but not impossible.

    So how would the court continue? Would they demand a second test? I believe the plant is still mothballed, therefore it can be easily checked if the assumed pipe is there. If not than all claims of IH regarding COP are bullshit. So who owns the plant, AR or IH? CHECK IT!

    • There are many black and white issues here that should be easily discernible to the court once discovery begins. It’s going to flow one way or another pretty quickly.

      Meanwhile in the real world either Johnson Matthey is helping Leonardo get to market or they are not. We might be able to discern the truth there before the court.

    • Mats002

      That plant is a crime scene now. Keep Out!

      • Gerard McEk

        I think a check in presence of the judge should be allowed: The technical peep show ;), I mean pipe show…, hm, whatever.

        • The court appointed mediator may have this authority.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            No. Mediators help the parties to negotiate agreements but have no “authority.”

        • Mats002

          Rossi et al never delivered the last months of data. Maybe the special piping was reset in november 2015 and that will show in the data IH never got?

          • Ged

            Knock knock, here comes Discovery :D!

      • Michael W Wolf

        But IH admits they brought in their own expert to examine the reactor after the test was over. The evidence has now been corrupted.

      • wpj

        You should note that the IH/JMC contract was for TWO years which may explain why the warehouse is still “occupied” by them (and a padlocked plant).

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          This is all a clear sign that the Customer was fake. It appears as IH has laid it out: Rossi engineered the move to Florida so he could create a phony GPT to collect $89 million. If the reactor had been real and if the Customer had been real, why was this all shut down when the “test” was completed? This is such a clumsy fraud it is amazing, “Johnson Matthew” and all. But Rossi was accustomed to getting away with much.

    • Billy Jackson

      Its very simple.. the customer provides the specifications on how much energy it takes to run the plant (which they said they know) .. they then compare the energy required to run the plant under rossi’s ecat.. its basic math all the proof is in the power meter outside the building the electric company knows exactly how many watts were used.. now its just a simple comparison..

      • Mats002

        Johnson Matthey is key witness then. We’ll see.

        • Michael W Wolf

          They may not be. IH has to discredit Penon first. If IH can’t prove Penon a fraud, then IH must pay as they sanctioned him to be the sole determiner of validation.

      • Gerard McEk

        I think we all agree that the customer is a key figure in this. Let us hope he is available as a witness. But according IH he belongs also to AR’s fraudulent group (probably we all belong to that group). How would the jury assess the fact that everyone who says: ‘the plant had a COP well over 10’ is framed by IH as ‘belonging to the fraudulent group of AR’?

        • cashmemorz

          It is up to the legal system to be impartial via its expert witnesses. How impartial a witness is is also based partly on currently accepted state of the art in science. By accepted means the mainstream and how closely that witness toes the line for of the mainstream. This is where the proverbial “mud hits the wall”. Hot times are ahead in this court proceeding on this point and other points of doubt.

    • Ged

      “I believe that it is impossible for a (non technical) jury to judge who is right.”

      That is why Courts bring in expert witnesses :). Happens in pretty much every single case.

      • Private Citizen

        Call James Bass 🙂

        • Michael W Wolf

          I did, no answer yet.

    • Publius

      Juries decide on technical matters well beyond their expertise hundreds of times a day. This is why litigants are allowed to call qualified expert witnesses to explain matters to laymen. It is then up to the jury to decide who has the most credibility.

      • Gerard McEk

        So they ask a professor in nuclear science how he thinks about the Ecat plant….. I do not understand why AR has so much confidence in the US juristic system.

        • cashmemorz

          Rossi has stated several times that the USA is a great country. I suppose it is a comparison to what Italy had done to Rossi via the Italian mafia corrupted business and some of its legal system. Based on what happened to Rossi in that history some who are contra LENR used it as cherry picked items to imply that it was Rossi that was corrupt.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          They would not have an engineer testify on LENR or nuclear reactions. The engineer would testify on the basic measuring process and is it reasonable to accept the 1 MW output based on the plant input and output.

          So in lots of cases a doctor etc. will be brought on as an expert witness to explain how “reasonable” such positions are to laypeople or in this case the jury.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      IH owns the plant. That’s not in dispute, except that Rossi apparently wants it padlocked, so there it sits. There was no squawk from the “customer,” who supposedly need this power badly for the process. I very much doubt that the “court” will require another test. I hate to break it to you, but the court is probably not going to care if the plant “actually worked” or not. Remember, Rossi asked for a jury trial. The jury will decide matters of fact, based on what the plaintiffs and defendants present. The judge will advise on points of law. There are very specific claims in the Complant and Answer and Counter-Complaint. Those are what will be adjudicated..

  • Hi all

    I still consider the October Surprise as a viable reason for these shenanigans.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Ged

      Plenty of time to go!

  • Hi all

    I still consider the October Surprise as a viable reason for these shenanigans.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Ged

      Plenty of time to go!

  • Brent Buckner

    IH alleges that there was no such person as James A. Bass, Director of Engineering for J.M. Products, Inc. (per Exhibit 20). That’s different from alleging that there’s no James A. Bass.

    • Robert Dorr

      If he exist, and apparently he does, JM Products can bestow on him whatever title they wish. In this instance they gave him the title ‘Director of Engineering’. They could have called him ‘President of Engineering’. So what?

      • Brent Buckner

        You’re conflating the existence of James Bass of Johnson Matthey with the existence of James A. Bass, Director of Engineering for J.M. Products, Inc.

        IH could stipulate the existence of the first and still allege the non-existence of the second – that wouldn’t be logically inconsistent. We’ll see how the legal process proceeds.

      • Rossi Fan

        James A. Bass??? They have it bass backwards.

  • f sedei

    This sounds too much like an improbable scheme. Whether the plant works or not would be too easy to prove.

  • sam

    IIn one of the comments they said this was stated in the counter claim.

    “Rossi further manipulated the Validation process by ensuring that his friend and colleague, Penon, served as the ERV for the Validation testing. Industrial Heat requested that “one of the big testing companies” work alongside Penon in the measurement and validation of the test. Rossi vehemently objected, insisting that having one of the big testing companies involved would “create big problems” for him.”
    Does anyone have an opinion on what
    might have happened if I.H. had vehemently objected to Penon and
    not agreed to proceed with Ecat test.

    • wpj

      History says that Rossi did not know the guy in Italy and IH brought them in. Maybe we need to change history to suit our needs.

    • Ged

      They had to agree on him to allow the test to move forward, per the agreements. All they had to do was Veto him and that would have been that.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Right. Rossi had a long history of walking away when challenged. IH knew the situation. If they wanted to find out if the Rossi IP was real, they had to play his game his way, or there was no game. They took this to almost ridiculous extremes, but, eventually, they could not raise the $89 million ethically without having independent confirmation. It appears that they carefully avoided accepting the Doral application as the GPT, Rossi’s complaint was misleading. If no GPT, then it would be status quo until Rossi actually taught them to make devices that worked, and if he did, they could then have waived the test and paid him the money. But what if Rossi didn’t have any real working devices from the beginning?

        There is no way to distinguish this from his having something real but not trusting IH with it. Not until and unless there is full-on independent verification, which is unlikely any time soon.

  • sam

    In one of the comments they said this was stated in the counter claim.

    “Rossi further manipulated the Validation process by ensuring that his friend and colleague, Penon, served as the ERV for the Validation testing. Industrial Heat requested that “one of the big testing companies” work alongside Penon in the measurement and validation of the test. Rossi vehemently objected, insisting that having one of the big testing companies involved would “create big problems” for him.”
    Does anyone have an opinion on what
    might have happened if I.H. had vehemently objected to Penon and
    not agreed to proceed with Ecat test.

    • wpj

      History says that Rossi did not know the guy in Italy and IH brought them in. Maybe we need to change history to suit our needs.

    • Michael W Wolf

      The fact is IH accepted it. So maybe they aren’t complete honest about what went on privately.

      • Publius

        Ah, don’t you see the danger in frauds? They manipulate you at the human level, get you to overlook suspicions and good business sense in order to make a few bucks. We have all done the same thing when it appears something is too good to be true and we take a high-risk gamble anyway.

        • Michael W Wolf

          History tells us, it is not the inventors who are the frauds. Don’t you see the danger in forgetting that?

        • clovis ray

          nope, my dad taught me that long ago, but you see you keep talking about a fraud, there is no fraud, you do not know what your talking about.

      • clovis ray

        poor I/H,
        They are so innocent, and dumb, they need someone to show them every move to make, they are only a large V/C group taking people for everything they are worth, well the table has been reversed, they pick the wrong mark this time, sorry the only thing that will happen now is they lose, everything, although it is only a shell co, so in a year or so no one will care.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          You forget. With what they did, and I assume with full disclosure, they raised $50 million from Woodford for LENR research, and may have raised much more. They did not lose, they gained. Rossi can’t touch that money, because it went into IHHI, which owns IH. However, if Rossi were to deliver on working IP, as he promised, it could all turn around. It would then be worthwhile for IHHI to put money into IH to pay Rossi, together with other money they could easily raise.

          I find it funny that it seems to be common that people think that IH managers are “dumb.” They know what they are doing and they have been quite successful at it. Rossi fans feed Rossi “questions” that point to Cherokee “frauds,” but Cherokee has never been found responsible for a fraud. What happens is that Cherokee invests in risky projects, and these not uncommonly lose money and go bankrupt. If they do, Cherokee loses their investment (typically $25 million), but if the project is successful, they make a lot of money. These projects, individual limited partnerships — which means qualified investors, not the general public — raise a lot of money from other investors, often local to projects, and from environmental funds, state money, the like. And if the market turns and/or the project turns out to be much more expensive than thought, the investors lose some or all of their investments, and also there can be state government losses. And then some investigative reporter claims fraud. But it’s never been actually shown And it’s unlikely. They have a very good business going without fraud, and committing fraud would be truly stupid.

          • clovis ray

            Pretty, convincing, but even i know the difference between milking the market, and outright theft, not to mention breach of contract, and BOC will
            have to be dealt with first, this is what i believe, and i haven’t heard a decent argument against it,
            it will go down in history. as DUMB , They had the proverbial goose that laid the golden e-cat, and let it slip away,
            how sad for them, makes you almost feel sorry for them, but we will know why,
            when Leonardo corp, brings the hammer down, and they have the hammer, and the power behind it to bring it down hard , it won’t be pretty.

    • Ged

      They had to agree on him to allow the test to move forward, per the agreements. All they had to do was Veto him and that would have been that.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Right. Rossi had a long history of walking away when challenged. IH knew the situation. If they wanted to find out if the Rossi IP was real, they had to play his game his way, or there was no game. They took this to almost ridiculous extremes, but, eventually, they could not raise the $89 million ethically without having independent confirmation. It appears that they carefully avoided accepting the Doral application as the GPT, Rossi’s complaint was misleading. If no GPT, then it would be status quo until Rossi actually taught them to make devices that worked, and if he did, they could then have waived the test and paid him the money. But what if Rossi didn’t have any real working devices from the beginning?

        There is no way to distinguish this from his having something real but not trusting IH with it. Not until and unless there is full-on independent verification, which is unlikely any time soon.

  • Private Citizen

    Hard to digest how Murray was denied access to the plant in July 2015 and it took until Feb 2016 for IH to enable admittance.

    Wouldn’t one very angry phone call from IH do the trick? How did they give Rossi so much power over their $89 million validation test and their facility?

    • Zeddicus23

      In the July 13 e-mail (Exhibit 19) regarding Murray, Rossi first refers to the factory of JM (stating that Murray cannot enter the factory of JM) and then later in the sentence talks about the “plant”. This is confusing, and it’s not clear if this is a deliberate confusion on Rossi’s part or if when he says “plant” he is again referring to “the factory of JM”. Of course other IH employees such as Barry West, Fulvio, and Penon were in the 1 MW plant. I must admit that I haven’t read the 66 page Reply document yet. Does this state that Murray was unable to gain admittance to the 1 MW powerplant until February 2016 even though he was planning to visit in July 2015?

      • Sam

        If they were dealing with very expensive materials it would be understandable with security, and secrecy. If production was real and bulk, it could bascially have been a vault.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Yes. It says that. Rossi said in July that people who were not already approved would not be admitted until the “test” was over. Basically, Rossi took it upon himself to define the 1 MW application with JM Products as the Guaranteed Performance Test, which he also considered himself and Penon as in charge of. I recommend reading the Answer a few times! There is a lot there and in the attachments. It can be difficult to change gears when feed a steady diet of “Rossi says” for some years!

  • Private Citizen

    Hard to digest how Murray was denied access to the plant in July 2015 and it took until Feb 2016 for IH to enable admittance.

    Wouldn’t one very angry phone call from IH do the trick? How did they give Rossi so much power over their $89 million validation test and their facility?

    • cashmemorz

      It just worked out that way from the beginning of the set up of the test. First IH didn’t want The “customer” to get into the E-CAT area re IP protection. Then Rossi did a tit for tat and made sure that his “customer” was similarly protected re IP protection And that is what led to the apparent control as you put it.

    • Zeddicus23

      In the July 13 e-mail (Exhibit 19) regarding Murray, Rossi first refers to the factory of JM (stating that Murray cannot enter the factory of JM) and then later in the sentence talks about the “plant”. This is confusing, and it’s not clear if this is a deliberate confusion on Rossi’s part or if when he says “plant” he is again referring to “the factory of JM”. Of course other IH employees such as Barry West, Fulvio, and Penon were in the 1 MW plant. I must admit that I haven’t read the 66 page Reply document yet. Does this state that Murray was unable to gain admittance to the 1 MW powerplant until February 2016 even though he was planning to visit in July 2015?

      • Sam

        If they were dealing with very expensive materials it would be understandable with security, and secrecy. If production was real and bulk, it could bascially have been a vault.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Yes. It says that. Rossi said in July that people who were not already approved would not be admitted until the “test” was over. Basically, Rossi took it upon himself to define the 1 MW application with JM Products as the Guaranteed Performance Test, which he also considered himself and Penon as in charge of. I recommend reading the Answer a few times! There is a lot there and in the attachments. It can be difficult to change gears when feed a steady diet of “Rossi says” for some years!

  • Rossi Fan

    James A. Bass??? They have it bass backwards.

  • Brent Buckner

    For all I know IH telephoned James Bass of Johnson Matthey and he denied having been Director of Engineering for JMP. We’ll see how the legal process plays out.

  • Brent Buckner

    In the scenario of fraud by Rossi it wouldn’t add for me much more implausibility for the actor playing Director of Engineering to be assigned a name of one of Johnson Matthey’s suitable employees.

  • Andy Kumar

    I cannot believe you guys are still spinning it. Not too long, you were crowing about Cherokee’s billions of dollars behind Rossi. What does Rossi have to do before you call it quits. Ronald Reagan was called Teflon President. No mud ever stuck to him. Trump and Rossi seem to be his modern day reincarnation.

  • Sam Hansson

    On this webpage, one of many webpages for the Johnson Matthey group, there is a bit more insight in what they kind of processes they would be working on.

    Understanding thay they deal with Gold, Silver, Platinum ….. in great quantities it actually makes quite a lot of sense with restricted access and secrecy. Taking a non authorised person into the production area might be similar as to one of the employees in the bank letting someone into the vault, non authorised.

    Siffer found some employee of that group with the same name as the “supposed actor” IH speaks about. I guess well find out eventually if there is some connection between the companies.

    http://www.jmrefining.com/video-page

    • Sam Hansson

      If someone could propose a process such a group might do, that is endothermic, it would be interesting to read about.

      • Mats002
        • That there are no known endothermic reactions that might absorb the required amount of heat under the conditions in the factory seems to be borne out by the linked discussion. Assuming that the ‘test’ was real, a twin heat exchanger ‘simulated load’ still seems to be the most likely scenario. Such a load could be easily be programmed to simulate a wide variety of heat requiring continuous processes, and to log calorimetrics in order to demonstrate to a potential user that the 1MW plant would meet their needs.

        • Teemu Soilamo

          The masterpiece part is what got me, too. Speaks very ill of Rossi’s character.

        • Industrial Heat is a joke, do they expect a Jury to believe it took them a year to uncover a “Scam” that they themselves set up? If so who runs a business like that? Nobody. It’s all so ridiculous! What would Rossi have to gain in the long run but total ruin, vilification and incarceration?! If Rossi’s E-cat technology didn’t work they’d have known it after a week. Also, who is Murray and where was he when they set the test up?

          • Ged

            I sure don’t seen Murry’s name or signature (or date) on the supposed Exhibit 5 either. Way too much sketchiness and not enough data going on here still.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            You don’t understand how Exhibits work. They are what the Answer claims them to be, and the Answer says exactly what Exhibit 5 is. Exhibit 5 I read as a memorialization of the conversation Murray had with Penon in February. By this time the parties knew they were headed for a lawsuit, Jones Day and Annesser were involved by February 17 or earlier. So the verbal conversation in February was converted to a document given to Penon. Realize that none of this is formally evidence yet. These are really allegations, and in court will be attested, that is, entered with a description under penalty of perjury. Any questions that exist about them will presumably be covered by depositions or written answers to interrogatories, all under penalty of perjury. So you may say :”suspicious” or “sketchy” but it is meaningless. That document is the strongest glimpse have so far of what might be in the ERV report.

            Exxept, of course, that IH is claiming — and from the evidence they show, such as the Rossi letter suggesting installing the plant in Florida, it is plausible — that they never agreed to this as the Guaranteed Performance Test, and their agreement was absolutely required and that test could not be set up unilaterally by Rossi. This is a far stronger argument than most think. It is not merely a matter of the missing signatures on the Second Amerndment, a relatively minor problem by comparison — though it still exists.

          • Omega Z

            ->”that they never agreed to this as the Guaranteed Performance Test”

            Darden had to have approved. Their people built it. They delivered it to the site. They signed the ammendment. Thus this could not have been done unilaterally by Rossi.

            I could be wrong but, From the contract frame work and the additional info that’s been provided by Industrial heat, it appears they never intended to pay the $89 million since day one. They always intended to breach the contract.

            One also wonders why Industrial heat filed a patent on Rossi’s IP without his knowledge. And, You have to wonder about the impact that said patent was when rejected by the USPTO. CF/LENR can’t be patented as it is not recognized to exist. I.E. Not possible.

          • GiveADogABone

            Prior to 24 October 2012, Rossi could not have discussed anything with the officers of IH for the simple reason that IH did not exist. So who did Darden and Vaughn represent in their earlier discussions with Rossi? It must have been themselves or Cherokee. Is it any wonder that Rossi thought he was dealing with Cherokee prior to 24 October.

            This looks precious close to fraudulent manipulation as described by Chapman. Such a finding seems to empower the court to nullify the contract, such that it never existed.

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            Yup.

            Old Italian saying:
            “Cui nun voli pagari, s’assuggetta ad ogni pattu”

            English translation: Who doesn’t intend to pay, signs any contract.
            .

          • sam

            The worst day of his life was
            probably when the cell
            door closed on A.R. In Italy.
            But that’s were it started studying C.F.
            Like they say there is a silver
            lining in every cloud.

          • sam

            The best day in A.R. life will
            be when he finally defeats
            his wife in a game of tennis.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Sam,

            I suspect Rossi is not that bad a tennis player. 😉

            He is a once professional athlete.
            .

          • sam

            I don’t know about you but
            I know he could beat me
            Engineer 48.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            From the pictures I have seen, the electrical controls look like a custom configuration of off-the-shelf components. This is typical of industrial automation and HVAC controls for complex systems. I do agree that the software is “hand made” and likely the most complex portion of the system.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Oh, he had $1.5 million to console himself with. he could have backed out at any time up until the Validation Test was complete, the ERV certified it, and the $10 million was transfered to him from escrow, which was almost a year later. Had he delivered working IP, had he worked to please his customer — standard business — and assuming he had real IP to deliver, he woudl have gotten the $89 million, I have no doubt about that. Working E-cats would be worth more than that. Much more. It’s funny how both sides of this are played. “Yeah, Rossi was smart to not give them the secret.” “Yeah, he’s been screwed over because they didn’t pay.”

          • cashmemorz

            The reason that “they themselves set it up, as you rightfully say, is to test the E-CAT in court under the worst circumstances possible. If the court uncovers that and show that there is really nothing wrong with the E-CAT and that it does what the ERV says, ie: COP somewhere between 6 to 50 then IH will have done the utmost in terms of due diligence and get all the investors that they need to develop the tech and make piles of $$. That is their job in a nut shell and they are doing it well, according to the facts that are coming into the light.

  • Sam Hansson

    On this webpage, one of many webpages for the Johnson Matthey group, there is a bit more insight in what they kind of processes they would be working on.

    Understanding thay they deal with Gold, Silver, Platinum ….. in great quantities it actually makes quite a lot of sense with restricted access and secrecy. Taking a non authorised person into the production area might be similar as to one of the employees in the bank letting someone into the vault, non authorised.

    Siffer found some employee of that group with the same name as the “supposed actor” IH speaks about. I guess well find out eventually if there is some connection between the companies.

    http://www.jmrefining.com/video-page

    • Sam Hansson

      If someone could propose a process such a group might do, that is endothermic, it would be interesting to read about.

      • JedRothwell

        Endothermic processes use only a tiny fraction of the heat. They do not swallow it all up. Most is waste heat. Baking bread is a typical endothermic process. There is no way the pretend customer site produced 1 MW of waste heat.

      • Mats002
        • That there are no known endothermic reactions that might absorb the required amount of heat under the conditions in the factory seems to be borne out by the linked discussion. Assuming that the ‘test’ was real, a twin heat exchanger ‘simulated load’ still seems to be the most likely scenario. Such a load could be easily be programmed to simulate a wide variety of heat requiring continuous processes, and to log calorimetrics in order to demonstrate to a potential user that the 1MW plant would meet their needs.

    • JedRothwell

      You need to look for Johnson Matthew, not Matthey. (Hint: there is no such company as Johnson Matthew.)

      • Mats002

        Time to look for some other name?

        Andrea Rossi
        August 7, 2016 at 2:17 PM
        Luis Navarro:
        Thank you for the link, anyway, as I always said, Johnson Matthey is NOT the Customer.
        Warm regards,
        A.R.

        • JedRothwell

          Rossi is a liar. He did not “always say” that. He tried to convince I.H. that Johnson Matthey was the customer, as described in the I.H. Answer, p. 43:

          “. . . Rossi and Johnson made a number of false representations to Industrial Heat, most notably that JMP (at the time called J.M. Chemical Products, Inc.) was a confidential subsidiary of Johnson Matthey p.l.c. (“Johnson Matthey”), and that Johnson Matthey was interested in using the E-Cat technology in connection with a confidential manufacturing process it wanted to operate in Florida. In fact, in August 2014 Johnson on behalf of JMP even warranted in writing that JMP “[was] owned by an entity formed in the United Kingdom, and none of Leonardo, Dr. Andrea Rossi, Henry W. Johnson nor any of their respective subsidiaries, directors, officers, agents, employees, affiliates, significant others, or relatives by blood or marriage [had] any ownership interest” in JMP. See Compl. Ex. B. (last page of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit). JMP, however, has never been a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey, was not operating or planning to operate any manufacturing process in Florida, and was in fact owned by persons whom Johnson represented in writing did not have any ownership interest in JMP.”

          • wpj

            Is this not the same as IH not being Cherokee?

            What he says is correct, though Johnson Matthey may be behind JM Products.

          • JedRothwell

            Johnson Matthey is NOT repeat NOT behind JM products. That was nonsense. In Exhibit 18 you see that Rossi’s company is such a crude fake, they spelled “Johnson Matthey” incorrectly.

            Cherokee is not “behind” IH in any sense, and no one from either company has ever claimed it is. Rossi thinks it is, but he is wrong.

          • wpj

            You should read the emails from Rossi to Darden, then, when he states how much Cherokee can make (2012 when he was being courted). He certainly believed he was dealing with them as the email when to a Cherokee email address!

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            Can you explain why John T. Vaughn, IH’s vice president, altered and initialed the document originally created by Johnson that made various claims about who did and who did not have beneficial ownership / control of JMP as attached?

            Does this not suggest IH knew the statements in the document to be true and correct as Vaughn did the alterations and placed his initials on the document?

            Surely IH did due diligence on the UK parent to be sure they would be paid the heat fee and that their plant would be safe?

            Or did IH jump into bed with a US startup company and had no idea who the beneficial owners were?

            VERY difficult to believe IH did not do due diligence on the UK parent.

            VERY simple for them to do this check prior to signing the heat sale agreement.

            VERY simple for them to check on Rossi’s claim about the involvement of Johnson Matthey.
            .
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4f3178467474ec42bbddeef2922eaed330ca75dfb6b379056f24d6bacbb8e30d.png

          • Chapman

            I believe that Rossi has a business card from Darden from their early meeting. Darden handed it out. It was a Cherokee business card.

            IH now claims a business card from Customer to be evidence of misleading and fraudulent representation. Would the same standard not apply to Darden? If Darden meets with you, and gives you a business card with the Cherokee Logo, and Darden’s name and position, is that not fraudulently representing himself as representing Cherokee???

  • Brent Buckner

    IH does not claim that James Bass of Johnson Matthey does not exist. They claim that “James A. Bass, Director of Engineering of J.M. Products, Inc.” does not exist.

  • Brent Buckner

    You ask whether I “really think Rossi is that stupid?”

    I’m open to the possibility that he has a personality disorder.

  • 12million $ are payed to the Rossi fella, By IH.
    They send an Engineer to look over their investment in July 2015.
    He is denied the look over.
    6 months go by.
    In February the Engineer gets his look.
    In the February he immediately finds that its all a fraud.
    Hey I.H. I got this plant that’s making golden eggs.
    Just need you to advance me a couple of million £ to feed It and keep it going.

  • Publius

    Nobody is paying me Clovis. I just want the truth and an unimpeded path to LENR and if Rossi turns out to be a fraud, I want him and his sort out of the way.

    • clovis ray

      Don’t come on this forum and think you know best, because you don’t, if your so dam up for lenr you might want to pay attention to what is being said and quit trashing Dr Rossi, he will deal with this bunch of trash, masquerading as human beings,in short order, besides no one has proven what the secret is called, it may turn out to be something completely different from lenr, Dr. Rossi is the one that is in the lead on the rossi effect, he is not a fraud, or a liar, as you and I/H would like everyone to believe, with the old adage, tell a lie long enough, and people will begin to believe it, there is plenty proof that Dr. Rossi, has what he says, i have known Dr R for many years, and NEVER heard him tell a deliberate lie, maybe some,embellishment about his product, but that is just business,

  • sam

    This is a comment from Lenr forum.
    THHuxley
    User Avatar
    Professional
    8 hours ago+2
    OK, so I’ve just read through a few pages of comment on the other thread.

    I also read through the entire IH answer (though I’ve not yet checked most of the exhibits).

    Putting the two together, I’m unwilling to re-argue points here – the answer is almost precisely as would have been expected and IH’s story of how and why they were defrauded by Rossi is entirely consistent. That there are some here who don’t see it that way is predictable – but it does them no credit. Paras 79-86 of the counterclaim are well worth reading carefully.There are just a few points that I’d like to bring out:

    (1) The GPT errors. IH are giving, in their example, some exemplary ways in which the test clearly contravened good practice to an extent that is negligent, in several ways. The fan being just one of those, another being the existence of “cooked” data. Given such provable errors, they do not have to precisely account for how the fudges results are what they are. The point is that once you leave specs – running flowmeters wrong, substituting estimates for real data, it is very difficult afterwards to know how large is the error. You just know “dragons go here” and rightly don’t trust it. Also, given provable errors of this kind it can be reasonably supposed that there are other similar, but undetected, issues. Hence the arguments from some that because COP=50 is so large, and accounting for all of that is difficult, the device must have worked, would fail even if the exemplary errors were indeed provably limited.

    (2) The exemplary errors are not provably limited. For one reason: if some data is proven fudged no limit can be put on how much more fudge. For context please read Exhibit 5, in detail.

    (3) Flowmeter specifics.The (claimed) average flowrate is just below the minimum flowmeter spec. That is unprofessional and means the results cannot be reliable, but I’d not expect large errors just from this. Other things make the matter worse.

    (a)You remember the ill-fated DGT demo where they were able to generate arbitrary high apparent flow rates with near zero real flow rate by reducing the rate below meter spec and allowing turbulence to make the impellor run backwards? This flowmeter has the same issue, and being mounted with vapour in the tube as well as water makes this infinite error mechanism possible as well as the obvious large over-reading due to a partially filled pipe.

    (b) The evidence in exhibit 5 that the reported data on flowrate is just wrong is unmistakable (how could it remain so constant over large working reactor number changes etc?). Given this, the actual flow rate could be much lower than that reported.

    (4) IH behaviour. The arguments here from some, specifically Shane, are just scientifically and logically wrong. I know Shane does not claim to be a technical guy – but then he should not argue technical arguments with such confidence. It is actually very difficult to prove COP = 1 to any good accuracy. Much easier to prove COP is higher than some limit (if it is really greater than 1) then to prove there is no excess heat. In fact it is logically impossible to prove there is no excess heat. All you can do is say that you have not been able to measure anything convincingly above errors. IH’s care on this issue will be especially strong because until they got high power tech help in (Murray) they were influenced by Fabiani and others and relying on test methods that were just wrong. Look at their believing the Lugano results until rather late in the day when they seem to have located TC’s report. I guess Jed told them, because it is published on lenr-canr?

    (5) Armchair critics here think that IH would be certain there was no excess heat early on. That cannot be true. They would have doubts, which got larger with more experimentation. They can never say there was no excess heat, only that they have no evidence of this and certainly any actual excess is provably below some value given by their total setup errors. Correct estimation of those errors is not simple for any setup.

    Regards, THH

    • cashmemorz

      Excellent detail and analysis. And if the court proceedings can overcome such on purpose wrong data then Industrial Heat will have won their purpose in presenting such data. Industrial Heat will have confirmed that, even in the face of severe FUD, that the E-CAT has been shown to work as the ERV shows. This is the exact reason why the ERV is not published as yet. So that only the inner circle of those in the know can put in roadblocks that will test the system and not just anybody outside that circle so as not to muddy the waters in a manner that is uncontrolled. And in so doing IH will have accomplished due diligence of the highest order. All will be friends, Rossi will receive the balance of what is due him by IH and everyone will be vindicated.

      Edit: This is why IH say that only they are to be listened to. Because IH is in complete control in this matter.

    • Ged

      It’s interesting I haven’t seen anyone else pointing out how Exhibit 5
      has no name or date, is not an original document (obviously, with
      references to Exhibits and all), and is formatted the same as the rest of
      the legal Answer with the same language as well. It’s a surprising contrast to the other Exhibits. Be
      interesting to see the original engineer-to-engineer letter.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Is a copy of an email an “original document”? On the face, this is a Letter. The Answer formally attributes this to Joe Murray. The document is not complete. It had attachments, it appears, called “Exhibits.” This request to Penon was obviously after the “test” was complete, it contains references to events of February 17, and there is reference to the obvious issue of whether or not this work was the GPT. At this point, the relationship with Rossi was already badly broken,see the demand letter from Jones Day to Annesser, Rossi’s attorney, February 17 (Exhibit 23), so I expect that Rossi was already preparing to sue. Not much later, IH issued a statement to Mats Lewan and some others, and Rossi was asked if there was a problem. He claimed everything was fine with IH. He was lying.

        We can see the breakdown much earlier, with Exhibit 19, where Rossi refused access to Joe Murray “until the tests have been completed.” But the whole move of the reactor to Florida had been presented to IH as an opportunity to sell power, not as a “test,” per se, and certainly not as the Guaranteed Performance Test, and the Term Sheet (Exhibit 17) represented that IH representatives would have full access — and did not prohibit entry to the “customer area,” as Rossi has claimed.

        Rossi behaved as if it was his reactor.

        This is all not difficult to show to a jury, it’s not complicated, assuming that the appropriate evidence and testimony can be presented.

    • jgarr

      what fan are you referring to ?

      • sam

        This is a problem with cut and paste.When you are not the writer can not answer.
        Maybe someone else knows
        what the writer means.

    • clovis ray

      That’s the dumbest explanation i’ve heard yet , and how much were you being payed for posting that piece of ‘well’ , thh that’s wonderful, you actually don’t have a clue do you.. Dr, R is suing for breach of contract, there is plenty of proof that the device works above and beyond the agreed upon performance of a cop of 6,

      • sam

        Hi C.R.
        I am being paid by both sides
        for copy and paste.But I cannot
        reveal how much.
        Have a good Ecat day.
        Sam

        • sam

          Just a not very funny joke
          Clovis.

      • sam

        Jed RothwellAugust 7, 2016 at 8:42 PM
        You misread the documents and data from I.H. They said there was no measurable excess heat from any reactor. Not the ones Rossi made and operated, and not the ones I.H. made according to his instructions. They said, for example: “Indeed, using the E-Cat technology Plaintiffs directly provided them, Industrial Heat and IPH have been unable to produce any measurable excess energy.” Elsewhere, they said this about Rossi’s own test.

        They did not say the COP was less than 4. They said it was less than 1 (no excess heat). They said this repeatedly and unequivocally.

        I have seen a sample of Rossi’s data, and I agree with I.H. evaluation. There was no indication of excess heat. Furthermore, the data is rife with fraud and outrageous mistakes, as described in Exhibit 5. There were days when the reactor was half turned off, or fully turned off, yet the data log shows it produced 1 MW continuously on those same days. That is blatant fraud. The claim that 1 MW of heat was released into the customer site is baloney. They ran the wrong kind of flow meter in a pipe half full of water. They knew they were doing that! They were told. They did it deliberately, in order to produce a fake, inflated COP. They did this with other instruments as well.

  • Publius

    Ah, don’t you see the danger in frauds? They manipulate you at the human level, get you to overlook suspicions and good business sense in order to make a few bucks. We have all done the same thing when it appears something is too good to be true and we take a high-risk gamble anyway.

  • sam

    This is from Sifferkoll.
    Is Joseph Murray the Establishment/DoD/Apco Operative Assigned to Slow LENR Down and Trash Rossi?
    Posted on 2016/08/07
    With Joseph Murray (long DoD consultancy background) entering the scene shortly after the first quarterly ERV report showing COP~50, the likelyhood of establishment involvement increased exponentially.

    joem_fb1joemurray1

    It also seems very probable that Mr. Murray has been the FUD boss in charge of leaking selected parts to Fred Zoepfl, Dewey Weaver and Jed Rothwell; like the Penon involvement, flow meter FUD, distorted ERV data, etc.

    It is interesting that as long as Rossi only produced E-Cats with limited reliability on an experimental level, IH did not feel the urge to speed anything up. They were happy with very slow progress and managed to delay the test from august 2013 untill feb 2015. In october 2013 they made Rossi believe he could still get the GPT if he made a one year test, but already at that point IH knew they would never pay due to legal technicalities. They never considered the 2nd amendment valid but had Rossi believe it was.

    I find this quote in the counterFUD describing it. Ignoring that IH themselves signed the amendment … Why?

    Leonardo and Rossi were fully aware that, per the clear and express terms of the License Agreement, they were required to commence any “Guaranteed performance” in 2013. Nevertheless, Leonardo and Rossi made no efforts to commence such a test during 2013.

    So, for good reasons Rossi did not allow Murray to visit. He probably became suspicious when Apco operative Brian McLaughlin visited together with Darden. Maybe this was the time when Rossi realized IH did not plan to pay him any money. Probably Mr. Murray was also assigned by Apco to play their agenda, who most likely are billing both IH and the DC establishment crowd.

    I suspect this was also the time when Rossi was offered a couple of millions to stop the test and Rossi offered to buy the license back for $11M, but IH refused …

    About the meeting of Tuesday, you obviously can come when you want, while Joe Murray cannot enter in the factory of JM because, as I have explained to Tom during the visit with Brian Mc Laughlin, I do not allow anybody, except for the personnel already reciprocally authorized, to approach the plant before the tests on course will have been completed.

    In the end Murray was assigned to write a letter to Penon containing flow meter FUD used and manage the FUD campaign using Jed, Zoepfl, Abdul and Weaver. Note also that this letter does not refer to the actual ERV report, not even the quarterly reports, but only other data and charts.

    A bit strange i would say, that the real ERV report is totally ignored, or … actually not. It is refered to as “speaking for itself”. Loudly it says COP~50 …

    • The ERV remains the invisible black hole around which all else orbits. For some reason, both sides think releasing it at a later date is in their best interest. Or perhaps there’s a legal restriction on its release.

    • clovis ray

      well said, Sam, it’s nice to hear some real honest talk , and you are correct.

  • sam

    This is from Sifferkoll.
    Is Joseph Murray the Establishment/DoD/Apco Operative Assigned to Slow LENR Down and Trash Rossi?
    Posted on 2016/08/07
    With Joseph Murray (long DoD consultancy background) entering the scene shortly after the first quarterly ERV report showing COP~50, the likelyhood of establishment involvement increased exponentially.

    joem_fb1joemurray1

    It also seems very probable that Mr. Murray has been the FUD boss in charge of leaking selected parts to Fred Zoepfl, Dewey Weaver and Jed Rothwell; like the Penon involvement, flow meter FUD, distorted ERV data, etc.

    It is interesting that as long as Rossi only produced E-Cats with limited reliability on an experimental level, IH did not feel the urge to speed anything up. They were happy with very slow progress and managed to delay the test from august 2013 untill feb 2015. In october 2013 they made Rossi believe he could still get the GPT if he made a one year test, but already at that point IH knew they would never pay due to legal technicalities. They never considered the 2nd amendment valid but had Rossi believe it was.

    I find this quote in the counterFUD describing it. Ignoring that IH themselves signed the amendment … Why?

    Leonardo and Rossi were fully aware that, per the clear and express terms of the License Agreement, they were required to commence any “Guaranteed performance” in 2013. Nevertheless, Leonardo and Rossi made no efforts to commence such a test during 2013.

    So, for good reasons Rossi did not allow Murray to visit. He probably became suspicious when Apco operative Brian McLaughlin visited together with Darden. Maybe this was the time when Rossi realized IH did not plan to pay him any money. Probably Mr. Murray was also assigned by Apco to play their agenda, who most likely are billing both IH and the DC establishment crowd.

    I suspect this was also the time when Rossi was offered a couple of millions to stop the test and Rossi offered to buy the license back for $11M, but IH refused …

    About the meeting of Tuesday, you obviously can come when you want, while Joe Murray cannot enter in the factory of JM because, as I have explained to Tom during the visit with Brian Mc Laughlin, I do not allow anybody, except for the personnel already reciprocally authorized, to approach the plant before the tests on course will have been completed.

    In the end Murray was assigned to write a letter to Penon containing flow meter FUD used and manage the FUD campaign using Jed, Zoepfl, Abdul and Weaver. Note also that this letter does not refer to the actual ERV report, not even the quarterly reports, but only other data and charts.

    A bit strange i would say, that the real ERV report is totally ignored, or … actually not. It is refered to as “speaking for itself”. Loudly it says COP~50 …

    • The ERV remains the invisible black hole around which all else orbits. For some reason, both sides think releasing it at a later date is in their best interest. Or perhaps there’s a legal restriction on its release.

    • clovis ray

      well said, Sam, it’s nice to hear some real honest talk , and you are correct.

    • Chapman

      Forgive me, but how much of that was YOU, and what was the content you were reposting?

      It is an excellent bit of Logic being displayed, and I would like to commend you accordingly – but is this a statement from you, or just a statement you are passing along? Either way, please be extra careful when quoting and reposting – that you clearly differentiate between the two types of content. Is the entire post just cut from Sifferkoll?

      • sam

        Just cut and paste from Sifferkoll.
        I will make it clearer next time.

  • Hhiram

    Frank, can you please re-confirm with Rossi: James Bass is a real person? And he works for the Johnson Matthey Chemical company in the UK (whom we have long suspected is the customer, despite Rossi’s denials of a connection to the JM Chemical registration of his customer in Florida)?

    Is this really true?

    If this is true, it seems that this could be very damaging to IH’s credibility and their defense. Not only did they claim Bass isn’t real, but they also claim Rossi used an impostor to conduct business with them. If it turns out Bass IS real, that claim of theirs will likely seem ridiculous to the court – and a demonstration of their incompetence.

    If it is NOT true, and if James Bass IS a fictional person, and/or Rossi really did use an impostor, then that is VERY damning of Rossi. So far we have been hoping he is trying to be an honest actor (with small white lies to protect his company, his customer, and his IP – ok…) in a very difficult situation. But if he is just flying lying to his business partners, and going to extreme lengths to deceive them with impostors, etc, then IH really has a strong case for fraud against him.

    So, Frank, can you please re-confirm directly from Rossi?

    Thanks

    • Frank Acland

      I asked Rossi about this part:

      80. “Leonardo, Rossi, JMP, Johnson and Fabiani even went so far as to create a
      fictional JMP employee – James A. Bass, Director of Engineering for JMP. Despite diligent
      search, Counter-Plaintiffs have not been able to identify or locate this individual, for the simple
      reason that he does not exist. ”

      Rossi replied: “Obviously it is false, as all the things IH said. In Court this issue will be duly developed. “

  • Teemu Soilamo

    ” It seems he not only exists but works for Johnson Matthey. This appears to be a false allegation by IH. I don’t care why they made this allegation, but it does seem false.”

    How do you figure that? Where is the proof that Bass, in his capacity as director of engineering for JMP, exists?

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Where is the proof that he’s real?

  • Mats002

    Time to look for some other name?

    Andrea Rossi
    August 7, 2016 at 2:17 PM
    Luis Navarro:
    Thank you for the link, anyway, as I always said, Johnson Matthey is NOT the Customer.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

    • JedRothwell

      Rossi is a liar. He did not “always say” that. He tried to convince I.H. that Johnson Matthey was the customer, as described in the I.H. Answer, p. 43:

      “. . . Rossi and Johnson made a number of false representations to Industrial Heat, most notably that JMP (at the time called J.M. Chemical Products, Inc.) was a confidential subsidiary of Johnson Matthey p.l.c. (“Johnson Matthey”), and that Johnson Matthey was interested in using the E-Cat technology in connection with a confidential manufacturing process it wanted to operate in Florida. In fact, in August 2014 Johnson on behalf of JMP even warranted in writing that JMP “[was] owned by an entity formed in the United Kingdom, and none of Leonardo, Dr. Andrea Rossi, Henry W. Johnson nor any of their respective subsidiaries, directors, officers, agents, employees, affiliates, significant others, or relatives by blood or marriage [had] any ownership interest” in JMP. See Compl. Ex. B. (last page of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit). JMP, however, has never been a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey, was not operating or planning to operate any manufacturing process in Florida, and was in fact owned by persons whom Johnson represented in writing did not have any ownership interest in JMP.”

      • The minimum flow argument may be flawed. Exhibit 5 says that the MWN130-80-NC flow meter has a minimum flow rate of 1.6 m3/hr and that leads them to a minimum flow rate of 37,548 kg/day.

        But I found a spec sheet that clearly shows the minimum flow rate of this model as 1.4 m3/hr http://www.bellflowsystems.co.uk/files/PDF/MWN-130-NC.pdf

        That would be under 33,000 kg/day and well under the 36,000 kg/day that is apparently in the ERV report and has been offered by Rossi directly.

        So they misread the label or are lying about it? Or the label is overly conservative and the true specs can handle the lower flow rate? I dunno, but seems like one of the key legs of the BAD FLOW METER, OH NOOOOOOOO!!!!! argument may have just been eaten by termites.

        • And this spec sheet straight from Apator shows an even lower minimal flow rate for the MWN130-80-NC: 0.625 m3/hr at lower temperature (30 deg C) on up to 1.575 m3/hr at its highest operating temperature of 130 deg C.
          http://www.apator.com/uploads/files/Produkty/Wodomierze/MWN_MWN_130_MWN-G/en-00045-2011-mwn.pdf

          It seems operating at ~100 deg C with this flow meter would accurately read a flow rate of 36,000 kg/day.

          • Ged

            Also, what about that claim that the steam pipe is a DN40 pipe? That would make it a 1.57 inch pipe. Clearly not what we can visually see.

            The Exhibit also makes other claims about data, but no actual data from the plant is published with which to evaluate the claims. Good thing is, since Penon and Fabiani have been summoned, they will need to defend themselves and offer up the goods.

          • I don’t know what to make of the pipe info. Until the ERV report comes out and we can actually see schematics/pictures I think it’s too easy to make bad assumptions.

      • wpj

        Is this not the same as IH not being Cherokee?

        What he says is correct, though Johnson Matthey may be behind JM Products.

  • The minimum flow argument may be flawed. Exhibit 5 says that the MWN130-80-NC flow meter has a minimum flow rate of 1.6 m3/hr and that leads them to a minimum flow rate of 37,548 kg/day.

    But I found a spec sheet that clearly shows the minimum flow rate of this model as 1.4 m3/hr http://www.bellflowsystems.co.uk/files/PDF/MWN-130-NC.pdf

    That would be under 33,000 kg/day and well under the 36,000 kg/day that is apparently in the ERV report and has been offered by Rossi directly.

    So they misread the label or are lying about it? Or the label is overly conservative and the true specs can handle the lower flow rate? I dunno, but seems like one of the key legs of the BAD FLOW METER, OH NOOOOOOOO!!!!! argument may have just been eaten by termites.

    • And this spec sheet straight from Apator shows an even lower minimal flow rate for the MWN130-80-NC: 0.625 m3/hr at lower temperature (30 deg C) on up to 1.575 m3/hr at its highest operating temperature of 130 deg C.
      http://www.apator.com/uploads/files/Produkty/Wodomierze/MWN_MWN_130_MWN-G/en-00045-2011-mwn.pdf

      It seems operating at ~100 deg C with this flow meter would accurately read a flow rate of 36,000 kg/day.

      • Ged

        Also, what about that claim that the steam pipe is a DN40 pipe? That would make it a 1.57 inch pipe. Clearly not what we can visually see.

        The Exhibit also makes other claims about data, but no actual data from the plant is published with which to evaluate the claims. Good thing is, since Penon and Fabiani have been summoned, they will need to defend themselves and offer up the goods.

        Edit: Also, great find on the flow meter’s spec page (the one I had found earlier was in a different language so I couldn’t probably read it). What’s really cool, is that on page 5 of that second one, they show the error of the meter compared to flow rate, and at a flow rate below the minimum the error for their instrument is in reporting -less- flow than is actually occurring.

        It -seems- like the weirdly written, unsigned Exhibit 5 is factually broken. But if so, it will be easy to counter in the next legal reply.

        • JedRothwell

          “Also, what about that claim that the steam pipe is a DN40 pipe? That would make it a 1.57 inch pipe. Clearly not what we can visually see.”

          Visually see, where? There are no photos of the 1 MW reactor. The only photos in Exhibits are of other reactors made by I.H. Read the Answer text. Look up the Exhibit numbers.

          • Pedro

            Jed, over and over again I see how you manipulate the dialog by jumping on any thing that you feel can “gain points” for IH. At the same time you are avoiding very simple questions.
            You yourself have been full of critique about the flow meters for the last 3 months, and now that LENR G comes up with some technical details about the minimum flow rate being compatible with the reported flow rate, you completely ignore that. Instead you respond to the pipe issue.I strongly question your intellectual honesty; it is clear to me that you have an agenda and use your discussion skills and your LENR prestige to further that agenda. You have fallen to the level of MaryYugo… anything goes as long as it is damaging to the “enemy”. Fairness is for sports, not for war, seems to be your motto. In my eyes you have fallen very deep, no matter who turns out to be right in the end.

          • JedRothwell

            “You yourself have been full of critique about the flow meters for the last 3 months, and now that LENR G comes up with some technical details about the minimum flow rate being compatible with the reported flow rate, you completely ignore that.”

            He did not “come up” with anything. He is flat out wrong. The face plate of the meter shows the minimum flow rate per hour is 1.6 m^3 per hour, or 38.4 m^3 per day. See Exhibit 5.

            I am quite sure that is what the face plate shows.

            “I strongly question your intellectual honesty; it is clear to me that you have an agenda and use your discussion skills and your LENR prestige to further that agenda.”

            My only agenda with regard to Rossi and Defkalion is to rid this field of fraudulent researchers who have bilked investors of million of dollars — MILLIONS — that might have been spent on legitimate research. The evidence against both is overwhelming. All of the assertions in Exhibit 5 are true, according to sources I know outside of I.H. (mainly Rossi himself, in inadvertent leaks). His claim about 1 MW being released in the customer site is absurd. No sign of that heat was detected. No one saw or heard any activity in that site. Several people outside of I.H. went and looked.

            Rossi is a liar and thief. If you doubt that, either you have not looked at the evidence or you are engaged in wishful thinking. It is time for you to face reality.

            If you have any doubt that Defkalion was a pack of thieves, read this:

            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

            These people are destroying what little hope is left for cold fusion. I.H., on the other hand, is supporting many good researchers. Not one of them has complained to me about I.H. Not one! I.H.’s reputation is gold. Only Rossi has complained about them.

          • Jed, the face plate can show 1.6 (as a reasonable approximation of the 1.575 in the spec sheet for steam at 130 deg C). But the spec sheets also clearly show that the flow meter’s minimum flow rate for warm water is much lower.

            I’ve pegged you a straight-shooter so far. I’d hate to have to modify that opinion.

            But you went on for weeks about how the flow meter was inadequate and now that I finally know the model and did a little research I come up with the opposite conclusion. Your argument seems to be based on a face plate number where the real situation is more nuanced.

            So this is your chance to persuade me.

            What am I missing?

            BTW people, you can use blockquote tags to make your posts clearer as to your own words and quoting others.

          • wpj

            There’s one posted here if you bother to look…………………. It has been discussed there ad nausiam.

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/02/more-from-rossi-on-restricted-access-to-the-customers-plant/

        • I don’t know what to make of the pipe info. Until the ERV report comes out and we can actually see schematics/pictures I think it’s too easy to make bad assumptions.

  • Frank Acland

    I asked Rossi about this part:

    80. “Leonardo, Rossi, JMP, Johnson and Fabiani even went so far as to create a
    fictional JMP employee – James A. Bass, Director of Engineering for JMP. Despite diligent
    search, Counter-Plaintiffs have not been able to identify or locate this individual, for the simple
    reason that he does not exist. ”

    Rossi replied: “Obviously it is false, as all the things IH said. In Court this issue will be duly developed. “

  • Stephen

    Wow. I’m lost for words. But maybe that’s just as well as I fear they would be ugly.

    But I will ask… What ever happened to IH? One year ago I had so much hope for them. How did they ever reduce themselves to this?

    I won’t say more the rest is for the court. I hope there is genuine justice.

  • Stephen

    Wow. I’m lost for words. But maybe that’s just as well as I fear they would be ugly.

    But I will ask… What ever happened to IH? One year ago I had so much hope for them. How did they ever reduce themselves to this?

    I won’t say more the rest is for the court. I hope there is genuine justice.

  • BillH

    At the very least these revelations show incompetence all round. Why didn’t IH monitor the test properly? Why did they allow AR to bully them into doing what he wanted? Why was the ERV allowed to make stupid mistakes? It would have been quite east to set up automatic data logging where the information was sent back to IH’s head office on a daily basis, any fraud would then have shown up within days, if not hours. If what IH claim is true then it’s also true that they gave their money away far too easily to a fraudster and wasted everyone’s time for over a year. Perhaps they were fooled by JM sending them $30K every month but really that’s no excuse.
    In the meantime IH have destroyed their reputation in terms of prudence, and misleading their own investors. I still find IH’s version of events a bit smelly but only a trial will decide.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      The parties agreed to the measuring and the ERV. And with a high trust at the start, then all
      these “extra” steps would not be deemed necessary.

      Clearly over time IH started to suspect something.

      If reading correctly, IH wanted another party to do some testing and measurements and
      Rossi objecting is a huge red flag here.

      Given that the ERV was already independent, then for what reason would Rossi or anyone care if
      someone wanted to make additional measurements? There should and would be near
      zero reasons for such objections. I cannot fathom why any such objections would
      occur from Rossi.

      Clearly IH does not feel the ERV was independent. At this point not a big deal, but allowing additional people to measure the heat production should not result in any objections from
      Rossi – even if relationships were strained.

      With such a high COP, additional measurements would be in the relative same ball park and would only serve to support Rossi.

      So why objections to other parties measuring heat does not bode well for Rossi at all. Such
      measurements would NOT put IP rights at risk. Refusal to allow different measuring does not pass the smell test here.
      IH objections and issues make sense if they are on the level here.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • clovis ray

        Come on you’re not that dumb, i will answer you, because i like you, you know darn well you can’t have people falling all over you when you are doing real work, people you have no idea who they are or who they might be working for or to do savitage to either device Dr.R , or JMC.
        That to me is very reasonable request, I/H was up to no good already, and you also know that the ERV was well known by I/H They had hired him before, and had no objections to his earlier work, he is a very good and well known and trusted power plant technician , if more folks were accepted they would have to put their own equipment in line ,and how would that screw up the test, no you know better than that now don’t you, i began to wonder about your judgement.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Well, we not talking about hordes of people messing around the plant. And with the ERV and Rossi present, then I fail to see how one additional person doing some measurements when Rossi and the ERV is present is much of an issue?

          And how would such additional measuring screw up the test? I mean with the existing measuring equipment in place, any such “change” in outputs or change in plant’s operation would show up immediate and thus be noted as such.

          So the too many cooks spoiling the dinner so to speak makes sense, but an additional measuring and inspecting of the existing methods should not be much of an issue and subject to little objections.

          After all, Rossi even stated he placed some instruments beside the ERV and obtained the same results. So clearly Rossi was able to do some additional heat measuring of the plant without effecting operation – I fail to see why having someone else do the same thing would thus be an issue in regards to effecting plant performance.

          We not talking about handing the plant operation to some third party here or some kind of interruption of the plant’s operation.

          However, I can accept that some “spin” exists on this issue, since the issue may well have been more in regards to who and when outside access is allowed – this was clearly always well controlled and I gladly accept that objections to additional measuring was not in regards to additional measuring, but that of issues of access to the plant. The simple issue is with such a high COP, then additional measuring would only server to shore up the results.
          IH may well have good reasons for doubts, or they may well be poor reasons – we simply have to wait and see.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Guru Khalsa

        Maybe Rossi did deny access to Murray maybe he didn’t. There doesn’t seem to be any documentation to support the IH claim that he did. IH says “{in July 2015, Rossi denied Murray access to the Plant without any reasonable justification. See Ex. 19.”

        But Ex 19 clearly states ” About the meeting of Tuesday, you obviously can come when you want, while Joe Murray cannot enter in the factory of JM because …”

        The factory of JM is the factory of the secret customer not the Ecat plant. Maybe there are other communications we are not privy to that told Rossi Murray wanted to visit the customer’s plant and that is what Rossi is referring to.

        IMO it is to early to have an opinion as to who is lying at this point and the only certainty we have is that somebody is.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Agree.

          Sure the context of objections to someone else visiting the plant is certainly an issue. The objections may be a simple issue of when/who can visit the plant and what kinds of access to the plant location are to be granted – not that of simply measuring outputs.

          As noted the objections to ERV’s measurements will pan out in due time.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • BillH

    At the very least these revelations show incompetence all round. Why didn’t IH monitor the test properly? Why did they allow AR to bully them into doing what he wanted? Why was the ERV allowed to make stupid mistakes? It would have been quite east to set up automatic data logging where the information was sent back to IH’s head office on a daily basis, any fraud would then have shown up within days, if not hours. If what IH claim is true then it’s also true that they gave their money away far too easily to a fraudster and wasted everyone’s time for over a year. Perhaps they were fooled by JM sending them $30K every month but really that’s no excuse.
    In the meantime IH have destroyed their reputation in terms of prudence, and misleading their own investors. I still find IH’s version of events a bit smelly but only a trial will decide.

    • JedRothwell

      “Why didn’t IH monitor the test properly?”

      They did monitor it! That is why they knew it was wrong. That is why they were complaining about it the whole time.

      “Why did they allow AR to bully them into doing what he wanted?

      That I do not know. I suspect he threatened to walk away if they did not accede to his demands.

      “Why was the ERV allowed to make stupid mistakes?”

      In my opinion, they were not stupid mistakes. They were ham-handed attempts at fraud. Showing 1 MW of power production on days when the log book and visitors saw the reactor was turned off and disassembled is not a mistake.

      I.H. did not “allow” this. They could not prevent it. However, they did not pay the $89 million for it.

      “It would have been quite east to set up automatic data logging where the information was sent back to IH’s head office on a daily basis, any fraud would then have shown up within days, if not hours.”

      I do not think the equipment was electronic. The flow meter was not, as far as I can tell from the specs. It could only be read manually. But suppose the data could be made available in electronic format. The data logging would have shown most of the same bogus numbers that Penon entered into the log book. (Except on days when the reactor was turned off, it would show zero, whereas he kept entering nonsense numbers.) The flow rate, temperatures and so on were wrong, because the instruments were incorrectly installed, or the wrong type. You would see garbage whether it was sent back daily or by the minute. People who visited saw garbage. It was obvious to them the numbers were bogus. They complained, but Rossi did nothing to fix the problems.

      • BillH

        My point was that it is far more difficult to fake automated data logging, and any drop-outs in the plants performance would be immediately noticeable in the data and comparable with the data from JM if that was available. If they allowed AR to only use human readable meters, again, IH were mugs.

        • JedRothwell

          In their Motion to Dismiss I.H. says that Rossi did not do what he agreed to. So it was not a case of I.H. “allowing” him to do this or that. Rossi did what he pleased, despite agreements.

          Other people who have worked with him tell me that is how he rolls. He makes agreement after agreement and then casually ignores them or violates them.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      The parties agreed to the measuring and the ERV. And with a high trust at the start, then all
      these “extra” steps would not be deemed necessary.

      Clearly over time IH started to suspect something.

      If reading correctly, IH wanted another party to do some testing and measurements and
      Rossi objecting is a huge red flag here.

      Given that the ERV was already independent, then for what reason would Rossi or anyone care if
      someone wanted to make additional measurements? There should and would be near
      zero reasons for such objections. I cannot fathom why any such objections would
      occur from Rossi.

      Clearly IH does not feel the ERV was independent. At this point not a big deal, but allowing additional people to measure the heat production should not result in any objections from
      Rossi – even if relationships were strained.

      With such a high COP, additional measurements would be in the relative same ball park and would only serve to support Rossi.

      So why objections to other parties measuring heat does not bode well for Rossi at all. Such
      measurements would NOT put IP rights at risk. Refusal to allow different measuring does not pass the smell test here.
      IH objections and issues make sense if they are on the level here.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • clovis ray

        Come on you’re not that dumb, i will answer you, because i like you, you know darn well you can’t have people falling all over you when you are doing real work, people you have no idea who they are or who they might be working for or to do savitage to either device Dr.R , or JMC.
        That to me is very reasonable request, I/H was up to no good already, and you also know that the ERV was well known by I/H They had hired him before, and had no objections to his earlier work, he is a very good and well known and trusted power plant technician , if more folks were accepted they would have to put their own equipment in line ,and how would that screw up the test, no you know better than that now don’t you, i began to wonder about your judgement.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Well, we not talking about hordes of people messing around the plant. And with the ERV and Rossi present, then I fail to see how one additional person doing some measurements when Rossi and the ERV is present is much of an issue?

          And how would such additional measuring screw up the test? I mean with the existing measuring equipment in place, any such “change” in outputs or change in plant’s operation would show up immediate and thus be noted as such.

          So the too many cooks spoiling the dinner so to speak makes sense, but an additional measuring and inspecting of the existing methods should not be much of an issue and subject to little objections.

          After all, Rossi even stated he placed some instruments beside the ERV and obtained the same results. So clearly Rossi was able to do some additional heat measuring of the plant without effecting operation – I fail to see why having someone else do the same thing would thus be an issue in regards to effecting plant performance.

          We not talking about handing the plant operation to some third party here or some kind of interruption of the plant’s operation.

          However, I can accept that some “spin” exists on this issue, since the issue may well have been more in regards to who and when outside access is allowed – this was clearly always well controlled and I gladly accept that objections to additional measuring was not in regards to additional measuring, but that of issues of access to the plant. The simple issue is with such a high COP, then additional measuring would only server to shore up the results.
          IH may well have good reasons for doubts, or they may well be poor reasons – we simply have to wait and see.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • clovis ray

            HI, Buddy,
            I was under the impression,that i/h had people with clearance to do whatever they were there to do, their I/h employees, could have taken their own measurements, in fact i took that to be the case in the beginning of the test, not sure if it is still true.

      • Guru Khalsa

        Maybe Rossi did deny access to Murray maybe he didn’t. There doesn’t seem to be any documentation to support the IH claim that he did. IH says “{in July 2015, Rossi denied Murray access to the Plant without any reasonable justification. See Ex. 19.”

        But Ex 19 clearly states ” About the meeting of Tuesday, you obviously can come when you want, while Joe Murray cannot enter in the factory of JM because …”

        The factory of JM is the factory of the secret customer not the Ecat plant. Maybe there are other communications we are not privy to that told Rossi Murray wanted to visit the customer’s plant and that is what Rossi is referring to.

        IMO it is to early to have an opinion as to who is lying at this point and the only certainty we have is that somebody is.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Agree.

          Sure the context of objections to someone else visiting the plant is certainly an issue. The objections may be a simple issue of when/who can visit the plant and what kinds of access to the plant location are to be granted – not that of simply measuring outputs.

          As noted the objections to ERV’s measurements will pan out in due time.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • help_lenr

        Additional ERV might have converted the 1 Annual experiment to “10 years experiments”.

        The acccepted one ERV procedure is essential to prevent endless claims from both sides.

        Rossi wouldn have not accept further delays. IH would may be accepted because they wanted to delay the procedure untill Rossi is exausted.

        Now – unless ERV is proved “fraud” or “totally not competent” his verdict should be respected even if there are some minor doubts about : this is the authority given to him by both sides. The authority of ERV is similar to the authority of a Judge (who makes minor mistakes but his verdict is still respected).

  • …F7…

  • Don’t tell me what I mean, Jed.

    Why are you so hung up on a typo?

  • F7!

  • Chapman

    Frank was right. The entire issue depends on the customer. NOT his testimony as to energy delivered, but Rossi’s ability to present him in court.

    If IH is correct in its claims that “Customer” was a fabricated entity, and that it’s representative was an actor who was NOT named as indicated on the business card, then Rossi is toast. All other issues, arguments, and excuses are moot. If Customer is fake, Rossi is a fake.

    Take note that even today, Rossi is on JONP blog insisting that Johnson Mathey is not the customer. That means the letterhead naming “Johnson Mathew… platinum Sponges” was a deliberately misleading ruse, cloning the name and function except for one letter in the name, soley to give an out as saying “We never said Johnson Mathey – with a Y”, but you see, that in itself demonstrates a level of premeditated misdirection that it actually AMPLIFIES the treachery rather than diminish or excuse it.

    And yet, If there is a real customer that is NOT Mathey, what is the likelihood that the employee shares a name now found connected with Mathey, and how did this company wind up in the exact same business, with exact same product, with almost identical name???

    Friday, I would have given Rossi the benefit of the doubt, but having seen the reported email from Rossi I can no longer afford him that support. Without reason to WANT to believe Rossi on the customer issue, the facts force us to admit that someone farted in the elevator, and it stinks.

    Would someone trusted, like Engineer or Frank, please address this simple issue to Rossi directly at JONP? “Rossi, Is that email that IH has posted showing you ‘Boasting as to how you sabotaged the Hydrofusion test and Royally Screwed over your former Trusting Partner’ a true and accurate article? Did you really send That email, or any reasonably similar variation?”

    Because, my friends – THAT is the entire case, right there. Screw the flow meters. You are once again chasing shadows.

    If the customer is real, and is MATHEY – though Rossi is keeping his promise to not state such – then there was a real test, approved of by IH, following the agreement as set forth in the written contract, the published amendments, and in line with verbal agreements demonstrated by the actions of the parties involved. It means the ERV Report is valid, and incontestable as the only factor upon which the awarding of the final 89 million was dependant. Rossi never breached the contract with unauthorized disclosures because no cease-and-desist order was ever issued informing Rossi that IH considered his actions to be violations, therefore they allowed him to continue for one entire year to sit in the plant and “disclose” to the public the general test status, and by so doing granted him permission. They acknowledged that the plant’s operation was THE GPT when they paid the first check to Penon, who would otherwise have had no involvement with a simple Public Relations promotional demonstration, as they absurdly claim. If the Customer is REAL, and an HONEST entity – in the exact image of which Rossi represented them – than IH bites it. Rossi wins, because all other arguments against Rossi collapse. This is how IH has chosen to build their case…

    But if IH is right on JUST THIS SINGLE ISSUE – Rossi is a proven fraud – A con man – a thief, embezzler and charlatan. He is exposed utterly and completely raw and naked before the court as a criminal, and liar. Nothing Rossi says, in ANY context, beyond that is worth a damn. IH could step up and accuse Rossi of also raping their Dalmatian mascot, and Rossi will get charged with an additional count of beasiality. THAT is how bad his position in the court will be.

    So, congratulations Frank. You win the pool. You nailed it.

    • SG

      I tend to agree with your assessment. It was all inevitably going to come down to this one issue. Those who say it is irrelevant to the broader dispute are kidding themselves. My concern is that the MSM will latch on to this apparent ruse and run with just that, potentially bringing to pass the much-feared (by LENR+ skeptic / LENR supporter crowd) setback.

      For the love of all things good, me356 should release a set of directions for replicating a high-COP experiment to the MFMP, and soon. Without near-term replications, I fear the whole LENR field is going to be slaughtered in the public’s eye by nefarious forces wanting to set the whole field back by another couple of decades.

      • Chapman

        Ah! A kindred spirit!

        I agree with your words, your sentiment, and your fears 100%. I see we both look at The Big Picture from the same angle. The legal issue is an interesting distraction at best, except for my compulsive need to support an underdog – but the ramifications to the LENR field are of great concern.

      • help_lenr

        Relying on ME365 is childish.

        ME365 has no credibility and so are these who will try to “replicate” his claims (they will probably fail and even if they will not fail their experiments will be ignored many years (therefore will have no impact on the current state of LENR).

        The only credible institute About Rossi’s experiment value now is the Court.

        I am not too worried about the issue of “false or fake identities”. Maybe the evidence given by IH and their partners are _weak evidence_ than what it looks at first sight.

        Lawyers are expert at the art of telling lies which sound convincing to laymens. Lets see what is the response Of Andrea Rossi to all these accusations, than let see what the Court says.

        I wonder in what court the counter claims will be judged (In Jury trial ? In other sort of trial).

        • gameover

          Didn’t me365 partner with the MFMP, wouldn’t this make him credible?

    • Vinney

      I don’t know how you get to this conclusion over a simple ‘contractual’ dispute. IH approved the ‘mutually’ agreed tester. The ‘tester’ produced a binding ERV report.
      They have to pay the $89 million or forfeit the license. Then they can sue for ‘fraud’ and recoup some monies.
      This has always been how courts work.
      Lets face it, IH are bumbling incompetents, thats why they now need Jones Day, while Rossi has a suburban lawyer.

      • Chapman

        You do not contest the individual tenets of an invalidated contract. A contract that was entered into under false pretenses and by fraudulent misrepresentations is nullified – not canceled, as of a particular date – but NULLIFIED! It never existed in the eyes of the law.

        Proof of fraud TRUMPS any claim under the Contract Agreement, because the contract ceases to exist.

      • Chapman

        You need to keep in mind that IH agreed to the ERV, the location, the dates, and the customer. All these things were the terms the two parties agreed to for the test. Many contract conditions had to be waved, such as the dates, and the specific model of reactor to be tested, and all those changes were agreed to by both parties. That is all well and good and as it should be. BUT, if the stipulated customer turns out not to be what was represented, then the fact is that the test was not carried out in the manner agreed to, right? Is that not logical? Regardless of the ERV findings, if the conditions under which the test the ERV was recording were contrary to those agreed to, the ERV report is a non issue. That is the point being made.

        Hopefully it is a red herring. Hopefully Rossi presents a certified affidavit from Johnson Mathey stating that they had engaged with IH for a test production run, and had sent James Bass as their representative. I trust they will applaud Rossi for his hard work in ensuring their production was never interrupted, and that they will swear to the fact that Rossi is a kind, helpful and wickedly clever little genius.

        And based pretty much ONLY on that, Rossi gets 89 million! Because IH “aint got SHIT” other than accusing Rossi of the customer fraud thing! This is what I was saying BEFORE the answer came out – in the absence of outright fraud, the ERV report is uncontestable.

        I have not changed my position one bit.

    • Guru Khalsa

      People misrepresent things all the time. Politicians can promise you anything but don’t have to deliver. In America the police can lie to you and that’s OK. Like that guy on TV that says his product is 50% better- better than what? What Rossi may have said in an email doesn’t seem to bother Hydrofusion. Whether he screwed the pooch is another matter.

      I agree if there is no customer Rossi is toast. If Rossi conspired with the customer Rossi is toast. If Rossi conspired with the ERV Rossi is toast. But if Rossi isn’t toast IH may still win on a technicality that the test was not done within the agreed upon time limit. Are these allegations against Rossi if unproven going to be used against him later on as others have suggested? Is this trial also being used for PR management? Stay tuned for the ongoing story Rossi vs the world or the World vs Rossi.

      • Chapman

        Nicely said. Please allow me to clarify one point.

        The email is damning to Rossi ONLY in the eyes of “Chapman”. I am a jury of one. My decisions are final. The issue with the email is of being deserving of the benefit of the doubt in my analysis, and in my heart. There is also the issue of personal Respect, but that has no bearing on logical deductions.

        The issue of the Customers VALIDITY is one of credibility in the eyes of The LAW. A fake Customer hopelessly Impeaches Rossi, and casts doubt upon the validity of ANYTHING he says based solely on the fact that it came from his lips.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDc_5zpBj7s

    • Ecat

      Chapman, you changed your position 180 degrees. Before you said customer irrelevant, now you said it is relevant. Before you said, steam out from plant is important factor not customer, based on Agreement. You said, court will look what was in Agreement not to customer.

      • Chapman

        The agreement only stands if it was engaged in by two honorable and honest entities! If the contract was signed while one party was the victim of FRAUD then the contract is NULL AND VOID in the eyes of the Law.

        If the customer is real – exactly as Rossi represented – then the contract stands and IH has no legal grounds to dispute the test, or the ERV. But if Rossi engaged in ANY fraud then he has blown the entire legal relationship.

        I have presented no lies, and have not changed my position. I have consistently stated that a counterclaim of Fraud would have to be a MASSIVE assertion, involving all parties, that would negate all contract issues and redefine the relationship as a con job.

        I also stated that the customer is irelevent to the test and the contract because the ERV measured all relative data and based his assessment accordingly, and the ERV’s certification is the only binding issue – under that same contract. But if the contract is null and void, so is the ERV’s binding report! The two are inseparable.

        In effect, the ERV hangs on one branch of the Contract tree, while the Authorizations and payment agreements hang on another. And the NDA’s dangle from yet a third. IH is attempting to CHOP DOWN THE TREE! All the rest goes away if the contract is the product of fraud. IH is not bound by any of the terms of such an agreement, and Rossi has no claim to rights based upon it.

      • Chapman

        Please allow me to clarify. I real customer would have no relevance as a witness to the energy and the COP and such. BUT, if there is NO customer then that fact is more relevant than all the ERV data combined, because as a legal issue an act of fraud negates all legal contracts, obligations and agreements.

        Do you see the difference? What a real customer has to say about the plant does not matter to the ERV primacy, but the silence that comes from a non-existent customer will trumpet with a mighty roar and bring the walls of jericho down on Rossi’s head.

    • help_lenr

      You invent faulse “facts” which never occured in order to create impression that Andrea Rossi is fraud:

      The fact about the tester are these: Rossi never claimed that the tester was sent by “Johnson Mathew Chemical Products”, the name on the door of the place where the test was done is “JM Products” nothing else. This is also the name on various formal documents related to the Annual test of 1MW.

      When I notice this lie of yours I stopped reading whatever you write later. I will not read any claims written by somebody who make obvious lies; waste of time

      I don’t know yet who is the tester and what is the industrial firm in UK which was involved in the test.

      If the tester and other people used fictious name, it is bad and will damage Andrea Rossi commercial efforts. But I have no evidence that this is the case.

      It is clear to me that identity of the tester and JM PRODUCTS will be examined in the trial, I am convinced that Andrea Rossi was aware about this examination when he sued IH and their partners, he is not a fool – therefore I believe that he will submit convincing information about the identities of these person and firm to the court (maybe he will try to hide this information from the wide public, if the customer demands).

      At this moment I wait to the response of Andrea Rossi to the court, I would not take as truth what IH and their partners claim.

      • Chapman

        Friend,

        I hope you will read this. I am very sorry to have offended you. It was not my intent to accuse Rossi of Fraud. I have expressed my opinion on the bulk of the legal issues, and I believe they are all in Rossi’s favor.

        My post came at the same time as a flood of BS FUD was hitting the pages, and I well understand how my reasoning out the importance of the fraud CLAIM – and the letterhead submitted as an exhibit to support that claim – may have looked to you as if I was stating it was a fact that he did these things, but I was only pointing out that while all of us were content and satisfied that he had a bulletproof case, the reality is that IF – and I say again IF – he faked the customer then all bets are off and he has no legal leg to stand on.

        I am with you, praying to GOD he did not get caught up in the moment and frustrated by the delays and actually did such a dumb-ass thing! I hope he was virtuous and faithful in all his dealings and he NAILS IH to a tree!!! I was only expressing the legal scope of the issue, and the ramifications if the worst was true.

        I am very saddened to have caused you such grief. Please accept my apology. I accept full responsibility, because it is the speaker’s job to speak in a way that conveys his thoughts and intentions. I am sorry I expressed things in such a poor manner that my point was lost, and caused harm.

        I do not know how to further express my regrets. I will freely admit that I am an asshole, and I heartily enjoy bashing trolls and obstinate morons, but I am equally spirited in supporting and encouraging our resident scholars and honest science fans. I am only an asshole by deliberate intent. I never let the beast out to play without a target dead ahead. What you read was me being honest, and analytical – not bashing.

        So, one last time – I apologize. I hope you can forgive me.

    • GiveADogABone

      ‘And yet, If there is a real customer that is NOT Mathey, what is the likelihood that the employee shares a name now found connected with Mathey, and how did this company wind up in the exact same business, with exact same product, with almost identical name’

      To find another UK company in the business and with the same product is difficult, if not impossible. I have sat here doing websearches all ways and found nothing. Most of the precious metal companies are in the recovery business for catalytic converters. The company has to be big enough to figure on the international stage. Proving a negative is difficult but ….

      • wpj

        My contact’s contact really didn’t know anyone at Royston, so more information on JB is not forthcoming, I’m afraid

        • GiveADogABone

          Thanks for trying. He was still playing football in March this year.

          • wpj

            Hmmm, though was he playing for the year before that? March is just about acceptable.

    • Barbierir

      I didn’t expect to take this turn but I agree that now the customer is a relevant piece of the puzzle. If he’s fake that makes the other accusations a lot more credible or vice-versa, in the eyes of the court.

  • SG

    I tend to agree with your assessment. It was all inevitably going to come down to this one issue. Those who say it is irrelevant to the broader dispute are kidding themselves. My concern is that the MSM will latch on to this apparent ruse and run with just that, potentially bringing to pass the much-feared (by LENR+ skeptic / LENR supporter crowd) setback.

    For the love of all things good, me356 should release a set of directions for replicating a high-COP experiment to the MFMP, and soon. Without near-term replications, I fear the whole LENR field is going to be slaughtered in the public’s eye by nefarious forces wanting to set the whole field back by another couple of decades.

  • Guru Khalsa

    People misrepresent things all the time. Politicians can promise you anything but don’t have to deliver. In America the police can lie to you and that’s OK. Like that guy on TV that says his product is 50% better- better than what? What Rossi may have said in an email doesn’t seem to bother Hydrofusion. Whether he screwed the pooch is another matter.

    I agree if there is no customer Rossi is toast. If Rossi conspired with the customer Rossi is toast. If Rossi conspired with the ERV Rossi is toast. But if Rossi isn’t toast IH may still win on a technicality that the test was not done within the agreed upon time limit. Are these allegations against Rossi if unproven going to be used against him later on as others have suggested? Is this trial also being used for PR management? Stay tuned for the ongoing story Rossi vs the world or the World vs Rossi.

  • Engineer48

    Rossi’s comment about the IH claims is very clear:

    JP Renoir
    August 7, 2016 at 6:24 PM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I have just finished to read the 66 pages of the countercomplaints of IH, but they are just making assumption on the base of which make slanders. They did not bring on a single proof of what they say, just shoot accusations. Anyway: is there at least one accusation you consider dangerous or sustainable ?
    Cheers,
    JPR

    Andrea Rossi
    August 7, 2016 at 6:41 PM
    JP Renoir:
    Honestly, there is not a single and I repeat a single point in all the 66 pages that we will not be able to cancel with due evidence in Court. I repeat: these 66 pages are a gold mine, because in all their points they give evidence of the vicious falsity of our foe; sometimes such falsity assumes comic aspects, as we’ll see in due time, in due place. They are not ashamed to slander persons with the goal to avoid to have to pay.
    By the way, to understand the way to do things of these guys, go to read on this blog the links in the comment of
    Jill posted on 2016/08/06 at 5:31 PM
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Patrick Ellul
    August 7, 2016 at 5:20 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    In a world of science and law, without proof or witness, no one will believe that the customer plant was making real use of the heat.
    If this becomes an issue in court, will you be able to exhibit proof or witness of what the customer was using the heat for?
    Best regards

    Andrea Rossi
    August 7, 2016 at 5:31 PM
    Patrick Ellul:
    Obviously.
    Talking of proof and witness: in all the 66 pages of the countercomplaints there is not a single countercomplaint of which we will not be able to give evidence of its total falsity.
    The slanders that compound the substance of all the 66 pages will be duly processed by our Attorney.
    Obviously, I cannot enter in particulars and answer to issues to be discussed in Court.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • GiveADogABone

      ‘And yet, If there is a real customer that is NOT Mathey, what is the likelihood that the employee shares a name now found connected with Mathey, and how did this company wind up in the exact same business, with exact same product, with almost identical name’

      To find another UK company in the business and with the same product is difficult, if not impossible. I have sat here doing websearches all ways and found nothing. Most of the precious metal companies are in the recovery business for catalytic converters. The company has to be big enough to figure on the international stage. Proving a negative is difficult but ….

      • wpj

        My contact’s contact really didn’t know anyone at Royston, so more information on JB is not forthcoming, I’m afraid

        • GiveADogABone

          Thanks for trying. He was still playing football in March this year.

          • wpj

            Hmmm, though was he playing for the year before that? March is just about acceptable.

  • Engineer48

    Rossi’s comments about the IH claims are very clear:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=149#comment-1213469

    JP Renoir
    August 7, 2016 at 6:24 PM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I have just finished to read the 66 pages of the countercomplaints of IH, but they are just making assumption on the base of which make slanders. They did not bring on a single proof of what they say, just shoot accusations. Anyway: is there at least one accusation you consider dangerous or sustainable ?
    Cheers,
    JPR

    Andrea Rossi
    August 7, 2016 at 6:41 PM
    JP Renoir:
    Honestly, there is not a single and I repeat a single point in all the 66 pages that we will not be able to cancel with due evidence in Court. I repeat: these 66 pages are a gold mine, because in all their points they give evidence of the vicious falsity of our foe; sometimes such falsity assumes comic aspects, as we’ll see in due time, in due place. They are not ashamed to slander persons with the goal to avoid to have to pay.
    By the way, to understand the way to do things of these guys, go to read on this blog the links in the comment of
    Jill posted on 2016/08/06 at 5:31 PM
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Patrick Ellul
    August 7, 2016 at 5:20 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    In a world of science and law, without proof or witness, no one will believe that the customer plant was making real use of the heat.
    If this becomes an issue in court, will you be able to exhibit proof or witness of what the customer was using the heat for?
    Best regards

    Andrea Rossi
    August 7, 2016 at 5:31 PM
    Patrick Ellul:
    Obviously.
    Talking of proof and witness: in all the 66 pages of the countercomplaints there is not a single countercomplaint of which we will not be able to give evidence of its total falsity.
    The slanders that compound the substance of all the 66 pages will be duly processed by our Attorney.
    Obviously, I cannot enter in particulars and answer to issues to be discussed in Court.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Ecat

    Chapman, you changed your position 180 degrees. Before you said customer irrelevant, now you said it is relevant. Before you said, steam out from plant is important factor not customer, based on Agreement. You said, court will look what was in Agreement not to customer.

  • Axil Axil

    http://www.technology.matthey.com/pdf/52-pmr-jan07.pdf

    From Johnson Matthey Technology Review…that is Matthey with a “Y”

    • wpj

      Don’t think that they would be making platinum oxide there as it needs a lot of containment. People have develop sensitivity very rapidly.

  • Axil Axil

    http://www.technology.matthey.com/pdf/52-pmr-jan07.pdf

    From Johnson Matthey Technology Review…that is Matthey with a “Y”

    The heat of boiling water (from E-Cat?) comes into play as follows:

    “Pouring the molten mass into
    water, followed by boiling and washing, gave a
    muddy brown precipitate (said to be platinum
    dioxide) that could be concentrated by centrifugation.
    Reduction of the suspension in water with
    gaseous hydrogen then gave a black suspension
    going down to colloidal in particle size, i.e. 1 nm
    to 1 μm.”

    Johnson Matthey web page

    http://www.matthey.com/about_us

    General enquiries

    Tel: +44 (0)20 7269 8400
    Email group.info@matthey.com

    The company using the E-Cat could be Pharmorphix

    Sigma-Aldrich has sold its Pharmorphix solid-form research business to Johnson Matthey, which says the business will expand its European active pharmaceutical ingredient business and clinical supply services. The deal comes as Merck KGaA is expected to close on its $17 billion purchase of Sigma-Aldrich within the next two months. Merck originally planned to complete the transaction by the end of September, but Sigma must sell solvents and inorganics units before the acquisition closes.

    Johnson Matthey: “The acquisition adds to our advanced catalysis and complex chemistry capabilities”

    • wpj

      Don’t think that they would be making platinum oxide there as it needs a lot of containment. People have develop sensitivity very rapidly.

  • GiveADogABone

    Exhibit 5:
    ‘The flow meter requires that the entire pipe volume be full of liquid to function properly, as described in the Apator PoWoGaz Operating Instructions [section 6.6 in document I-EN-2-003/2013, Operating Instructions, Flange water meters DN40 – 500]. The visible iron stain waterline marks on the static vanes indicate that the pipe was not continuously full of liquid, as required by the manufacturer’s specifications, but rather had a substantial portion free of liquid.
    See Exhibit A
    . How can the measurements of the flow meter be valid when the pipe volume was far less than full?’

    Wrong question. Start first with how the iron stain got there. How full was the pipe when the plant was shut down and drained? The pipe is the lowest point on the system and the last vestiges of water accumulate there after draining. To form an iron stain on the static vanes that showed a water level would require stagnant water and oxygen (from the air). These are both things that happen after draining the system without a full dry-out.

    Edit:
    http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3932/3964/original.jpg
    Look at the bottom of the E-cat and in the right-hand corner. The horizontal pipe has a drain in the end cap that is sealed with a bung, rather than a valve. The bung is placed centrally in the pipe. Take out the bung and where does the water level stay? At the bottom of the bung hole, well above the bottom of the pipe.

    Oxide deposition in deoxygenated hot water is magnetite and in flowing water it coats the whole pipe surface. It travels around the system in suspension and coats everything. I only have to look inside the pipes of my domestic boiler to see that and I have a magnetite filter in the system to remove the suspended particles to improve heat transfer in the boiler and avoid small bore pipe blockages.

    This report evidences nothing about the water level when the system is RUNNING but it does when it is DRAINED. If this is the sole basis for the IH case for wrong feed flow measurements, then in my view the IH case fails.

    • Ged

      They didn’t provide any photo evidence about it either yet, so we just have a vague description in the unsigned exhibit to go on. Actual photos would do wonders so I wonder why they aren’t here. Hopefully eventually.

    • Chapman

      I never want to face YOU in court!

      That was some FINE logic right there folks – FINE Logic. And so well explained that even us landscapers and dog-walkers have no problem following the technical details of the conditions described.

      I am glad that YOU and ENGINEER are on the side I am sympathetic to, because the two of you together cut through the technical BS-Speak and get right to the facts.

      I challenge anyone to review such conversations and ponder over the fact that when G-Bone and Engineer address the technical facts you come away saying, “Oh, so THAT’S how that works!” and you move on with greater understanding – while the nonsense and doublespeak of the “Tres-Amigos-Diablos” leaves you saying, “What? But how? I don’t get it…”. I contend that it is not an accident that their “clarifying” leaves you with more questions than you started with.

      One group explains – the other confounds.
      Confusion is not an accident.

      • GiveADogABone

        Not quite as dramatic as it could be but the hi-res photo is too big. It’s the water lines along the bottom of the pipe where residue liquid stayed. If the water stays there long-term, the air+water start corrosion and you get the water level iron stain.

  • Engineer48

    Maybe someone can explain why John T Vaughn made the company name alterations and initialed the document as originally created by Johnson the lawyer? Note the same writing style.

    This clearly shows JM Products Inc (JMP) was not at arms length to IH and possibly that IH knows who the UK parent of JMP is.

    I mean surely IH would have conducted due diligence on the UK parent of the US startup to ensure they would be paid and that their plant would be safe.

    These 2 documents would suggest IH did know of and approved the UK parent as IH did the name change to the document and initialed the change.

    Which just may blow apart part of the IH counterclaims or worse.
    .
    .

    • Teemu Soilamo

      “These 2 documents would suggest IH did know of and approved the UK parent as IH did the name change to the document and initialed the change.”

      No, they don’t. It. What they show is that the name ‘JM Chemicals, Inc.’ was changed to ‘JM Chemical Products, Inc.’, both referring to the same subsidiary of the unknown UK parent.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Teemu,

        If so how do explain IH’s vice president Vaughn made the name changes and initialed them?

        If IH was arms length from JMP, he would have no right nor business to initial that document.

        • Teemu Soilamo

          I’m not sure I follow. It was probably Johnson who made the correction, and JT agreed.

          As to the bigger picture, this does in no way implicate IH’s knowledge of the identity of the parent.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            What???

            Suggest you actually look at the document that Vaughn altered and initialed.

            Simple to compare the handwriting style. Vaughn made the alterations, initialed the document as did Johnson the lawyer and JMP president.
            .
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4f3178467474ec42bbddeef2922eaed330ca75dfb6b379056f24d6bacbb8e30d.png

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I don’t care who made the alterations, it is of no relevance. All we know is that both JT and Johnson signed off on it.

            I keep coming back to the point that nowhere in this document is it alluded to that Johnson Matthey is the parent, nor that IH knows who the parent is.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            So it is of NO relevance that Vaughn made the changes and initialed the document? I suggest the court may see it differently and ask him why he made the changes if that company had nothing to do with him.

            Rossi told IH JM was involved.Would have taken IH one or 2 phone calls to verify that.

            So here we have IH stating Rossi told them JM was involved and now implying they NEVER called JM to verify that statement?

            Is IH totally naive yet people trust them to do the proper due diligence to protect their investments?

            Anyone with a business background would find IH’s statement to be highly contradictory and at the best, VERY BAD business practice.

            I live in the business reality world and I can tell you I would NEVER have signed off on the heat sale without talking with the UK parent of the US startup to ensure they would be paying the account and ensuring the plant was safe.

      • BillH

        However, a single thing that is in the report that can be proved to be false will discredit the ERV and collapse the case. The number of days when the plant was only running at 75% is almost enough

  • Engineer48

    Maybe someone can explain why John T Vaughn made the company name alterations and initialed the document as originally created by Johnson the lawyer? Note the same writing style.

    This clearly shows JM Products Inc (JMP) was not at arms length to IH and possibly that IH knows who the UK parent of JMP is.

    I mean surely IH would have conducted due diligence on the UK parent of the US startup to ensure they would be paid and that their plant would be safe.

    These 2 documents would suggest IH did know of and approved the UK parent as IH did the name change to the document and initialed the change.

    Which just may blow apart part of the IH counterclaims or worse.
    .
    .

    • Teemu Soilamo

      “These 2 documents would suggest IH did know of and approved the UK parent as IH did the name change to the document and initialed the change.”

      No, they don’t. It. What they show is that the name ‘JM Chemicals, Inc.’ was changed to ‘JM Chemical Products, Inc.’, both referring to the same subsidiary of the unknown UK parent.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Teemu,

        If so how do explain IH’s vice president Vaughn made the name changes and initialed them?

        If IH was arms length from JMP, he would have no right nor business to initial that document.

        • Teemu Soilamo

          I’m not sure I follow. It was probably Johnson who made the correction, and JT agreed.

          As to the bigger picture, this does in no way implicate IH’s knowledge of the identity of the parent.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            What???

            Suggest you actually look at the document that Vaughn altered and initialed.

            Simple to compare the handwriting style. Vaughn made the alterations, initialed the document as did Johnson the lawyer and JMP president.
            .
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4f3178467474ec42bbddeef2922eaed330ca75dfb6b379056f24d6bacbb8e30d.png

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I don’t care who made the alterations, it is of no relevance. All we know is that both JT and Johnson signed off on it.

            I keep coming back to the point that nowhere in this document is it alluded to that Johnson Matthey is the parent, nor that IH knows who the parent is.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            So it is of NO relevance that Vaughn made the changes and initialed the document? I suggest the court may see it differently and ask him why he made the changes if that company had nothing to do with him.

            Rossi told IH JM was involved.Would have taken IH one or 2 phone calls to verify that.

            So here we have IH stating Rossi told them JM was involved and now implying they NEVER called JM to verify that statement?

            Is IH totally naive yet people trust them to do the proper due diligence to protect their investments?

            Anyone with a business background would find IH’s statement to be highly contradictory and at the best, VERY BAD business practice.

            I live in the business reality world and I can tell you I would NEVER have signed off on the heat sale without talking with the UK parent of the US startup to ensure they would be paying the account and ensuring the plant was safe.

          • Michael W Wolf

            You know, I was thinking. If IH wants to claim they didn’t know about Johnson Matthey, that receipt they got with the name changed to Mathew may have been IH. Go look at the w in matthew, it was inserted in place of another letter. And it is crooked. If IH doesn’t want to claim they knew about Matthey, that receipt would incriminate them. In other words, they may have had a motive to change the name. I just can’t see it as a typeo by Rossi’s people. The crooked w is a smoking gun I think. I would like to see the copy the customer kept.

          • Michael W Wolf

            According to IH in their response, they say it is Johnson Matthey. They said Rossi’s people told them that. Besides, they had the name of James Bass, who was easily found and works for Matthey. IH claims to have done due diligence and could not find him because Rossi made him up.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Michael,

            When IH and Rossi were alleged to be discussing JM’s desire to be involved in the test, it would have been very simple and quick for IH to call JM and verify what Rossi had told them.

            In fact it would have been mandatory for IH to do that due diligence check with JM, BEFORE entering into any agreement with JMP, as otherwise why would they jump into bed with a total US startup, trust them to pay for the heat, trust them to not steal the plant, thrust them to keep their property safe, etc?

            That IH apparently did not do that very simple act of proper due diligence is BEYOND BELIEF!

            Or maybe they did act properly, did the due diligence on the UK parent and engaged the term sheet contract having executed all the expected due diligence.

            It would seem that as Vaughn made the name changes and initialed the Johnson document setting out who does and does not own what, that IH did execute due diligence as why would Vaughn do the document alteration as IH are claimed to be at arms length?

            Very strange!

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I agree that IH probably thought it was Johnson Matthey, but the dispute I was having with Engineer48 was over whether these 2 documents specifically suggest that. :p

            There’s still a chance that the ‘James A. Bass’ as representative of JMP was not the same James Bass that works for Matthey. Who knows?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Michael,

            Technically the JMP UK parent could be a shell company set up to further isolate JM. So when Rossi states JM is not the parent UK company he is probably correct.

            As for IH and their reported conversation with Rossi about JM’s desire to be involved, it would be VERY simple for IH to call JM and confirm Rossi’s claim.

            So it seems highly likely that JM were involved in the 1 year trial in some way but that the UK parent of JMP is not directly JM but a UK shell company set up to further isolate JM.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Or, maybe JM were directly involved but denied it to IH for reasons?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            Do you have any business experience? I have been running my own engineering consultancy and design business for over 40 years.

            If someone told me that they had a contact that was interested in getting into bed with me, with a 2 year contract to buy heat I produced but the contact needed me to install my plant in their recently rented warehouse unit in Doral and to send invoices to a recently formed startup up, trusting them to pay for the heat and to secure my plant, WELL you can be VERY SURE I would due diligence the shite out of the whole deal.

            I can tell you that if IH didn’t talk this over with JM (as part of their due diligence), they do not deserve to be in business and holding 100’s of millions of investor funds.

            That is NOT how a responsible company operates. It was the DUTY of IH to due diligence the shite out of this deal and any failure to do so says they may be incompetent or worse.

            Had JM denied what Rossi is alleged to have said to IH, any competent company would NEVER have gone ahead with the deal. So take it as read IH did talk to JM, despite any claim to the contrary or they have openly stated they have no right to manage other people’s money as they do not engage in the expected due diligence processes to keep those funds safe and secure.
            .

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Well, several things that IH has done indicate gross incompetence or WORSE. Like, for example, taking Woodford’s money for misrepresenting what they knew to be a scam that they agreed to go ahead and play pretend regardless.

  • Barbierir

    I didn’t expect to take this turn but I agree that now the customer is a relevant piece of the puzzle. If he’s fake that makes the other accusations a lot more credible or vice-versa, in the eyes of the court.

  • Axil Axil

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf

    On page 25, it states that the customer was a british company and meets the requirements of the office of foreign agent control.

    “JMC is owned by an entity formed in the United Kingdom.”

    Now how can that certification be scammed?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Foreign_Assets_Control

    Often described as one of the most powerful yet unknown government agencies,[5][6] OFAC has been in existence for more than a half-century and is playing an increasingly significant role as a foreign policy lever of the U.S. government. The agency is empowered to levy significant penalties against entities that defy it, including imposing colossal fines, freezing assets, and altogether barring parties from operating in the U.S. Notably, in 2014, OFAC reached a record $1 billion settlement with the French BNP Paribas, which was a portion of approximately $9 billion penalty imposed in relation to the case as a whole.[7]

    • Engineer48

      Hi Axil,

      Need to factor in that IH’s vice president, J.T. Vaughn made the name change and initialed them.

      Would expect the companies lawyer & president to do this.

      So why did Vaughn do the changes?

  • Axil Axil

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf

    On page 25, it states that the customer was a british company and meets the requirements of the office of foreign agent control.

    “JMC is owned by an entity formed in the United Kingdom.”

    Now how can that certification be scammed?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Foreign_Assets_Control

    Often described as one of the most powerful yet unknown government agencies,[5][6] OFAC has been in existence for more than a half-century and is playing an increasingly significant role as a foreign policy lever of the U.S. government. The agency is empowered to levy significant penalties against entities that defy it, including imposing colossal fines, freezing assets, and altogether barring parties from operating in the U.S. Notably, in 2014, OFAC reached a record $1 billion settlement with the French BNP Paribas, which was a portion of approximately $9 billion penalty imposed in relation to the case as a whole.[7]

    The OFAC must check the validity of the applications that they get for foreign companies doing bisiness in the US.

    If Rossi and his lawyer were to perpetrate a scam with the customer, why would he put himself in jeopardy with the OFAC?

    Who is going to submit a freedom of information request to the OFAC to get the customer info?

    • Engineer48

      Hi Axil,

      Need to factor in that IH’s vice president, J.T. Vaughn made the name change and initialed them.

      Would expect the companies lawyer & president to do this.

      So why did Vaughn do the changes?

  • Teemu Soilamo

    So, this mail is sounding like a smoking gun! Everyone keeps talking about it, but can someone provide the link?

    Sorry, have been absent for a while.

  • BillH

    My point was that it is far more difficult to fake automated data logging, and any drop-outs in the plants performance would be immediately noticeable in the data and comparable with the data from JM if that was available. If they allowed AR to only use human readable meters, again, IH were mugs.

  • LT

    I have been following this forum for quite some time and get the impression that I lately see a lot of posters which didn’t post before or only seldom.
    Almost all of these “new” posters seem to take position against Rossi with in my opinion often irrelevant arguments. It gives me the feeling that there is a large increased FUD campaign going on by IH and/or APCO on this forum. So if I where the lawers of Rossi I would try to locate these people and find out if they are paid for and/or used by IH or APCO. If so I would bring them to the witness stand for trying to influence a court case. (Sifferkoll is already doing research on this).
    This is not directed to the sincere posters which are making arguments against Rossi. I want their opinions because it keeps the discussion going. Keep posting !

    About the arguments used against Rossi used lately, they are about flow meter readings, who the customer is etc. In my opinion these points are all irrelevant. It is a contract case and the parties (Rossi and IH) are bound by the contract and the contract states that they are bound by the EVR report. If the EVR used the flow meter wrong it doesn’t matter. What matters is what the EVR concluded. Only if errors made by the EVR are due to fraud, then it might be otherwise. But in that case IH has to prove that there was fraud in play. It can not do that by just pointing out that a flow meter reading was wrong. It needs to prove the Fraud itself.
    For the same reason it doesn’t matter who the customer was. It had no influence on what the EVR concluded.

    Note that I am not saying if Rossi is right or wrong or if the ECAT is working or not.
    Time will learnn.

    • Mats002

      Hi LT, I wonder the same.
      Also it seams that Abd and Jed are working hard to put the last post on all pro Rossi posts,
      while questioning Rossi do not render keyword efforts from them.
      It reminds me of a certain Thomas Clarke over at LENRForum and other blogs. It is not a sign of health to put in that much effort for nothing. This goes for sifferkoll as well.

  • wpj

    There’s one posted here if you bother to look…………………. It has been discussed there ad nausiam.

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/02/more-from-rossi-on-restricted-access-to-the-customers-plant/

  • wpj

    You should read the emails from Rossi to Darden, then, when he states how much Cherokee can make (2012 when he was being courted). He certainly believed he was dealing with them as the email when to a Cherokee email address!

  • Engineer48

    Hi Jed,

    Can you explain why John T. Vaughn, IH’s vice president, altered and initialed the document originally created by Johnson that made various claims about who did and who did not have beneficial ownership / control of JMP as attached?

    Does this not suggest IH knew the statements in the document to be true and correct as Vaughn did the alterations and placed his initials on the document?

    Surely IH did due diligence on the UK parent to be sure they would be paid the heat fee and that their plant would be safe?

    Or did IH jump into bed with a US startup company and had no idea who the beneficial owners were?

    VERY difficult to believe IH did not do due diligence on the UK parent.

    VERY simple for them to do this check prior to signing the heat sale agreement.
    .
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4f3178467474ec42bbddeef2922eaed330ca75dfb6b379056f24d6bacbb8e30d.png

  • GiveADogABone

    Exhibit 5:
    ‘In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day without deviation.
    See Exhibit B
    . How is that plausible? ‘

    This is plausible for two reasons :-
    1: The water is supplied to the reactors by precision positive displacement pumps where you dial in the desired flow rate and that is what you get.
    2: LuFong’s data obtained from one of the Exhibits states that, in June, 26 days were at 1MW and 4 at 750kw. In July 26 days were also at full power and 4 days at 750kw. If the July reductions in power were all at the end of the month and the last reduction in June was on the 29th, a continuous run at full power is what occurred.

    LuFong was reading one of the Exhibits and I do no know which one yet.
    LuFong GiveADogABone • 2 days ago
    Here are the month’s days at 1MWh/h and 750KWh/h
    June 26/4
    July 26/4
    August 15/16
    Sept 15/15
    Oct —–
    Nov —–
    Dec 20/11
    So 50 days over 5 months (no data for Oct/Nov and other months of test).

  • GiveADogABone

    Exhibit 5:
    ‘In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day without deviation.
    See Exhibit B
    . How is that plausible? ‘

    This is plausible for three reasons :-
    1: The water is supplied to the reactors by precision positive displacement pumps where you dial in the desired flow rate and that is what you get.
    2: LuFong’s data obtained from one of the Exhibits states that, in June, 26 days were at 1MW and 4 at 750kw. In July 26 days were also at full power and 4 days at 750kw. If the July reductions in power were all at the end of the month and the last reduction in June was on the 29th, a continuous run at full power is what occurred.
    3: The reactor Coefficient of Performance is considerably greater than 1 which contradicts IH statements in the Answer.

    LuFong was reading one of the Exhibits and I do no know which one yet.
    LuFong GiveADogABone • 2 days ago
    Here are the month’s days at 1MWh/h and 750KWh/h
    June 26/4
    July 26/4
    August 15/16
    Sept 15/15
    Oct —–
    Nov —–
    Dec 20/11
    So 50 days over 5 months (no data for Oct/Nov and other months of test).

    PS:
    I should also point out that according to IH and their CoP=1 assertion in the Answer, the production of 1MW or 750kw is impossible and so is the production of 36,000kg/day of condensate.

    • Bruce__H

      How come the flow rate doesn’t alter when the heat production changes? Isn’t the only way that water can get from the power plant outlet to the customer (and then back to the power plant) as steam? And if 36 m^3 per day is the flow doesn’t that mean that a corresponding amount of steam has to be created? And if a corresponding amount of steam is to be created doesn’t that require 1 MW of heat being produced all day every day?

      I think that on days when heat is being produced at a rate of less than 1 MW there should be a correspondingly smaller flow rate.

      • GiveADogABone

        How come the flow rate doesn’t alter when the heat production changes?
        It does alter. If a reactor slab(1 of 4) comes off line that reactor’s feed flow drops to zero so the total feed flow drops by 25%.

        Isn’t the only way that water can get from the power plant outlet to the customer (and then back to the power plant) as steam?
        No. To the customer as steam and returned as condensate water.

        And if 36 m^3 per day is the flow doesn’t that mean that a corresponding amount of steam has to be created?
        Yes. The plant is a closed loop.

        And if a corresponding amount of steam is to be created doesn’t that require 1 MW of heat being produced all day every day?
        Yes. 36m^3/day of condensate water is equivalent to full power of 1MW.

        I think that on days when heat is being produced at a rate of less than 1 MW there should be a correspondingly smaller flow rate.
        Drop the power to 750kw and condensate production will be 27m^3/day.

        • Bruce__H

          What is the flow rate then? Isn’t it claimed to be measured as 36 m^3 per day all the time and isn’t this in conflict with the claimed nonconstant production rate of the plant?

          • GiveADogABone

            What is the flow rate then?
            Depends on the power.

            Isn’t it claimed to be measured as 36 m^3 per day all the time
            No unless you ask the person who wrote Exhibit 5 in respect of a limited period and he was not making a claim, he was asking a question. The answer from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, is that the E-cat was at full power between those dates. At adjacent dates it was at reduced power and the condensate flow would have been lower.

            Exhibit 5:
            In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation.

          • Bruce__H

            OK. Going forward, if daily flow and heat generation data are ever released, we should expect that the reported flow should be a close copy of the heat generated. Is that right?

          • GiveADogABone

            You are stuck with the basic equation :-
            CoP = Specific Enthalpy Transfer * Mass Flow Rate / Electricity In

            The specific enthalpy transfer is a fixed number for steady inlet and outlet temperatures; you can look it up online. With full boiling the evaporation takes more than 90% of the heat and Rossi took just evaporation at about 2257kJ/kg.
            CoP = 2257*MFR/Ein

            The Total Enthalpy Transfer = 2257 * MFR

            As long as the specific enthalpy stays the same the total enthalpy transfer is proportional to the mass flow rate.

          • Bruce__H

            I agree. Just wanted to be clear.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    I found another inconsistency regarding Rossi’s claims vs IH’s rebuttal:

    Andrea Rossi
    February 4th, 2015 at 2:34 PM
    Steven N. Karels:
    On the base of your comment, I definitely used the wrong English translation.
    Let me then correct, and write that the 1 MW plant that has been delivered to the Customer is a production plant, the number one of the production made in the USA by Industrial Heat and our magnificent team.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Here, Rossi is saying in no uncertain terms that the 1 MW plant was made “in the USA by IH and Leonardo”.

    However, in EXHIBIT 17:

    “Industrial Heat– –owns a 1 MW E-Cat steam plant (‘the 1 MW Plant’) built by affiliates of Leonardo in Italy in 2013.”

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/0029.17_Exhibit_17.pdf

    • GiveADogABone

      Somebody is not telling the truth and that is a BIGGIE!
      Not just because the statements conflict but also because IH built, or had a hand in building, a 1MW E-cat that runs.

      • One side knows it is going to lose. There is nothing subtle about this lawsuit. One side is lying its butt off.

        So, one has to wonder what the motive is for the side that knows it has no chance.

        Industrial Heat: delay, obstruction, tie up Leonardo resources
        Rossi/Leonardo: buying time for and perpetuating a scam

        Which seems more likely?

        • Teemu Soilamo

          The only motive for IH to delay and obstruct would be if they got an offer they could not refuse from a BIG FISH.

          I find that really hard to buy.

          Rossi, on the other hand, has been shown to revel in glee in his little dog and pony shows (see the Hydrofusion deception, EXH. 12 and 13).

          Of course, this is exactly how IH would want to paint him as IF they were compromised and would not think twice about fabricating evidence when the stakes were so high…

          • sam

            Just cut and paste from Sifferkoll.
            I will make it clearer next time.

          • Not necessarily. They could have other tech in their portfolio that they have decided to commercialize instead of Rossi’s.

            That would mean somebody else with prototype reactors, such a Lenuco: Lenuco owns a portion of IH’s international holding company, so there is a clear, provable relationship.

            It could also mean government coercion. I don’t know if you included them in BIG FISH.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I have one implicit assumption that may be wrong, but nevertheless makes a great deal of sense to me: It was Rossi’s work that started the whole revitalization of the LENR scene. If the E-Cat were just smoke and mirrors, it would be a bit too convenient for actually working technologies to suddenly rise in its wake. Therefore, if any of the purported LENR technologies of IH work, then that almost certainly means that the E-Cat works. And if the E-Cat works, I cannot imagine any other technology being so much ahead that IH would just dump Rossi cold.

            And yes, government is def. included in BIG FISH.

          • Right, but technology lead is not the only factor. As we have seen, Rossi can be very difficult to work with and they may have seen a way to ride another horse, avoid payment of $89M and still get to the finish line with more control and revenue potential. (Plus it may be a more defensive move if they felt Rossi was scheming to move on with a larger player like ABB or Johnson Matthey.)

            Knowing of course, too, that they could sideline Rossi rather easily given his reputation and the general cold fusion denial of the scientific community.

            If that’s what is going on the emergence of the E-Cat X and QX must have been a rather unwelcome turn of events in IH headquarters.

    • Ged

      There is more than one plant. The six cylinder, the original plant with the big boxy silver E-cat things, and this plant. It is a little confusing. We see the images of the current one being made by a crew, and was that once it was in the US or Italy? Was it worked on in both locations? We’re the Tigers installed in the US but other units in Italy? Just to hard to say at the moment beyond what the visual evidence we have shows.

      • Teemu Soilamo

        Fair point.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Teemu,

      You need to get your time lines in order.

      That term sheet was signed 13 Aug, 2014, when the only plant IH had was the unit originally deliver to IH from Italy.

      Prior to the start of the 1 year trial, IH built at least 2 more 1MW plants, being the 51 reactor backup plant and the 4 slab/Tiger prime plant.

      So Rossi’s statement of 4 Feb 2015 is correct and the plant as installed at Doral was an IH manufactured dual 1 MW plant.
      .

      • Teemu Soilamo

        So, IH changed the terms after the agreement was signed and delivered a 1 MW plant built by them, instead?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Teemu,

          The only reactor IH had when that term sheet was created was the 1MW reactor in a blue container as IH tested in Italy. Note the roof mounted slab reactors.

          And yes that is Darden and Vaughn there for the testing process, where they also tested a HotCat reactor.
          .

          • Vinney

            That was good sleuthing on the part of ECW readers.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    I found another inconsistency regarding Rossi’s claims vs IH’s rebuttal:

    Andrea Rossi
    February 4th, 2015 at 2:34 PM
    Steven N. Karels:
    On the base of your comment, I definitely used the wrong English translation.
    Let me then correct, and write that the 1 MW plant that has been delivered to the Customer is a production plant, the number one of the production made in the USA by Industrial Heat and our magnificent team.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Here, Rossi is saying in no uncertain terms that the 1 MW plant was made “in the USA” by IH and Leonardo.

    However, in EXHIBIT 17:

    “Industrial Heat– –owns a 1 MW E-Cat steam plant (‘the 1 MW Plant’) built by affiliates of Leonardo in Italy in 2013.”

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/0029.17_Exhibit_17.pdf

    • GiveADogABone

      Industrial Heat may own a 1MW made in Italy but is it the one that was actually used in the test?
      Is this a clever? trick to hide the fact that they built, or helped to build, a working E-cat that ran for a year?
      Is it possible that both are right? The 1MW test contained 2x1MW plants, the 4x256kw Tigers and the 51x20kW backup plant.

      • One side knows it is going to lose. There is nothing subtle about this lawsuit. One side is lying its butt off.

        So, one has to wonder what the motive is for the side that knows it has no chance.

        Industrial Heat: delay, obstruction, tie up Leonardo resources
        Rossi/Leonardo: buying time for and perpetuating a scam

        Which seems more likely?

        • Teemu Soilamo

          The only motive for IH to delay and obstruct would be if they got an offer they could not refuse from a BIG FISH.

          I find that really hard to buy.

          Rossi, on the other hand, has been shown to revel in glee in his little dog and pony shows (see the Hydrofusion deception, EXH. 12 and 13).

          Of course, this is exactly how IH would want to paint him as IF they were compromised and would not think twice about fabricating evidence when the stakes were so high…

          • Not necessarily. They could have other tech in their portfolio that they have decided to commercialize instead of Rossi’s.

            That would mean somebody else with prototype reactors, such a Lenuco: Lenuco owns a portion of IH’s international holding company, so there is a clear, provable relationship.

            It could also mean government coercion. I don’t know if you included them in BIG FISH.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I have one implicit assumption that may be wrong, but nevertheless makes a great deal of sense to me: It was Rossi’s work that started the whole revitalization of the LENR scene. If the E-Cat were just smoke and mirrors, it would be a bit too convenient for actually working technologies to suddenly rise in its wake. Therefore, if any of the purported LENR technologies of IH work, then that almost certainly means that the E-Cat works. And if the E-Cat works, I cannot imagine any other technology being so much ahead that IH would just dump Rossi cold.

            And yes, government is def. included in BIG FISH.

          • Right, but technology lead is not the only factor. As we have seen, Rossi can be very difficult to work with and they may have seen a way to ride another horse, avoid payment of $89M and still get to the finish line with more control and revenue potential. (Plus it may be a more defensive move if they felt Rossi was scheming to move on with a larger player like ABB or Johnson Matthey.)

            Knowing of course, too, that they could sideline Rossi rather easily given his reputation and the general cold fusion denial of the scientific community.

            If that’s what is going on the emergence of the E-Cat X and QX must have been a rather unwelcome turn of events in IH headquarters.

          • Michael W Wolf

            What you are saying fits so well with all the unanswered questions G.

          • Michael W Wolf

            We talked about that. Brilluon and that Godes guy is working with IH I think. And from that interview with Godes’ boss, IH may think Brilluon is a lot close to commercialization and didn’t want to sink any more money into Rossi.

    • Ged

      There is more than one plant. The six cylinder, the original plant with the big boxy silver E-cat things, and this plant. It is a little confusing. We see the images of the current one being made by a crew, and was that once it was in the US or Italy? Was it worked on in both locations? Were the Tigers installed in the US but other units in Italy? Just too hard to say at the moment beyond what the visual evidence we have shows (not much).

      • Teemu Soilamo

        Fair point.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Teemu,

      You need to get your time lines in order.

      That term sheet was signed 13 Aug, 2014, when the only plant IH had was the unit originally deliver to IH from Italy.

      Prior to the start of the 1 year trial, IH built at least 2 more 1MW plants, being the 51 reactor backup plant and the 4 slab/Tiger prime plant.

      So Rossi’s statement of 4 Feb 2015 is correct and the plant as installed at Doral was an IH manufactured dual 1 MW plant.
      .

      • Teemu Soilamo

        So, IH changed the terms after the agreement was signed and delivered a 1 MW plant built by them, instead?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Teemu,

          The only reactor IH had when that term sheet was created was the 1MW reactor in a blue container as IH tested in Italy. Note the roof mounted slab reactors.

          And yes that is Darden and Vaughn there for the testing process, where they also tested a HotCat reactor.
          .

          • Vinney

            That was good sleuthing on the part of ECW readers.

    • Michael W Wolf

      You know Teemu, IH swore under oath that they built a 1mw reactor with a COP of 11, and now under oath in their counter claim they claim they didn’t. Which time were they breaking their oath? You know in court if you are found to break your oath once, nothing you say has to be believed? So legally speaking, you should believe Rossi before you believe IH.

  • I find Industrial Heat’s technical case underwhelming. For all the whooping and hollering going on from Planet Zero I thought the information they presented would be damning and comprehensive.

    But the flow meter is fine, iron deposits in the pipe don’t mean much to me without much more discovery and analysis, the constant flow is easily explained by pumps/flow regulators designed to make it so, the steam pressure argument is weak, the changes in the number of active reactors are interesting but hardly a smoking gun if redundancy was built into the reactors for just such outages, and things changing after the system was shut down is to be expected.

    The argument that Rossi missed the performance window is just plain slimy. All the he said/they said and document forensics is tiring. Rossi and company being uncooperative once the Murray team was hired seems predictable. I await Rossi’s response and then we’ll be better able to hash things out.

    I could use some MFMP or me356 news. Or a Mats Lewan interview with James Bass.

    • interstellar hobo

      Mats Lewan hasn’t had a blog entry about Rossi in a couple of months, nor any tweets. The lack of anything from MFMP is a bit odd, though. When and if MFMP says there’s nothing to LENR, then I’ll give up on it.

      • Darn Europeans take the whole summer off and disappear to some beach in France or Spain.

        MFMP is gearing up for a new GlowStick generation run — quiet but not dormant.

        • Ged

          Our purchasing department was shocked this past June when a company we needed to buy some stuff from completely went on vacation for that entire month–every single one of their employees, without so much as a notice till after they got back. Thankfully it wasn’t anything time sensitive. I wish I could do that!

          • Engineer48

            Hi Ged,

            In Aussie almost all manufacturing and fabrication shuts down mid Dec to mid Jan as all workers get 20 days / 4 weeks annual leave, plus 17.5% additional leave loading and 10 sick days a year.

            Nice place to be employed. Not so nice to be the employer.
            .

          • Chapman

            Ah, that’s right! December is your Summer. It’s all backward. I understand from Axil that your toilets flush the opposite way too! Has something to do with Bose-Einstein-Condensates apparently… Who knew?

          • The employers that are enlightened enough to understand that a healthy, happy and rested worker is a productive and loyal worker like the arrangement I’m sure.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    I cannot get over Exhibit 18. http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/0029.18_Exhibit_18.pdf

    Rossi claims that Johnson Matthey is NOT the customer, but the letterhead (promptly removed in latter mails) read “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthew Platinum Sponges”. This implies three distinct possibilities:

    1. ‘Johnson Matthew’ was a misspelling of ‘Johnson Matthey’ –> Rossi is a liar
    2. It really did mean to read ‘Johnson Matthew’, which is a nonexistent entity –> Rossi is a liar AND purposely misleaded IH with a red herring
    3. Fabrication by IH –> IH are liars

    The only reasonable defense that Rossi can muster up is pure fabrication, which really sets up a larger IH conspiracy theory.

    • Ged

      JM Chemical Products is the customer. Doesn’t matter who is behind them when one says who the customer is, same with IH and Cherokee. That is how the business shell game works and why it is done. Technicalities!

      • Teemu Soilamo

        But do you really believe that a shell company with possibly no employees and Rossi’s lawyer as its President is going to hold up in court? All these sneaky allusions to JM will not go unexplored, as they serve as vital pieces of evidence to Rossi’s persona and integrity. The parent company will have to come forward, as they’re a key witness in all of this.

        • Ged

          Indeed, they will be fully explored and parent pulled out of the dark, which is great!

          But shells let businesses do weird stuff that makes little reasonable sense from our view, like IPH which is literally just IH by a different name, without actually lying… technically. The Court will cut through the crud, thank goodness.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Teemu,

          JMP employees could have been on loan and paid by their Tennessee employer JM Catalysts. So it is very possible for JMP to have had no, on balance sheet, employees.

          As for the JMP parent coming forward, I believe IH need to prove to the court their counter claims are valid, especially as they claim fraud by their own employees, consultants and IP licensor.
          .
          BTW shell companies happen all the time as do lawyers being the company president. Nothing special in that.
          .

          • interstellar hobo

            That’s funny. I actually have passed that building many times. Never gave it two thoughts.

          • Chapman

            You know, all it takes is for the phantom employee to show up in court, or even at the mediation meeting, with a JMC pay stub and a valid drivers licence and all IH’s paranoid assertions crumble. He is the stool that Darden has stood on while placing his neck in a noose. If Employee moves, Darden takes a terminal fall.

        • Michael W Wolf

          nope, the company who used the heat must come forward. But if IH can’t prove the erv invalid, he has final say.

          • Chapman

            That’s it. If the customer is verified ( thus destroying ALL of IH’s Fraud claims) then the Contract holds, and the ERV determination stands.

        • Michael W Wolf

          You know teemu, maybe IH doesn’t believe Rossi and are using the court to get their validation. That is possible you know, and no one is an evil villian in that scenario.

    • BillH

      If you add that up there were at least 50 days in which the plant operated at less than full power. the test only ran for 352 days, therefore the test failed because it did not produce the required output for the required duration. As this information is incomplete we can’t be sure that there were no further outages. On these figures alone, the test would have had to continue till day 365 in order to provide 1MWth 24hrs a day for 350 days. Also, why wasn’t JM not complained about loss of production on so many days and asking for a refund? Clearly the plant was running unreliably and yet JM didn’t complain once.

      • Ged

        They paid less for the lower production, so no refund needed.

        • BillH

          No refund asked for, there is a subtle difference.

          • Ged

            Err. No refund would be asked for since they did not overpay, but scaled payments to what they got.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Bill,

        There is no requirement for the plant to achieve 1MW x 24 x 350. Just that the COP was 6 or greater over 350 days of the trial.

        All a lower MWh generation effected was the amount JMP paid IH for the heat.

        • BillH

          I highly dubious reading of the facts. Day 1, COP 6.1, write up the report and let’s go home…what about the customer?….oh sod them, let’s collect the cash…

    • Chapman

      EXACTLY!

      This is one of the small tidbits that is actually a devastating credibility bomb, and it IS going to take off ONE of the parties leggs. This single issue has NO simple and dismissable explanation. It represents, if real, a fundamentally twisted mind and clear criminal intent on Rossi’s part, but if NOT authentic it is an outrageous fabrication fraudulently submitted as evidence to the court, and constitutes a criminal act by IH -JUST BY ITS EXISTENCE in the court records.

      Most issues in the countersuit are duds.
      This one goes BOOM!!!

      • Teemu Soilamo

        Of course, a fourth scenario would be that Rossi told a white lie to the JONP in order to protect Johnson Matthey, who does not want to be implicated at this time. After all, we now know it is not unlike him to ‘adjust’ the truth when it so fits him.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Teemu,

          5th option is there is a UK parent shell company to further isolate JM.

          Alan Smith on Lend-Forum did some digging into UK company registrations and believes he knows the identity of the UK parent, which as would be expected is a shell company.

          Which means Rossi has not lied to JONP as JM is NOT the UK parent of JMP.

          Of course then you ask who owns the UK shell?
          .

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Rossi did not say “Johson Matthey isn’t the parent of JMP”, he said “Johnson Matthey is not the customer” – which would be technically correct, even if Johnson Matthey WERE the parent. How convenient.

          • Michael W Wolf

            yep.

          • Chapman

            Engineer,

            You know I have the deepest respect for you, so do not think I am arguing and being obstinate, but if Rossi’s intent was to HIDE Matthey’s involvement, then the naming convention used – doing everything possible to telegraph that it is Mathey, yet legally being able to declare “We never SAID it was Mathey” – clearly demonstrates a conflict in the proposed solution.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Chapman.

            What Rossi has stated is JM is not the UK parent of JMP.

            If as Alan Smith claims the UK parent is a shell company then Rossi is correct that JM is not the UK parent of JMP.

            I also note IH is upset with Rossi for outing their License Agreement and maybe their revenge is outing Rossi’s claim to IH that JM had an interest in being involved in the Doral test?

          • Chapman

            And I have absolutely NO problem with Rossi lying and saying Mathey is NOT the customer – as he would simply be honoring an agreement to keep Mathey’s involvement secret.

            No, my only problem would be with Rossi INTIMATING that Mathey was the customer, if they were NOT in any way involved. That is the fraud I refer to. And make no mistake – misleading your partners to make them believe you were working with a specific and highly respected corporate entity, when in fact you have no real company client at all, and are only running the produced energy through a dummy load is FRAUD. Now, I am not saying Rossi DID that, I am saying THAT is the claim, and if true, then IH is without a doubt fully justified in every way, and with every action taken.

            Luckily, as you have masterfully demonstrated, they have absolutely NO technical case. They did not even press most of the FUD issues that they floated out there. They just padded the complaint with a bunch of nonsense for no other sake than to submit a lengthy document. All the claims regarding permissions, authorizations, and knowledge that Rossi was even proposing to be running the Performance test rather than a publicity stunt – they too are all just a bunch of specious nonsense. Not a one of them has any legal chance. They have NADA – ZIP – NOTHING.

            Unless Rossi got STUPID and faked the customer… That’s “IF”. But yes, if he did – he is not just an asshole, but a fraud, and he loses.

          • GiveADogABone

            ‘No, my only problem would be with Rossi INTIMATING that Mathey was the customer, if they were NOT in any way involved. That is the fraud I refer to.

            Time has moved on and it looks like the customer could well have been Johnson Matthey Davy Ltd of London. Johnson Matthey plc bought the Davy company in 2006.

          • Chapman

            And so Rossi is Vindicated! Davey satisfies the NOT Mathey issue, while still related TO Mathey. So Rossi was honorable in all his representations. Nice.

          • Michael W Wolf

            I was thinking that too. But if the ecat works, it doesn’t matter to me.

      • Michael W Wolf

        I don’t agree. If IH can’t prove their claims, it gets thrown out. They can think their is a conspiracy against them, but have to prove it. To prove IH didn’t think they were duped and deliberately tried to hurt rossi is very hard to prove. Only Rossi has a great risk of jail time in this scenario I think.

        • Chapman

          IH would have proved their case – that being that Rossi orchestrated a grand fraud involving a fake company, and a fake employee, while representing, even if only by intimation and a series of overly obvious clues, that the REAL customer was Johnson Mathey – by the submission of the letterhead which is a clear counterfeit of the Johnson Mathey identity, and by demonstrating that the Customer was NOT an actual company entity related in some subordinate way TO Johnson Mathey and engaged in some manufacturing process; and that the individual presented as an employee was NOT of the name on the business card. IH proves these two points by the court requesting either the presentation of the persons in court, or by submission of sworn depositions from said persons. If they can not be presented to the court, then Rossi lied.

          Michael, you have to admit it. IF, and I only say IF, Rossi lied about the customer and faked the whole thing – even if you are sympathetic to him and his struggle to get the e-cat onto the market, and even if the plant WORKED at COP 50 and the ERV report was PERFECT – well, you just have to be honest and admit that he crossed the line and committed a major fraud. That’s all. That’s what I am getting at.

          If the customer is real, then Darden should burn in hell and never see the light of day again. But the same goes for Rossi. If he DID commit fraud here, he is wrong. He screwed the pooch. He shot himself in the foot. He did himself in. AND – IH really is the injured party! (yuk, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit saying that).

          Integrity is a BITCH! It requires you to FIRST be honest with yourself.

    • Zeddicus23

      Regarding possibility 1: Henry Johnson made the letterhead and only used it once – it was a typo. This makes sense since JMC is just a shell company with Johnson the representing agent, which we already knew.

      Possibility 4: “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthe[y] Platinum Sponges” actually means that this company buys Johnson Matthey Platinum Sponges and then makes something else, e.g. “advanced derivatives” out of them. This company could be connected to Johnson Matthey or maybe it’s not. The point is that just because the letterhead says “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthe[y] Platinum Sponges” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s directly connected to Johnson Matthey.

      All this being said, I agree that a number of things are somewhat fishy. On the other hand, the license agreement regarding the 1 year test says nothing about a customer. What counts is whether or not the plant produced excess heat or not. More specifically regarding the license agreement, whether or not it produced on the order of 1 MW with a COP > 4 for 350 days.

      On the other hand it also seems clear that IH never intended to pay the $89M, since apparently they delayed the test and now claim that the delay means that that they don’t have to pay even if it worked! All this despite the fact that they signed an amendment agreement allowing for a delay in the test! What we’re talking about here is a one-sided (in terms of contracts and territories) agreement in favor of IH, their rapacious desire to patent something which they claim does not work, including in Rossi’s territory of Europe (and also including an obscure shell company in the Netherlands which again is in Rossi’s territory, and an apparent attempt to “steal” Rossi’s IP – worth trillions if it works – for a mere $10M (rather than the $100 M promised following a successful test). So right now things look fairly bad for both sides, although I think that we still need to wait for two things before coming to a firm conclusion:

      (1) the results of the court case/trial and

      (2) whether or not Rossi can demonstrate successful technology before then.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Teemu,

      JMP is the customer.

      What Rossi has said is JM is not the UK parent, which seems to be technically correct as Alan Smith found the UK parent and it is just another shell company but this time a UK shell company.

      • Can you provide a link that Alan Smith discovery please?

      • Teemu Soilamo

        “What Rossi has said is JM is not the UK parent”

        On the JONP? I have never seen this, please provide a link.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Teemu.

          Time for you to wear out a bit of your own shoe leather.

          It is there.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I have provided links for my arguments, often scavenging rossilivecat for considerable lengths of time. Only fair you should do the same and stop being condescending.

          • Michael W Wolf

            I concur with E48. That is what Rossi and alan said. What E48 means is when people ask Rossi if it is Johnson Matthey, he can say no and yet JM is the actual company, but since it is a shell, Rossi’s answer wouldn’t be incorrect.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Well, then E48 should say what he means.

            “when people ask Rossi if it is Johnson Matthey, he can say no and yet JM is the actual company, but since it is a shell, Rossi’s answer wouldn’t be incorrect.”

            But see, your conclusion–which I agree with btw–is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what E48 said:

            “Rossi has said JM is not the UK parent”

            I sincerely thought there was some other quote I had missed, because it would make no sense to conclude “Rossi has said JM is not the UK parent” from “Johnsson Matthey is not the customer”–so I asked him about it! What is so hard to understand about this?

          • Michael W Wolf

            And if you weren’t so arrogantly snotty, E48 would probably accommodate you.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Oh, really? Is that what you call my inquiry for accurate information and holding someone accountable?

            This guy has been pulling rank on me like a hornet since yesterday, has an inflated ego and a bad temper. He sounded hurt by my words, like I insulted his religion or something. “Arrogantly snotty” is what fundamentalists often call rational scientists.

  • sam

    Hi C.R.
    I am being paid by both sides
    for copy and paste.But I cannot
    reveal how much.
    Have a good Ecat day.
    Sam

    • sam

      Just a not very funny joke
      Clovis.

  • sam

    Jed RothwellAugust 7, 2016 at 8:42 PM
    You misread the documents and data from I.H. They said there was no measurable excess heat from any reactor. Not the ones Rossi made and operated, and not the ones I.H. made according to his instructions. They said, for example: “Indeed, using the E-Cat technology Plaintiffs directly provided them, Industrial Heat and IPH have been unable to produce any measurable excess energy.” Elsewhere, they said this about Rossi’s own test.

    They did not say the COP was less than 4. They said it was less than 1 (no excess heat). They said this repeatedly and unequivocally.

    I have seen a sample of Rossi’s data, and I agree with I.H. evaluation. There was no indication of excess heat. Furthermore, the data is rife with fraud and outrageous mistakes, as described in Exhibit 5. There were days when the reactor was half turned off, or fully turned off, yet the data log shows it produced 1 MW continuously on those same days. That is blatant fraud. The claim that 1 MW of heat was released into the customer site is baloney. They ran the wrong kind of flow meter in a pipe half full of water. They knew they were doing that! They were told. They did it deliberately, in order to produce a fake, inflated COP. They did this with other instruments as well.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Michael,

    When IH and Rossi were alleged to be discussing JM’s desire to be involved in the test, it would have been very simple and quick for IH to call JM and verify what Rossi had told them.

    In fact it would have been mandatory for IH to do that due diligence check with JM, BEFORE entering into any agreement with JMP, as otherwise why would they jump into bed with a total US startup, trust them to pay for the heat, trust them to not steal the plant, thrust them to keep their property safe, etc?

    That IH apparently did not do that very simple act of proper due diligence is BEYOND BELIEF!

    Or maybe they did act properly, did the due diligence on the UK parent and engaged the term sheet contract having executed all the expected due diligence.

    It would seem that as Vaughn made the name changes and initialed the Johnson document setting out who does and does not own what, that IH did execute due diligence as why would Vaughn do the document alteration as IH are claimed to be at arms length?

    Very strange!

  • Bruce__H

    I don’t see any talk of heat balance in these documents, is that right? I wonder if IH intendes to introduce it later on in the process.

    Scientifically, an inability to account for 1 MW of heat produced 24/7 is the best evidence that the Rossi energy plant is a fraud. Even if, for legal reasons, this is not a clincher in the trial I think it should be persuasive to anyone else.

    • LT

      It is a contract case and the parties (Rossi and IH) are bound by the
      contract and the contract states that they are bound by the EVR report. The EVR report states that the energy was produced. Since the EVR report was binding other proof will be disregard. So it has no use for IH to introduce this later in the case and I assume if they do the judge will trow it out since the EVR report by contract stated otherwise and was binding.

      • BillH

        However, a single thing that is in the report that can be proved to be false will discredit the ERV and collapse the case. The number of days when the plant was only running at 75% is almost enough

        • LT

          NO!

          IH and Rossi are by contract bound by the conclusions of the EVR, even if the report contains errors or mistakes happened That is what they agreed upon. So a single thing will not collapse the case. If that where not the case you could start a lawsuit in all similar cases since you will always find some (minor) mistakes.
          One exception will be fraud, but IH has to prove that that there is intentional fraud.

          • billH

            Not just an error, a falsehood.a lie. The test didn’t run for 350 days at fully rated output power, and funnily JM didn’t protest or complain but meekly paid up. Didn’t they have staff to pay overtime to? didn’t they lose 25% of a days production? Didn’t they get fed up with an unreliable supply of heat? Oh, yeah, I remember now, they had their own power source. I bet that cost them a fortune to run, and they didn’t squeal foul once, really?

          • Chapman

            You are making one obvious misjudgment.

            We know that there were multiple reactors, and we know that sometimes, some of them were off line. Agreed.

            But we do NOT know that the plant is configured to drive all reactors at max output constantly. If each reactor is carrying 1/4 of the 1 mw load, while running at its own 60% level, then taking a single unit offline may have been compensated for by increasing the operating level of the other three – which may have put unwanted stress on the units, and shortened their potential fuel run, but the output of the plant could easily have remained at the same level, the overall COP would remain the same, the total water flow in would remain the same, the total steam out would remain the same, the total input power would remain the same.

            You are making an illogical assumption that partial mechanical operation equals partial energy production. You have no facts to base such an assumption on. This simply is not known.

      • Bruce__H

        I have been wondering for a while whether what you say is true. I even posted it as a question a couple of weeks ago. But on reading IH’s Answer to Rossi’s suit I see they are not acting as though they think the EVR is binding. Instead they are trying to make the case that the report is a sham just like everything else. So I don’t think your point of view is correct.

        Maybe I am missing something though. Do you have legal training that you are relying on when you arrive at your opinion?

        • LT

          No, I have no legal background, but some people on this forum having legal backgound and/or knowledge have stated that the contract is binding.
          I myself have been following some legal contract cases in the USA in the past where the contract was disputed and in those cases the contents of the contract prevailed.
          That IH is not acting as if the EVR is binding is in my opinion based on the fact that they have no proper legal defense and just are trying to bring up some points in the hope that the judge will make mistakes.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Bruce,

      The waste heat from the reactor and the customer’s processes can be discharged like this. Bottom drawing is a side view.
      .

      • Bruce__H

        I agree, but then this should be easily measurable. From what Jed has said I think that IH tried to quantify the heat escaping from the building at a time when the Ecat devices were supposed to be producing 1 MW. Likewise, I think that they probably kept track of things going into and out of the customer’s facility. I had hoped that these data would be presented in the Answer to the suit but I don’t see it.

        Such measurements should be decisive for many people. What about you? If heat imaging or thermometric observations show that significantly less than 1 MW of heat is being transported through the roof would that change your view of what is happening here?

  • Teemu Soilamo

    I agree that IH probably thought it was Johnson Matthey, but the dispute I was having with Engineer48 was over whether these 2 documents specifically suggest that. :p

    There’s still a chance that the ‘James A. Bass’ as representative of JMP was not the same James Bass that works for Matthey. Who knows?

  • sam

    This is a problem with cut and paste.When you are not the writer can not answer.
    Maybe someone else knows
    what the writer means.

  • Satyavan

    http://matthey.academia.edu/Departments/Johnson_Matthew_Technology_Centre.
    Both could be companies name and or Matthew is a department name. Behind it real persons. One person on behalf of the company can setup a shell company for the test purposes and to me that is OK. I think the issue of fake customer this way is gone.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Rossi says his relationship with Hydrofusion not affected by the publication of the correspondence with IH in regard to the 2012 test in Sweden:

    Andrea Rossi
    August 8, 2016 at 8:10 AM
    Eb:
    Never been better than now. We are a Team and a united family, working together to make in Sweden our European pole. We had this morning an important meeting on Skype focused on that: we also talked of the countercomplaints of IH for a minute, but did not have much time for it, leaving space to the important things we are doing.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Teemu,

      Ask yourself why IH put that HF email corro into their countersuit? I has NOTHING to do with the actions between IH and Rossi.

      Did they seek to try to damage Rossi in the eyes of potential and current partners?

      Did they include the wider frame of reference or just cherry pick an out of context example designed to inflict max damage to Rossi?

      • Teemu Soilamo

        Yes, obviously it was intended to defame Rossi’s character. And Rossi, it turns out, is not always a very nice guy.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Teemu,

          We really have no idea what was happening in the HF relationship.

          I know from my own dealing to buy several plants from Rossi that he can be a little frustrating at times (mainly because I wish he could deliver quicker) but he has never lied to me.

          I have orders in the pipeline for:

          2 x low temp 1MW ECats for own heat clients,

          6 x 50kW QuarkK reactors for my Remote Area system,
          http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/22/remote-area-disaster-relief-acdc-power-heated-air-warm-water-and-clean-water-e-cat-quarkx-system-concept-engineer48/

          5 x domestic 10kW home units for me

          10 x 1MW ECats for my power plant clients.
          .

          • BillH

            I think when you talk about domestic 10KW units you’d better get to the end of the queue, or more than a few people are going to be upset with Mr Rossi.

          • Engineer48

            Hi BillH,

            I ordered my 5 x 10kW units the day they went on offer.

            Still have the email.

          • BillH

            Post it please, time stamped of course, we’d all like to know where we are in the queue.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Rossi purposely engineered the circumstances to forge a failed demonstration of his technology and reveled in the ‘masterpiece’ plan that allowed him to escape the agreement through a loophole. Call it what you want.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            Unless you can prove that allegation, I suggest you retract it or just maybe be accused of slander.

            ECW is not the place to make wild claims that you can’t prove.
            .

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I’m just going by the e-mails that IH provided (EXHIBIT 12 and 13).

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu, who wrote:
            “Rossi purposely engineered the circumstances of a failed demonstration of his technology and reveled in the ‘masterpiece’ plan that allowed him to escape the agreement through a loophole. Call it what you want.”

            Your statement is just your opinion and nothing more but you state it as if it was fact, which it is not. What it is, is slander.

            As I stated before we have no idea as to the relationship with HF at that time, so no one outside that circle should make comment, especially from what may be IH cherry picked emails that may only show what they may wish to show.

            What we do know is HF and Rossi are building a factory together in Sweden. It is also highly probable that it was HF who steered JM into the Doral test.

          • I don’t know, E48, seems like fact if one assumes that the emails in the exhibits are genuine.

            They show Rossi to be very calculating, unethical and self-serving when it comes to business relationships.

            I don’t know that I am even mildly surprised by this.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            What we know is HF are still there, so just maybe the email was Rossi the salesman trying to close a deal with IH, which I expect that was all it was.

            In 40 years of business, have seen a lot worst close pitches, which after a few start to educate the gut as to that is real and what is salesman BS.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Why are you making assumptions based on pure conjecture? We know from Mats Lewan’s book that the failed demonstration actually happened, and here we have a perfectly good explanation based on material evidence. Could there be more to it than we currently now? Sure, but you’re going out of your way to INVENT scenarios to defend Rossi. Why are you so irrationally and emotionally invested in a positive outcome?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            I invent nothing but real technology for my business.

            We are done with our discussions.

            Must say you are the 1st forum member I have blocked.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Good riddance, wouldn’t wanna marry ya.

          • Ged

            Unless you want to make a new The Odd Couple” sitcom. Could be pretty lucrative!

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Have you actually READ the exhibits?

            Here, let me give you some quotes:

            “Dear Tom, mission accomplished. With this company Hydrofusion we had agreed upon a draft to sell them IP, know how and manufacturing license for Europe but Germany, France and Italy. By our law, if you send a proposal you are engaged to accept if the proposee accepts all the conditions of the proposal. After receiving your last text at the end of August I decided to go ahead with you, THEREFORE I HAD TO GET RID OF THIS ENGAGEMENT.”

            “The only way out was to invite them to a test, ask them to bring
            with them their consultant. I MADE THE TEST ABORT, maintaining the temperatures below the starting limit. THEN I MADE UP SOME DISCUSSIONS, I SAID THEY MADE A WRONG TEST, they escaped, I am free.”

            “NOW I AM PUBLISHING THAT I AM SURPRISED OF ALL OF THIS ADO FOR NOTHING, since I already said that for the Hot Cat we needed more tests before saying it is a product ready for the market.
            At this point we can organize with Cherokee a world strategy…”

            “I got rid of the European big clicense I had to sign. I MADE A MASTERPIECE MAKING THEM GO VOLUNTARILY.. .I will explain personally. “

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            I will say this to you again.

            You have no idea what was really happening with HF nor if that email was just a bit of sales bluff and what Rossi describes to IH really happened.

            You are reading way too much into one side of a sales pitch corro and forming negative assumption based on nothing of substance.

            I have been in business a long time and have had much worse sales pitches made to me to me, which as it turned out was just made up salesman BS to try to sweeten and close a deal.

            Happens all the time in business. That is why my gut is such a good BS detector.

            However your statement about Rossi is pure slander and I suggest you remove it unless you think you can defend it in a court of law.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            How cute.

            Let’s get real, though: this blog is meant to be a place for speculation. We are now forced to consider two options: either Rossi or IH have engaged in fraudulent activity. I’m not taking sides, just shooting ideas around – while you, clearly, are part of the “Rossi defense force”. Why? Is it because, unlike me, you have vested interest in the outcome and HOPE your business plans will come to fruition?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            Unlike you, I have had my interests known almost from day one. That is the way I work. I don’t play games nor make statements I can’t back up. I also offer kindly advise when I see someone going off the deep end.

            I have done extensive investigation of all the available photos and descriptions of the 1MW reactors and as an engineer what I see there is what I would expect to see there, knowing the end product and how it is controlled.

            Your mileage may vary as I have no idea of your age, business and engineering experience.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I don’t judge people’s arguments by the credentials of said people, I suggest you do the same.

            If you’re so good at determining who’s lying in this dispute, perhaps you should offer your expert services to the Silver Law Group.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            I’m very good at a wide range of engineering and know when I read BS as in item 5.

            I also have enough coal face business / contract law experience to know that there is no way IH did not contact JM and execute their due diligence, re Rossi’s claims as any decent company would do to protect themselves and their investors with a VERY important test.

            When I read their claims as in item 5 and their claims about Rossi’s claim about JM, well that is more than enough to cause my BS detector to hit the upper limit.
            .

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I believe you to be a far better judge of such technical details than me, so I am not going to challenge you on that.

            However, even if the claim is false, that does not automatically imply a “IH are frauds” scenario. There are so many inexplicable decisions and claims made by both sides that defy logic that I don’t think we’re going to find out the truth before we get the full picture.

          • BillH

            How do we know that? It’s equally conjecture, it’s a “Rossi says” unless you can show a contract, a building, a picture, a location? anything concrete in fact.

          • Engineer48

            Hi BillH,

            How about the HF web site?

            http://hydrofusion.com/

            Why not contact them to ask your questions?

    • Ged

      Seems from all accounts it appears like Hydrofusion doesn’t care about that 2012 thing, or more is going on than IH is presenting (such as did they ask Rossi to try to get out of his dealings with Hydrofusion?).

      Would love to hear from them again and their view on things.

      • GiveADogABone

        How come the flow rate doesn’t alter when the heat production changes?
        It does alter. If a reactor slab(1 of 4) comes off line that reactor’s feed flow drops to zero so the total feed flow drops by 25%.

        Isn’t the only way that water can get from the power plant outlet to the customer (and then back to the power plant) as steam?
        No. To the customer as steam and returned as condensate water.

        And if 36 m^3 per day is the flow doesn’t that mean that a corresponding amount of steam has to be created?
        Yes. The plant is a closed loop.

        And if a corresponding amount of steam is to be created doesn’t that require 1 MW of heat being produced all day every day?
        Yes. 36m^3/day of condensate water is equivalent to full power of 1MW.

        I think that on days when heat is being produced at a rate of less than 1 MW there should be a correspondingly smaller flow rate.
        Drop the power to 750kw and condensate production will be 27m^3/day.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Rossi says his relationship with Hydrofusion not affected by the publication of the correspondence with IH in regard to the 2012 test in Sweden:

    Andrea Rossi
    August 8, 2016 at 8:10 AM
    Eb:
    Never been better than now. We are a Team and a united family, working together to make in Sweden our European pole. We had this morning an important meeting on Skype focused on that: we also talked of the countercomplaints of IH for a minute, but did not have much time for it, leaving space to the important things we are doing.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Teemu,

      Ask yourself why IH put that HF email corro into their countersuit? I has NOTHING to do with the actions between IH and Rossi.

      Did they seek to try to damage Rossi in the eyes of potential and current partners?

      Did they include the wider frame of reference or just cherry pick an out of context example designed to inflict max damage to Rossi?

      • Teemu Soilamo

        Yes, obviously it was intended to defame Rossi’s character. And Rossi, it turns out, is not always a very nice guy.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Teemu,

          We really have no idea what was happening in the HF relationship at that time, so we can’t be a judge.

          I know from my own dealing to buy several plants from Rossi that he can be a little frustrating at times (mainly because I wish he could deliver quicker) but he has never lied to me.

          I have pending orders in the pipeline for:

          2 x low temp 1MW ECats for own heat clients,

          6 x 50kW QuarkK reactors for my Remote Area system,
          http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/22/remote-area-disaster-relief-acdc-power-heated-air-warm-water-and-clean-water-e-cat-quarkx-system-concept-engineer48/

          5 x domestic 10kW home units for me

          10 x low temp 1MW ECats for my power plant clients.
          .

          • BillH

            I think when you talk about domestic 10KW units you’d better get to the end of the queue, or more than a few people are going to be upset with Mr Rossi.

          • Engineer48

            Hi BillH,

            I ordered my 5 x 10kW units the day they went on offer.

            Still have the email.

          • Mike

            Where are they supposed to be used, in which country? I wonder about the certification.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mike,

            I expect to get my 2 x 1MW plants 1st, then the 10 x 1MW plants, then the 5 x 50kW QuarkX reactors then finally the 5 x domestic 10kW reactors.
            .

          • BillH

            Post it please, time stamped of course, we’d all like to know where we are in the queue.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Why don’t people ask IH to post the email they put out there and time stamp it? After all they are making some serious accusations with nothing to back it up.

          • BillH

            Nice try at misdirection, but these two things are totally unrelated. E48 is claiming he is ahead of everyone else in the queue, I’m asking him to prove it.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bill,

            When did I say I was at the head of the queue?

            I did place an order when the offer was made, as I suspect a lot of others did. Have no idea where my order is placed in the queue.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Rossi purposely engineered the circumstances of a failed demonstration of his technology and reveled in the ‘masterpiece’ plan that allowed him to escape the agreement via a loophole. Call it what you want.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            Unless you can prove that allegation, I suggest you retract it or just maybe be accused of slander.

            ECW is not the place to make wild claims that you can’t prove.
            .

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I’m just going by the e-mails that IH provided (EXHIBIT 12 and 13).

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu, who wrote:
            “Rossi purposely engineered the circumstances of a failed demonstration of his technology and reveled in the ‘masterpiece’ plan that allowed him to escape the agreement through a loophole. Call it what you want.”

            Your statement is just your opinion and nothing more but you state it as if it was fact, which it is not. What it is, is slander.

            As I stated before we have no idea as to the relationship with HF at that time, so no one outside that circle should make comment, especially from what may be IH cherry picked emails that may only show what they may wish to show.

            What we do know is HF and Rossi are building a factory together in Sweden. It is also highly probable that it was HF who steered JM into the Doral test.

          • I don’t know, E48, seems like fact if one assumes that the emails in the exhibits are genuine.

            They show Rossi to be very calculating, unethical and self-serving when it comes to business relationships.

            I don’t know that I am even mildly surprised by this.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            What we know is HF are still there, so just maybe the email was Rossi the salesman trying to close a deal with IH, which I expect that was all it was.

            In 40 years of business, have seen a lot worst close pitches, which after a few start to educate the gut as to that is real and what is salesman BS.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Why are you making assumptions based on pure conjecture? We know from Mats Lewan’s book that the failed demonstration actually happened, and here we have a perfectly good explanation based on material evidence. Could there be more to it than we currently now? Sure, but you’re going out of your way to INVENT scenarios to defend Rossi. Why are you so irrationally and emotionally invested in a positive outcome?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            I invent nothing but real technology for my business.

            We are done with our discussions.

            Must say you are the 1st forum member I have blocked.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Good riddance, wouldn’t wanna marry ya.

          • Ged

            Unless you want to make a new “The Odd Couple” sitcom. Could be pretty lucrative!

          • Michael W Wolf

            Pure conjecture and speculation is fine T, slander is not. If you don’t see the difference in what IH is saying and what you are asserting, Than you are just here to harass people, that makes you a troll.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Have you actually READ the exhibits?

            Here, let me give you some quotes:

            “Dear Tom, mission accomplished. With this company Hydrofusion we had agreed upon a draft to sell them IP, know how and manufacturing license for Europe but Germany, France and Italy. By our law, if you send a proposal you are engaged to accept if the proposee accepts all the conditions of the proposal. After receiving your last text at the end of August I decided to go ahead with you, THEREFORE I HAD TO GET RID OF THIS ENGAGEMENT.”

            “The only way out was to invite them to a test, ask them to bring
            with them their consultant. I MADE THE TEST ABORT, maintaining the temperatures below the starting limit. THEN I MADE UP SOME DISCUSSIONS, I SAID THEY MADE A WRONG TEST, they escaped, I am free.”

            “NOW I AM PUBLISHING THAT I AM SURPRISED OF ALL OF THIS ADO FOR NOTHING, since I already said that for the Hot Cat we needed more tests before saying it is a product ready for the market. At this point we can organize with Cherokee a world strategy…”

            “I got rid of the European big clicense I had to sign. I MADE A MASTERPIECE MAKING THEM GO VOLUNTARILY.. .I will explain personally. “

          • MikeP

            Rather curious wording … including background that would be already known to the recipient … it looks more like something written for court evidence … which would contradict its purpose as a real e-mail … in short, I’m skeptical …

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            I will say this to you again.

            You have no idea what was really happening with HF nor if that email was just a bit of sales bluff and what Rossi describes to IH really happened.

            You are reading way too much into one side of a sales pitch corro and forming negative assumption based on nothing of substance.

            I have been in business a long time and have had much worse sales pitches made to me to me, which as it turned out was just made up salesman BS to try to sweeten and close a deal.

            Happens all the time in business. That is why my gut is such a good BS detector.

            However your statement about Rossi is pure slander and I suggest you remove it unless you think you can defend it in a court of law.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            How cute.

            Let’s get real, though- this blog is meant to be a place for speculation. We are now forced to consider two options: either Rossi or IH have engaged in fraudulent activity. I’m not taking sides, just shooting ideas around – while you are clearly part of the ‘Rossi defense force’. Why? Is it because you have a vested interest in the outcome and HOPE that your business plans will come to fruition?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            Unlike you, I have had my interests known almost from day one. That is the way I work. I don’t play games nor make statements I can’t back up. I also offer kindly advise when I see someone going off the deep end.

            I have done extensive investigation of all the available photos and descriptions of the 1MW reactors and as an engineer what I see there is what I would expect to see there, knowing the end product and how it is controlled.

            Your mileage may vary as I have no idea of your age, business and engineering experience.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I don’t judge people’s arguments by the credentials of said people, I suggest you do the same.

            If you’re so good at determining who’s lying in this dispute, perhaps you should offer your expert services to the Silver Law Group.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Teemu,

            I’m very good at a wide range of engineering and know when I read BS as in item 5.

            I also have enough coal face business / contract law experience to know that there is no way IH did not contact JM and execute their due diligence, re Rossi’s claims as any decent company would do to protect themselves and their investors with a VERY important test.

            When I read their claims as in item 5 and their claims about Rossi’s claim about JM, well that is more than enough to cause my BS detector to hit the upper limit.
            .

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I believe you to be a far better judge of such technical details than me, so I am not going to challenge you on that.

            However, even if the claim is false, that does not automatically imply a “IH are frauds” scenario. There are so many inexplicable decisions and claims made by both sides that defy logic that I don’t think we’re going to find out the truth before we get the full picture.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yes, and in the meantime all we can do is say what we think, For you to state IH claims as fact is a crime and you can be sued for it. Ask the guys at wikipedia, they are being sued by Randell Mills for the same crap your pulling. I side with Rossi, I think IH is less than sincere. I don’t know it, but I assume it. Like you can assume Rossi is a fraud, but it is less than honorable to say that he is.

          • Chapman

            But you must also be realistic, and intellectually honest, and admit that IF the Customer is in fact real, and everything Rossi presented them to be, then ALL of IH’s fraud claims are out the window, and prove to be the product of paranoia. AND you must admit that, regardless of the fraud claims, ALL of IH’s technical arguments are utterly baseless, and a bunch of nonsense. AND you have to admit that their claims regarding Rossi breaching confidentiality are just a bunch of nonsense put in to pad the counterclaim! The only valid claim they made was regarding fraud, and that is entirely dependant on the Customer’s identity and production process at the warehouse.

            If the Customer is fake, then I agree with you 100% that Rossi is a FRAUD, and the entire contract is set aside. That is not wishful thinking – it is the LAW.

            On the other hand, YOU must be equally honest, and admit that if the Customer is REAL, then everything IH is saying is a sick fantasy from a delusional mind, or an attempted character assassination put forth for criminal purposes.

            But you have to commit yourself to accepting, and supporting, the TRUTH, whichever one it proves to be.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Hearsay, for all we know, IH made that up. You can believe someone T, but if that someone accuses someone of something without proof to back it up, it is hearsay if you yourself claim it, it may well be libelous.

          • BillH

            How do we know that? It’s equally conjecture, it’s a “Rossi says” unless you can show a contract, a building, a picture, a location? anything concrete in fact.

          • Engineer48

            Hi BillH,

            How about the HF web site?

            http://hydrofusion.com/

            Why not contact them to ask your questions?

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yea, but it isn’t libeling anyone. You see, Rossi says is ok to believe, unless Rossi is accusing someone of something, then we have to put it down as hearsay.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Hi T. yea, but you should say “according to IH”, or else you look like just another Rossi hater trying to hurt him. Not that you care, but you should be fair.

      • frank

        I wonder – based on what information is available now on this IH / Rossi saga – how any seriuos investor can trust now and in future in what “Rossi says”….think there is too much damage already.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Frank,

          You mean how could any investor trust IH with their money?
          .

          • frank

            No, I doubt, that any serious investor, business man or a company will ever consider again to work or cooperate with Dr. Rossi. He is done.

          • frank

            I mean Rossi is done. No seriuos business man, company or investor will ever start negotiate on something with this “inventor” – as long as he doesn’t come up with a product or a valid and verified public test.

        • Michael W Wolf

          Rossi has a customer. That will be enough. And if Rossi is vindicated, all hell will break loose. All over the media it will be. But if Rossi loses, shoulders will be shrugged and an I told you so will fade away. I don’t think this will hurt cold fusion. It will be like taking a dogs fourth leg off.

    • Ged

      Seems from all accounts it appears like Hydrofusion doesn’t care about that 2012 thing, or more is going on than IH is presenting (such as did they ask Rossi to try to get out of his dealings with Hydrofusion?).

      Would love to hear from them again and their view on things.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Well, several things that IH has done indicate gross incompetence or WORSE. Like, for example, taking Woodford’s money for misrepresenting what they knew to be a scam that they agreed to go ahead and play pretend regardless.

  • Chapman

    I never want to face YOU in court!

    That was some FINE logic right there folks – FINE Logic. And so well explained that even us landscapers and dog-walkers have no problem following the technical details of the conditions described.

    I am glad that YOU and ENGINEER are on the side I am sympathetic to, because the two of you together cut through the technical BS-Speak and get right to the facts.

    I challenge anyone to review such conversations and ponder over the fact that when G-Bone and Engineer address the technical facts you come away saying, “Oh, so THAT’S how that works!” and you move on with greater understanding – while the nonsense and doublespeak of the “Tres-Amigos-Diablos” leaves you saying, “What? But how? I don’t get it…”. I contend that it is not an accident that their “clarifying” leaves you with more questions than you started with.

    One group explains – the other confounds.
    Confusion is not an accident.

    • GiveADogABone

      Not quite as dramatic as it could be but the hi-res photo is too big. It’s the water lines along the bottom of the pipe where residue liquid stayed. If the water stays there long-term, the air+water start corrosion and you get the water level iron stain.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Of course, a fourth scenario would be that Rossi told a white lie to the JONP in order to protect Johnson Matthey, who does not want to be implicated at this time. After all, we now know it is not unlike him to ‘adjust’ the truth when it so fits him.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Teemu,

      5th option is there is a UK parent shell company to further isolate JM.

      Alan Smith on Lend-Forum did some digging into UK company registrations and believes he knows the identity of the UK parent, which as would be expected is a shell company.

      Which means Rossi has not lied to JONP as JM is NOT the UK parent of JMP.

      Of course then you ask who owns the UK shell?
      .

      • Teemu Soilamo

        Rossi did not say “Johson Matthey isn’t the parent of JMP”, he said “Johnson Matthey is not the customer” – which would be technically correct, even if Johnson Matthey WERE the parent. How convenient.

  • Billy Jackson

    If i was basing my decision making off “just” Rossi then I would answer in the manner you describe.

    since the original post was based on evidence gathered since 2011. I find it hard to believe that the poster in question has truthfully weighed all the evidence from the different factors we have discussed over these past few years, and could logically come to his conclusion.

  • Could any of our resident chemists comment on what “advanced derivatives of platinum sponges” might mean and the processes involved?

    Can you identify some process that requires a steady source of ~100 deg heat?

    • wpj

      As I have mentioned before, preparation of the Ni (rather than Pt) sponges requires heating a mixture of 50% caustic solution and Ni/Al alloy to leach out the aluminium and leave the Ni sponge. Depending on the type of sponge (fine powder or honeycomb chunks) the mixture requires heating to 90C and maintaining for many hours. Some of the “multiple boil” processes will require repeating this procedure.

      Additionally, from what is known, the heat is also used to boil down the aluminate residue solution to make disposal easier.

      To be honest, Pt sponge is some rubbish that was put on the letterhead (and subsequently removed) along with the spell check auto correct mistake. Pt CANNOT be handled in an environment such as this as is is an incredible sensitiser (learned all this from a JM person that worked with me).

      Additionally, JM controls most of the Pt market and the production costs are not sensitive to energy input; in contrast the Ni based catalysts are. During my efforts to find JB, my contact told me that there is little sponge metal work done by JM in the UK due to energy costs. If true, this could change the economics for JM with regards to this product

      • GiveADogABone

        The E-cat runs steady-state at 1MW producing slightly superheated steam at close to 1.2barA and 105C. The load must be ultra-reliable 350/24/7. The ideal load to achieve this is an evaporator working at atmospheric pressure that will swallow everything it is given.

        The requirement for an intermittent? supply of steam to heat the process to 90C could be made by diverting steam away from the evap. Could the heating to 90C in the process be continuous over long periods of time?

        • wpj

          Clearly, there would be an initial load to get the mixture up to 90C; the process can be quite exothermic, which would help. I don’t think that they would have been making the very fine catalyst on the plant (which would be most exothermic) due to the hazardous nature as the catalyst absorbs/occludes (one for Bob, there) hydrogen when it is being made and can easily go up in flames.

          Given that there are probably dealing with chunks of alloy which would be used in higher temperature flow processes, then there would be only a small exotherm and the process would have to be heated to, and maintained at 90C for the period of the process which can be many hours. With these “chunks” the process is called “multiple boil” and may have to be repeated several times until the aluminium is fully leached out. Maintaining 90C will not consume too much energy if the equipment is well lagged so the major draw would be to get it up to temperature.

          The leachate from the reaction needs to be reduced in volume for disposal purposes and it is most likely that this is where the bulk of the 24/7 energy would be going. Removal of water, even on a small scale under vacuum can be a time consuming process.

          Rossi has stated that the return flow was not a constant temperature so there were clearly different periods of energy draw which is why the heating to 100C was ignored in the calculation.

          I would suggest that the mentioned modifications in the new plant would be for the use of Dowex rather than water/steam and higher temperature operation. Plants usually run with 3 temperatures of Dowex (-20, 50, 180) and computer controls these to achieve the desired reactor temperature. Certainly, when a plant that I worked at switched from steam to Dowex the savings in energy were over 50% (cleaner as well).

          • That may be a reason for yelling at Rossi and/or Penon. It does not impugn the analysis, which is all that I really care about.

            I’m not nominating them for engineering team of the year.

          • Ged

            On the other hand, it actually provides us a very useful minimum. That is, if the COP is claimed to be 1 at the only power input we have data on, the meter would not have turned at all (way below starting flow). So, we have a very handy lower bound for how much electrical power must go in for this flow meter to actually spin at all and COP be 1. Now we just need the utility data. And verification the meter is the model it is assumed to be in the analyses here.

          • It’s all starting to feel like an exercise to make us prove that the plant worked.

            But I just can’t go there yet. Even though we definitely have a conspiracy going on here, I have a lot of trouble believing it’s that conspiracy.

          • Ged

            It is the responsibility of those bringing allegations to -prove their allegations-; so far the IH answer provides little to know proof of anything concerning the plant, when it would have been so easy. It is deeply disappointing, and just not convincing as yet presented. All we have are the “Begs the Question”s in Exhibit 5 (assumptions with no proof, no author, no date, no original copy), which are contradicted by the invoices elsewhere anyways.

            Just weird stuff; IH will have to provide more if they want to prove their case, and hopefully this is not the best they have got. Same goes for Rossi’s allegations against IH for which we still await more data.

            Discovery could not come soon enough for us.

          • Perhaps Rossi’s pending response will give us more nuggets to analyze.

          • Ged

            I should only hope so!

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Raney nickel.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raney_nickel
        Using the E-Cat to make fuel for the E-Cat. Force multiplication.

    • Slad

      This chap has an idea:

      http://disq.us/p/1aql78a

      • wpj

        Hmmmm lots of hexane (not allowed in production due to toxicity) in a confined space. Think not!

        • Slad
          • Flow meter observations.

            Flow meter basics:
            * Flow meters register no flow at all until the flow reaches the starting flow value (friction wins).
            * Flow meters under-register flow until the flow reaches the minimal flow value, at which point they are guaranteed to be accurate to within 5% (friction is a significant factor below the minimal flow).
            Flow meter guide (pages 15-18 for error curve discussions):
            http://www.wrc.org.za/Knowledge%20Hub%20Documents/Research%20Reports/TT%20490-11.pdf

            Specs for Apator PoWoGaz MWN130-80-NC:
            * Starting flow is 0.35 cubic meters per hour
            * Minimal flow is 1.575 cubic meters per hour (1.6 is shown on the label)
            * The typical error chart as a function of flow is provided in the specs. It shows the absolute value of the error never greater than 3%, even at the starting flow.
            http://www.apator.com/uploads/files/Produkty/Wodomierze/MWN_MWN_130_MWN-G/en-00045-2011-mwn.pdf

            Minimal flow rate by the specs in kg/d
            Taking the more conservative 1.6 cubic meters per hour from the label and using 60 deg C water, the minimal flow rate in kilograms per day would be 37,755 kg/d.

            1 MW Test:
            * Flow was reported as 36,000 kilograms per day, which is equivalent to 1.5256 cubic meters per hour for water at 60 deg C. The temperature of the water matters because the density of water changes with it. A temperature of 90 deg C for comparison would yield a flow of around 1.554 cubic meters per hour (for lower density, a greater volume of water has to move through the meter to get to the same reported mass flow).

            Deductions
            * The 36,000 kilograms per day in the test was just under the minimal flow rate of the flow meter.
            — This reported flow must be less than the actual flow since it is in the region between the starting flow and the minimal flow and friction is still interfering in a significant way. By how much exactly is unknown; the spec chart would indicate by no more than 3%, but since it is under the minimal flow even > 5% under-registration is possible.
            — But from the specs we know that flow at 37,755 kg/d would be registered accurately (to within 5%).
            — And a 5% under-registration error on 36,000 kg/d means the actual flow would be 37,800 kg/day. That brings the flow into the certified region where the error must be less than 5% (spec says more like 2%). So the error is bounded; at the minimal flow with a maximum permissible under-registration of 5% the flow would register as under 36,000 kg/d.

            The flow meter reported 36,000 kg/d and by the nature of flow meters in general and this flow meter in particular, that number must be LOWER than the actual flow, but by no more tha