Rossi vs. IH et al: Rossi’s Team Publishes ‘Daily Valuation of Energy Multiple’ for 1-Year E-Cat Plant Test, Claiming COP Range of 63-139; Also Utility Use History

Thanks to Peter Gluck on Ego Out for pointing out the following:

Andrea Rossi’s legal team has published a response to the Industrial Heat et al’s recently submitted Fourth Amended Answer in response to Rossi’s initial complaints in the case. The document itself is a motion to have the court deny leave for IH’s submission, and is full of legal arguments about why the judge should deny IH the right to submit another amended answer. The document can be read here.

Much more interesting to me than the legal arguments (which are for me quite difficult to follow, as usual), is the submission of a new Exhibit which is titled: Final Report, Annexe 2: Daily Valuation of the Energy Multiple, which gives a daily accounting of the amount of energy used and produced by the E-Cat plant, along with information about temperature, steam pressure and water flow. The final column gives a daily accounting of the COP, which according to the document was consistently above 63, and up to 139.

It’s not clear from this document who the author is — possibly it is Fabio Fulviani, Andrea Rossi, or Fabio Penon. But it does give a clear picture about what Rossi’s claims are in the case, however without any supporting evidence.

A link to the report can be found here: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/128-01-Exhibit-1.pdf

UPDATE:

There is an Exhibit 2 connected with Rossi’s filing above, which is titled ‘Billing History’. It shows the monthly amount of electricity used, and the monthly electricity charge used by JM Chemical Products Inc at the address 7861 NW 46th Street, Doral, Florida, from October 2014-June 2016.

You can see the document here: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/128-02-Exhibit-2.pdf

 

  • Bob Greenyer

    Interesting – if only all parties had access to live data.

    • Gerald

      T-min and T-max? what can you do with this data. Found a great drops in avarage power suply. Around 27 july day 152 ar drop for a longer period, also waterflow dropped. Some days before that the t-max watertank temperture was 10 degrees higher. 10 oktober day 218 it suddely used again more power and again the water did flow more. It’s more like gambling without more raw data.

      • Dr. Mike

        Gerald,
        I haven’t had time to study the data carefully, but at a glance it looks like to me that on some days all 4 250KW reactors were working and for some periods of time there were only 3 of the 4 reactors working.
        Dr. Mike

        • Omega Z

          There were many occasions when Rossi said the had individual 250KW units off line.

        • Gerald

          Yes, I did think of it myself. Now without looking at the data.. Running a singel reactor extra means more power use (core pumps/electronica etc). Not that weird.

        • wpj

          From the invoicing for the energy, there were some periods when charges were only being made for 3/4 of the heat (750KW).

  • Bob Greenyer

    Interesting – if only all parties had access to live data.

    • Gerald

      T-min and T-max? what can you do with this data. Found a great drops in avarage power suply. Around 27 july day 152 ar drop for a longer period, also waterflow dropped. Some days before that the t-max watertank temperture was 10 degrees higher. 10 oktober day 218 it suddely used again more power and again the water did flow more. It’s more like gambling without more raw data.

      • Dr. Mike

        Gerald,
        I haven’t had time to study the data carefully, but at a glance it looks like to me that on some days all 4 250KW reactors were working and for some periods of time there were only 3 of the 4 reactors working.
        Dr. Mike

        • Omega Z

          There were many occasions when Rossi said the had individual 250KW units off line.

        • Gerald

          Yes, I did think of it myself. Now without looking at the data.. Running a singel reactor extra means more power use (core pumps/electronica etc). Not that weird.

        • wpj

          From the invoicing for the energy, there were some periods when charges were only being made for 3/4 of the heat (750KW).

  • Finally some data to chew on!

    Question for the crowd. Is it possible and reasonable to change the values in only one column to bring the results down to under unity?

    • SD

      Probably changing pressure or temperature would bring you close to unity if it turns out that water wasn’t vaporized.

      • Omega Z

        It looks like the water was always vaporized. Temps between 103`C and 105`C. Actually I believe the conversion energy(cracking the 100`C barrier) was what was primarily taken into account.

  • Finally some data to chew on!

    Question for the crowd. Is it possible and reasonable to change the values in only one column to bring the results down to under unity?

    • SD

      Probably changing pressure or temperature would bring you close to unity if it turns out that water wasn’t vaporized.

      • Omega Z

        It looks like the water was always vaporized. Temps between 103`C and 105`C. Actually I believe the conversion energy(cracking the 100`C barrier) was what was primarily taken into account.

  • Bob

    Well a brief glance does show this…
    .
    The 1MW plant is reported to have consumed ~10kW. The total Doral site consumed ~15kW according to the electric bill. That leaves ~5kW of electrical power for all other processes.
    .
    These processes would include lights, air conditioning, exhaust fans, computers,
    AND….. the real production that JMP performed in using the 1MW of heat!. Really! So much for the Platinum Sponge Derivatives!
    .
    So we know that the employment taxes showed JMP had one part time employee.
    We know that Rossi faked an invoice to cover a JMP $800 bill, so JMP had no money.
    We know that JMP did not have a UK parent company.
    (All the above from court documents provided by Rossi and absolutely contradicting what Rossi posted several times over the test period.)
    .
    Therefore it is with almost, absolute certainty, that there was no production using 1MW of heat.
    (I am not saying 1MW of heat was even produced)
    .
    There is some numbers that people can play with and come up with “theoretical” possibilities.
    I can say if I travel fast enough, I can time travel too, that does not make it real.
    .
    When looking at the total evidence being revealed, the Doral test was a sham. What a waste of time the past year has been! And now on to the QuarkX! 🙁
    .
    (I am still waiting on word of the (3) plants sold to the satisfied customer!)

  • Bob

    Well a brief glance does show this…
    .
    The 1MW plant is reported to have consumed ~10kW. The total Doral site consumed ~15kW according to the electric bill. That leaves ~5kW of electrical power for all other processes.
    .
    These processes would include lights, air conditioning, exhaust fans, computers,
    AND….. the real production that JMP performed in using the 1MW of heat!. Really! So much for the Platinum Sponge Derivatives!
    .
    So we know that the employment taxes showed JMP had one part time employee.
    We know that Rossi faked an invoice to cover a JMP $800 bill, so JMP had no money.
    We know that JMP did not have a UK parent company.
    (All the above from court documents provided by Rossi and absolutely contradicting what Rossi posted several times over the test period.)
    .
    Therefore it is with almost, absolute certainty, that there was no production using 1MW of heat.
    (I am not saying 1MW of heat was even produced)
    .
    There is some numbers that people can play with and come up with “theoretical” possibilities.
    I can say if I travel fast enough, I can time travel too, that does not make it real.
    .
    When looking at the total evidence being revealed, the Doral test was a sham. What a waste of time the past year has been! And now on to the QuarkX! 🙁
    .
    (I am still waiting on word of the (3) plants sold to the satisfied customer!)

  • Leonard Weinstein

    If the numbers are correct, and if you assume no steam was generated, then just heating the water (32,400 kg/d) from 68C to ~100C would require ~55 kW. If supplied power is ~10.5 kW, you still get a COP >5.2 just for the water. If even very wet steam is generated, the COP has to be >50. The details on the steam and source of cooling need to be examined, but there is clearly major LENR action. I do not understand the steam pressure of 0 bar reading. If that is gage rather than absolute pressure (as it has to be), then either the system is vented to atmosphere, or the gage is very low resolution.

    • Dr. Mike

      I also don’t understand the “0” bar pressure reading. Why have a measurement that is “0” day after day? Seems meaningless.

      • Nigel Appleton

        The pressure gauge specifications show that it measures Absolute, not Gauge, pressure. Therefore, for it to report a pressure of 0.0 bar, the space it was measuring would have to be under some degree of vacuum (dependent on the resolution of the sensor)

      • SD

        I believe the pressure transducer might not have been working and outputting 0V.

    • Obvious

      The steam pressure sensor specified by Penon in the Test Plan is for Absolute pressure.
      Omega part # PX 309-100A5V

      What was actually used could be different from the specifications, but why then the specific part #?

      Either way, 0 bar is still strange.

    • Omega Z

      I believe the exit pipe was about 10 inches in diameter so unless you had a very sensitive pressure gauge, it wouldn’t show anything measurable. The pressure would probably be around 0.1 above Standard atmospheric pressure of 1 bar. Rossi had actually said as much at one time.

      • Obvious

        A lot of that apparent diameter is insulation.
        How much insulation is a valid source of conjecture.

        • Stephen

          Hi Obvious and Omega first my apologies for some probably very naive question from a non expert…. but

          What would happen to steam in a pipe that is later condensed and drained under gravity?
          Would the steam be drawn towards the condenser?
          Or would an aspirator pump or some similar device be required to draw the steam through the pipe?
          Could such a system be sufficient to draw the steam flow we talk about here?
          Or would a more powerful pump be required?

          Obviously it would not be pumped under high pressure as then it would condense which would disrupt the advantage of transporting/piping dry steam. So it seams much more likely the steam is drawn somehow at the condensor end.

          Thanks if you can comment and appologies on my side for any big bloopers.

          • Obvious

            Totally ignoring any COP discussion, lets say there is steam at 104°C being made at the rate of 36000 kg/day.

            Moving that steam and condensing it back to water, for return and repeat, is a complex operation. Cool the steam too fast, and a vacuum attempts to form, depending on the availability of new steam to take the place of the lost volume*. Cool it too slow, and the pressure climbs and starts to prevent new steam from forming, depending on the outlet rate of the condensing area mostly (back the steam off to reduce pressure, and the total water moved drops). The water-steam system seems to be balancing on a knife edge. Balancing this operation has a lot to do with pipe sizes and pressure management.

            *Don’t want this:
            https://youtu.be/Wz5_Cq3aoec?t=24

          • Stephen

            Thanks Obvious for your reply, i really appreciate it. i was having trouble visualizing the process and its implications and your explanation certainly helps.

            I get your point I think about it being hard to balance in a dynamic system, that could be really important point to think through I think before assuming anything in my side. I wonder if it would need to be regulated in someway depending on flow rate and temperature or if some kind of passive system can be placed in the circuit to help manage dynamic fluctuations etc.

          • artefact

            From a non expert: The steam extracts when it is generated and needs to fill the empty room. It pushes to the free zones in the direction to the condenser. There it gets cooled and becomes a fluid again. Thereby generating free space. In that way the direction of the steam flow is established.

          • Stephen

            Thanks artefact.

        • Obvious
        • Omega Z

          Insulation is probably 1 of the most unappreciated and underutilized building materials we have.

          In this case, I would venture 1 inch or less leaving a pipe of at least 8 inches. Thus you have very little restriction to cause pressure. In addition, that steam will be condensing at some point and this will actually create some vacuum effect pulling the steam forward reducing any possible pressure.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    If the numbers are correct, and if you assume no steam was generated, then just heating the water (32,400 kg/d) from 68C to ~100C would require ~55 kW. If supplied power is ~10.5 kW, you still get a COP >5.2 just for the water. If even very wet steam is generated, the COP has to be >50. The details on the steam and source of cooling need to be examined, but there is clearly major LENR action. I do not understand the steam pressure of 0 bar reading. If that is gage rather than absolute pressure (as it has to be), then either the system is vented to atmosphere, or the gage is very low resolution.

    • Dr. Mike

      I also don’t understand the “0” bar pressure reading. Why have a measurement that is “0” day after day? Seems meaningless.

      • Nigel Appleton

        The pressure gauge specifications show that it measures Absolute, not Gauge, pressure. Therefore, for it to report a pressure of 0.0 bar, the space it was measuring would have to be under some degree of vacuum (dependent on the resolution of the sensor)

      • SD

        I believe the pressure transducer might not have been working and outputting 0V.

    • Obvious

      The steam pressure sensor specified by Penon in the Test Plan is for Absolute pressure.
      Omega part # PX 309-100A5V

      What was actually used could be different from the specifications, but why then the specific part #?

      Either way, 0 bar is still strange.

    • Omega Z

      I believe the exit pipe was about 10 inches in diameter so unless you had a very sensitive pressure gauge, it wouldn’t show anything measurable. The pressure would probably be around 0.1 above Standard atmospheric pressure of 1 bar. Rossi had actually said as much at one time.

      • Obvious

        A lot of that apparent diameter is insulation.
        How much insulation is a valid source of conjecture.

        • Stephen

          Hi Obvious and Omega first my apologies for some probably very naive question from a non expert…. but

          What would happen to steam in a pipe that is later condensed and drained under gravity?
          Would the steam be drawn towards the condenser?
          Or would an aspirator pump or some similar device be required to draw the steam through the pipe?
          Could such a system be sufficient to draw the steam flow we talk about here?
          Or would a more powerful pump be required?

          Obviously it would not be pumped under high pressure as then it would condense which would disrupt the advantage of transporting/piping dry steam. So it seams much more likely the steam is drawn somehow at the condensor end.

          Thanks if you can comment and appologies on my side for any big errors

          • Obvious

            Totally ignoring any COP discussion, lets say there is steam at 104°C being made at the rate of 36000 kg/day.

            Moving that steam and condensing it back to water, for return and repeat, is a complex operation. Cool the steam too fast, and a vacuum attempts to form, depending on the availability of new steam to take the place of the lost volume*. Cool it too slow, and the pressure climbs and starts to prevent new steam from forming, depending on the outlet rate of the condensing area mostly (back the steam off to reduce pressure, and the total water moved drops). The water-steam system seems to be balancing on a knife edge. Balancing this operation has a lot to do with pipe sizes and pressure management.

            *Don’t want this:
            https://youtu.be/Wz5_Cq3aoec?t=24

          • Stephen

            Thanks Obvious for your reply, i really appreciate it. i was having trouble visualizing the process and its implications and your explanation certainly helps.

            I get your point I think about it being hard to balance in a dynamic system, that could be really important point to think through I think before assuming anything in my side. I wonder if it would need to be regulated in someway depending on flow rate and temperature or if some kind of passive system can be placed in the circuit to help manage dynamic fluctuations etc.

          • artefact

            From a non expert: The steam extracts when it is generated and needs to fill the empty room. It pushes to the free zones in the direction to the condenser. There it gets cooled and becomes a fluid again. Thereby generating free space. In that way the direction of the steam flow is established.

          • Stephen

            Thanks artefact.

        • Obvious
        • Omega Z

          Insulation is probably 1 of the most unappreciated and underutilized building materials we have.

          In this case, I would venture 1 inch or less leaving a pipe of at least 8 inches. Thus you have very little restriction to cause pressure. In addition, that steam will be condensing at some point and this will actually create some vacuum effect pulling the steam forward reducing any possible pressure.

    • Bohem FromCz

      You are correct but heating the water (32,400 kg/d) from 68C to ~100C would require ~50 kW only (55kW is for 36000kg/d) I suppose.

  • Doc 129-01: Florida Power, Penon and Fabiani electric usage over the entire test. Interesting.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2eeb61075c8335f7e2d900ad05299a7b22df3aea278bec79065853b53ad985fa.png

    • This was filed by IH. They claim it shows Fabiani was falsifying data. To me it seems largely supportive of Rossi’s claims, though there is some weirdness in November that needs to be explained as well as an accounting of what was using the other ~100 to ~150 kWh energy every day (that’s only ~4 to 6 kW… a typical house burns about 1 kW… so an office building + warehouse with lights, computers, air conditioning, fans, plus whatever the ‘customer’ was doing… seems ballpark, no?).

      But even if the plant consumed every bit of energy and the customer and other things in the warehouse consumed none, the basic conclusion of the test numbers doesn’t change.

      There are a number of spots where changes in Fabiani’s/Penon’s line are mirrored in the utility company’s data. That lends quite a bit of credibility to the red and blue lines.

      • US_Citizen71

        October and November can be very cloudy and rainy in Florida. Some of the extra power may be due to the need for turning on the overhead lighting in the warehouse for more hours a day. Big warehouse lights can be 600W each. If heat was needed in the cooler months it would likely have been electric heat as that is widely used in Florida, that is if the building has a heater at all.

        • The days in November where the utility’s measured power consumption drops below the claimed power usage of the 1 MW plant alone requires explanation. Someone’s measurements are wrong or fabricated.

          • Stephen

            Assuming both sets of data are accurate and honestly provided which I think is most likely I see 3 alternatives:

            1. There is an error in the calculation of one or more sets of data. (Interestingly if the Fabiani and Penon data is incorrect it would imply both made the same mistake. Or perhaps were using common faulty equipment in their data?).

            2. An backup power supply was used for some reason (I suppose it is unlikely over that duration though but possible I suppose)

            3. An off set is used in the full sets of data provided by Penon and Fabiani perhaps 10 or 20 %. Perhaps a declared margine to increase certainty of positive COP. If so I would expect it to be declared somewhere of course.

            May be there are other possible explanations or systematic errors that can explain too.

            My personal preference is 3 for obvious reasons but I would be careful about jumping to conclusions before everything is released though.

            But I must admit the data is intriguing.

          • Stephen

            The profile around end of November beginning of December is interesting I think. At other times they closely match.

            It would be interesting too see Andrea Rossi comments around that time. He was quite open about issues on the plant so could be interesting if anything is mentioned then. Were there any power outages mentioned for example?

            Interestingly the JMP invoice for December reports a request to reduce supply from the 1MW plant to 750kW due to a problem on their side. So perhaps the initial step down in power in mid November is due to the JMP problem that meant JMP reduced their power usage then and was later resolved in December? This is Highly speculative on my side of course.

  • Doc 129-01: Florida Power, Penon and Fabiani electric usage over the entire test. Interesting.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2eeb61075c8335f7e2d900ad05299a7b22df3aea278bec79065853b53ad985fa.png

    • This was filed by IH. They claim it shows Fabiani was falsifying data. To me it seems largely supportive of Rossi’s claims, though there is some weirdness in November that needs to be explained as well as an accounting of what was using the other ~100 to ~150 kWh energy every day (that’s only ~4 to 6 kW… a typical house burns about 1 kW… so an office building + warehouse with lights, computers, air conditioning, fans, plus whatever the ‘customer’ was doing… seems ballpark, no?).

      But even if the plant consumed every bit of energy and the customer and other things in the warehouse consumed none, the basic conclusion of the test numbers doesn’t change.

      There are a number of spots where changes in Fabiani’s/Penon’s line are mirrored in the utility company’s data. That lends quite a bit of credibility to the red and blue lines.

      • US_Citizen71

        October and November can be very cloudy and rainy in Florida. Some of the extra power may be due to the need for turning on the overhead lighting in the warehouse for more hours a day. Big warehouse lights can be 600W each. If heat was needed in the cooler months it would likely have been electric heat as that is widely used in Florida, that is if the building has a heater at all.

        • The days in November where the utility’s measured power consumption drops below the claimed power usage of the 1 MW plant alone requires explanation. Someone’s measurements are wrong or fabricated.

          • Stephen

            Assuming both sets of data are accurate and honestly provided which I think is most likely I see 3 alternatives:

            1. There is an error in the calculation of one or more sets of data. (Interestingly if the Fabiani and Penon data is incorrect it would imply both made the same mistake. Or perhaps were using common faulty equipment in their data? I think this is highly unlikely though and to me Fabiani’s and Penons results strongly support each other and give confidence in their data)

            2. An backup power supply was used for some reason (I suppose it is unlikely over that duration though but possible I suppose)

            3. An off set is used in the full sets of data provided by Penon and Fabiani perhaps 10 or 20 %. Perhaps a declared margine to increase certainty of positive COP. If so I would expect it to be declared somewhere of course.

            May be there are other possible explanations or systematic errors that can explain too.

            My personal preference is 3 for obvious reasons but I would be careful about jumping to conclusions before everything is released though.

            But I must admit the data is intriguing.

          • Stephen

            The profile around end of November beginning of December is interesting I think. At other times they closely match.

            It would be interesting too see Andrea Rossi comments around that time. He was quite open about issues on the plant so could be interesting if anything is mentioned then. Were there any power outages mentioned for example?

            Interestingly the JMP invoice for December reports a request to reduce supply from the 1MW plant to 750kW due to a problem on their side. So perhaps the initial step down in power in mid November is due to the JMP problem that meant JMP reduced their power usage then and was later resolved in December? This is Highly speculative on my side of course.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    IMHO these data do not allow any conclusions. Neither that the plant did not work nor that it did (maybe with reduced COP, but so what…). You would anyway need a lot of additional information: Diameter and arrangement of the pipes, position of sensors, individual readings for each reactor etc. There have already been enough discussions about these points.

    The question is, what would that mean for the case if the Court comes to the same opinion?

  • Andreas Moraitis

    IMHO these data do not allow any conclusions. Neither that the plant did not work nor that it did (maybe with reduced COP, but so what…). You would anyway need a lot of additional information: Diameter and arrangement of the pipes, position of sensors, individual readings for each reactor etc. There have already been enough discussions about these points.

    The question is, what would that mean for the case if the Court comes to the same opinion?

  • Gerard McEk

    I am sure that all details of this summary will be handed over to the court when requested. It is interesting to know what the ‘customer’ did with the heat and if they did not use it, how they got rid of it. The ‘customer’ should not be much of interest for the jury when the details are convincing, but the method of getting rid of the heat might be and I hope these details were measured too, as it is a ‘second proof’ and that it was done by an independent party.
    If AR has set-up this ‘customer’ construction, just enabling him to prove that the Ecat works and to get his money from IH, he should tell the court ultimately. I am sure this construction was set-up in the right legal way. (As I recall AR was with his attorney when he met ‘him’).

    • atanguy

      If all that is true,why IH did not continue with Rossi?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        AR: Remember, we had the contract, I did the 1-year test, ERV proves it, I teached you how to build a working reactor, Lugano is proof. Those were the terms, so please pay.
        IH: Yes but we only know how to build the Lugano reactor, and such low COP commercially worthless! The contract says you have to teach us the entire IP!
        AR: It’s not the teacher’s fault if the pupils are bad. Pay tomorrow, or see you in court.

        • LT

          The Lugano test was in disagreement with the data of the MFMP replica test.
          However I have come to the conclusion that the MFMP replica test was possibly wrong.
          I posted today a document about it on the “Always Open Thread”. If my analysis is correct then it possibly means that the COP values of the Lugano test are also correct.

          • SG

            That is quite interesting. Would be good to get Bob’s / MFMP’s response.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The basis of our test was that Lugano authors tested the outside of their reactor and determined it to be AL2O3

            On page 42 of the Optris manual, it says emissivity should be set to 0.95 for ceramic, something ignored by the Lugano reports writers. We used the correct Optris manual procedure for establishing it empirically using high emissivity paint and arrived at essentially the same value as they recommend in-situ. Given this value, the temperatures determined by the Optris bolometer by us live was in line with

            1. K-Type thermocouple in direct contact
            2. B-Type thermocouple in direct contact
            3. Williamson IR dual-band spot pyrometer (an $11,000 instrument noted as being the gold standard Alumina temperature monitoring tool since, based on MIT research, it self calibrates the emissivity value all the time)

            Given we put the same input power as was claimed in Lugano test into a purely passive resistive cell (physical Lugano analogue) – we observed ‘temperature’ reported by our equivalent Optris PI160 (same calibration and lens) nearly equivalent to those reported in Lugano ONLY when we using the emissivity values they had determined from analysing old literature established before the existence of the PI160 (which ignore Optris recommended values and procedure for determining the same).

            They got the emissivity wrong, they did not use the right procedure to determine it or even use the value given in the manual that gave the correct temperature as determined by 3 separate high-quality means which we conducted in a live broadcast.

            The adjusted COP was still apparently positive however, it was far closer to that determined by Piantelli and Focardi over decades of work, by our apparent GS figures and the recent flow calorimetry work of Alexander Parkhomov.

            The paper is published here, last paper:

            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedt.pdf

          • LT

            Dear Bob

            Despite the large respect I have for you and the MFMP I can only say that in the comment above you are not adressing the issue I brought up in my write-up on the “Always Open Thread”.
            That issue is that my calculations show that for the replica test there is a too large error between the power applied and the power derived from the radiated and convected power.when usiing the temperatures as given by the curve in the report..
            My conclusion was that there must have been made an error in the power measurement and that issue is not addressed in your comment.
            Now as a human I can make errors also. If I made them in my calculation then show me that I was wrong so that I can learn form it. But please don”t repeat information we already know and to which I also referred to in my write-up.
            We can only bring science forward by learning from our mistakes and correcting them.

          • Bob Greenyer

            A video for you… because I care, no promises, but a possibility – after all live empirical data is best.

            https://youtu.be/P8RG9G_yZV0

            Might be after GS 5.4 and 5.5 earliest – but you may have to convince Alan!

          • LT

            Thank’s Bob for your professional stance.
            I would be glad to cooperate with Alan and discus the issue with him.

            LT

          • Dr. Mike

            LT,
            There were 2 big mistakes made by the Lugano authors relative to the COP determination. First they did not run the “control” portion of their experiment anywhere near the operating temperature of the actual experimental run. Secondly, they did not follow the operating manual procedure for the proper calibration of the Optris temperature measuring instrument. For these two reasons we will never be able to determine the true COP of the Lugano reactor. All that can be done now is try to estimate how big of an error was made by the Lugano authors. I believe MFMP has made a much more accurate determination of the real surface temperatures on the Lugano reactor than was reported by the authors. My hope is that these two mistakes are never made again in LENR experiments.
            Dr. Mike

          • LT

            Dr. Mike

            If we follow what is reported in the Lugano test report then I have to agree with you.
            However I did a lot of recalculations on the Lugano report and from the results i have gotten a strong impression that the Lugano testers might have done most things in a proper way after all, but that their write-up of what they did was not correctly reflected in the report. This impression has with every calculation i did only grown over time for me.
            I hope that we get to know the details in the future so that we can make our final judgement.
            Concerning the measured surface temperatures of the Lugano rector i agree with you that the MFMP did a much better job on that. However I still believe that the MFMP during the replica test made errors in the power measurement. That issue is not yet cleared by the MFMP

        • BillH

          However, the teacher has to demonstrate that his experiment actually ever worked before he can blame his pupil for not understanding, that’s the way he will earn his fee.

          • Omega Z

            Actually there were several other tests prior to Lugano that proved positive with Dardens people involved directly. There was the 30 units Lt E-cat reactors in unison.

            Also the 3 separate Ferrara, Italy Hot cats 1 of which went into melt down. But all had the black body paint which avoided the emissivity issue of the Lugano test. 1 with a COP>3.2 and the other COP>5.6

            There was the claim of electricity being fed through the ground wire, how ever the tester pointed out that the ground wire was never hooked up. It was laying on the work bench. Also the claim that Rossi was secretly feeding DC voltage in with the AC, but anyone who understands a little about electronics and there interactions with AC/DC knows that was ruled out.

          • BillH

            Separate tests, separate payments triggered. No one so far has explained why a year long tests was needed because a month long test would have done just as well, unless you wanted to make sure a plant could run for 1 year with minimal intervention. I’d call that a long term reliability test.

      • wpj

        Look at the contact closely…… Sadly, it states that IH still gets the license without paying the $89m if the 1 year test doesn’t work out.

        I hadn’t realised this until seeing it on the LENR forum recently. Probably that is why DW calls it a “bonus”.

        • Vinney

          But what is a license worth without the co-operation of the inventor.
          It was meant to be a joint venture, I am doubtful IH has the skill to bring LENR to market.
          They ‘obviously’ have little skill at collecting ‘damning’ evidence.
          Or, at least communicating it.

          • wpj

            Totally agree, but this is possibly why IH did not set the test going once the plant arrived in the US. Maybe they thought that they could do it all themselves once the technical know-how (“IP”) was transferred especially if they were investing in other, possibly more pliable, LENR companies.

          • Omega Z

            IH/Darden probably thought here’s an old guy who has a shady past that we can just roll off into a ditch and take his technology for a pittance.

        • Omega Z

          The contract seems to indicate from the beginning that it must be completely fulfilled start to finish. Otherwise the contract may be considered null and void by either party. Both parties then return to the other what each received from the other. Rossi gets all his IP back along with the 1MW container and Darden inc gets the $11.5 million back.

          Any additional costs that either party is out is absorbed by the party. This is actually a standard business practice.

          • Vinney

            Omega Z, I think it was you that stated the amount in compensation and costs being sought by Rossi is 2 or 3 times the contract $89 million. If we were to revert to prior the contract existed, Rossi would be the major loser.
            I mean IH cannot ‘unlearn’ the knowledge they’re already acquired
            (and disseminated to Brillion) and their support of other LENR start-ups is only a disguise to continue to use Rossi IP, but explain it with other theories or techniques.
            So Rossi has worked 16 to 18 hour days for 2 years for nothing.
            He should have just continued to develop the QuarkX, keep the $11 million and Sue IH for IP theft when they had a product on the market.
            Concentrating also on European market.

  • Gerard McEk

    I am sure that all details of this summary will be handed over to the court when requested. It is interesting to know what the ‘customer’ did with the heat and if they did not use it, how they got rid of it. The ‘customer’ should not be much of interest for the jury when the details are convincing, but the method of getting rid of the heat might be and I hope these details were measured too, as it is a ‘second proof’ and that it was done by an independent party.
    If AR has set-up this ‘customer’ construction, just enabling him to prove that the Ecat works and to get his money from IH, he should tell the court ultimately. I am sure this construction was set-up in the right legal way. (As I recall AR was with his attorney when he met ‘him’).

    • Bob

      Customer? There was no customer!
      .
      Court records provided by Rossi show that there was one part time employee, that JMP did not have any UK parent company, JMP accountant was Johnson’s relative and that JMP did not have enough money to pay a $800 bill! The electric bill shows if the eCat used ~10kW that there would have been only ~5kW left over for the entire building! This would include running air conditioning, lights, computers, etc. What type of manufacturing process can utilize 1mW heat with less than 3kW?
      .
      Rossi could have easily proven there was active production but he has not, because there wasn’t any!
      .
      How can we continue to hold hope there was a customer and production? He fabricated the whole story! 🙁

      • Omega Z

        Now you sound like some of the Rossi fans. Reading things that were never there. Not once have I seen anything about a parent company except from those speculating here on the blogs.

        In essence, we don’t know if there is a customer or not. What can be said is if there is, they don’t want to be known. They wouldn’t want the hassle. They also wouldn’t want their competitors to know what they are involved with. Many if not most of us new that the customer in Doral, Florida was a front and if there is a customer, did not want to be known.

        As an example. Bill Gates is funding LENR. Not really. He is funding entities who happen to be studying LENR among other energy technologies. Thus if asked, He can claim he is funding exotic energy technologies. Not a word about LENR. Which is how he wants it at this time. He also doesn’t want the hassle.

  • bachcole

    Now if we could but get some real world confirmation of these very exciting numbers and not just squiggles on a bright screen, I would get excited. Until then I’ll just go back to sleep. (:->)

    • sam

      Jed Rothwell seems upset and might not sleep.
      Or maybe he one of those people
      that can get to sleep if the roofs
      falling in.

      ERV core Report – opinion paper by Jed Rothwell,

      who if you remember has declared that he has seen a fragment of this ERV paper and concluded that any sane and rational individual looking to it must conclude in less then 5 minutes- zero excess heat! It seems he has not changed much his opinion, see below:

      You did not describe what data you mean. It is here, in document 128-01 – Exhibit 1.pdf :

      https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

      This data is complete bullshit. It describes physically impossible phenomena, such as a factory in a perfect vacuum with a pressure 0.0 bar, and water that is exactly the same temperature to the nearest tenth-degree every day for weeks. The instruments used to collect this data were completely wrong for the task, and the configuration made it impossible to use any instruments properly. The major problems were described in Exhibit 5 at the above website:

      124-06 – Exhibit 5.pdf

      This data proves beyond question that the 1-year test was fraud. It was inept fraud, which anyone with a half a brain can see at a glance. People such as Peter Gluck are incapable of seeing it because they are mesmerized by Rossi, and deluded by wishful thinking.

      The opposite opinion from Ego Out blog

      ERV core Report – opinion paper by BOB COOK.

      The data reported by someone–it was not clear who or whether it was a factual document associated with the suit–is internally consistent and indicative of large COP’s. The nomenclature associated with the data–Exhibit 1– is inconsistent with the normal nomenclature associated with a factual document for submittal to the court, i.e., Exhibit A,B etc. with the use of letters instead of numbers.

      Regarding the data, the pressure reported as 0.0 is a little confusing. I assumed it was actually a differential pressure between 2 points in the system. A system diagram with the various instruments shown is needed to fully understand the report. For a flowing system of water and steam it would seem that there would be some measurable differential pressure created.

      That may have occurred in the customer side of the loop. Nevertheless, the energy added to the flow of water and steam could be determined by measuring the enthalpy (energy) added by the reactor without the knowledge of what happened in the customer’s plant. The specific enthalpy of water and steam (joules per gram) is determined by their absolute temperatures and pressures at any given instant. Thus, if the conditions of the water/steam varied with time, information regarding changes is necessary to determine the integrated flow of energy (steam and water) over time. The fact that the enthalpy was mostly steam at a significant supper heating (i.e., a temperature above saturation for steam at STP) suggests that the energy would be easy to determine.

      Assuming there were no other sources of energy supplied to the reactor other than FP&L electrical energy, the demonstration of performance as reported in Exhibit 1 looks sound to me. With the large COP’s reported small errors in measurements would make no significant difference in the conclusion about the reactor’s ability to produce useful energy.

      As far as I am concerned, LENR+ has been demonstrated.

      • bachcole

        Wow, that’s what I would call squiggles on a bright screen. I would believe Frank Acland or Mats Lewan or anyone I know and trust and even better people I know and trust who disbelieve in the e-cat/Rossi saying that they saw the machine in action and they burned their fingers on it and they watched it for days and days and it just kept on going like the Duracell rabbit.

  • Gerard McEk

    Here is a graph of the COP during the 352 days period.
    Maybe we can correlate it with remarks of AR during that time?

    • Gerard McEk
      • Albert D. Kallal

        Interesting. If the reactor was diminishing in performance over time, then the downward slope should be “milder, and not some big fast drop. Someone should ask Rossi why the “sudden” drop and not a gentle downward loss of performance over time. (Perplexing indeed).

        An amazing high COP claim. I would also consider re-making the graph with the months below – see if any correlation exists between the month of the year (or outside temperatures)

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • wpj

          He said that there 4 “tigers” had different charges in them in order to see how long they lasted. As a consequence, one and then a second started showing reduced performance.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Your explain works fine for me. Interesting that we don’t see any general downward slope here (this is good – rather consistent output). An amazing COP – so much so I have difficulty accepting that any party in any way would walk away from such a amazing performance.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Obvious

        Try it without using the conservative 10% water reduction. The effect on COP is impressive.
        I doubt they were losing something like 3000L of water a day on average.

    • Gerald

      Gerard, I don’t know if it is of use but I made a historic datasheet with temperture/humidity etc from feb 2015-feb 2016. Personaly I think it wouldn’t influence that much. It’s from the airport of Miami close to Doral.

      https://1drv.ms/x/s!Ah5RjVgDhy50hPpvmnS8yGQEifluDw

  • Gerard McEk

    Here is a graph of the COP during the 352 days period.
    Maybe we can correlate it with remarks of AR during that time?

    • Gerard McEk
      • Albert D. Kallal

        Interesting. If the reactor was diminishing in performance over time, then the downward slope should be “milder, and not some big fast drop. Someone should ask Rossi why the “sudden” drop and not a gentle downward loss of performance over time. (Perplexing indeed).

        An amazing high COP claim. I would also consider re-making the graph with the months below – see if any correlation exists between the month of the year (or outside temperatures)

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • wpj

          He said that there 4 “tigers” had different charges in them in order to see how long they lasted. As a consequence, one and then a second started showing reduced performance.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Your explain works fine for me. Interesting that we don’t see any general downward slope here (this is good – rather consistent output). An amazing COP – so much so I have difficulty accepting that any party in any way would walk away from such a amazing performance.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Obvious

        Try it without using the conservative 10% water reduction. The effect on COP is impressive.
        I doubt they were losing something like 3000L of water a day on average.

    • Gerald

      Gerard, I don’t know if it is of use but I made a historic datasheet with temperture/humidity etc from feb 2015-feb 2016. Personaly I think it wouldn’t influence that much. It’s from the airport of Miami close to Doral.

      https://1drv.ms/x/s!Ah5RjVgDhy50hPpvmnS8yGQEifluDw

  • Michelangelo De Meo

    The name Fabio Fulviani is wrong. The correct name is an engineer Fulvio FABIANI

    • Omega Z

      Yes, Fabio doesn’t do LENR. He does the I can’t believe it’s not butter.

      • Vinney

        Incidentally, on a lighter note.
        We should run a thread on who should play Rossi in the blockbuster movie to hit the screens shortly after the E-cat technology makes its market debut.
        Actually Fabio (also a Milan native) looks like a distant relative.
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/style/2015/12/23/fabio/
        An added bonus to the producer, is that he can probably do the Rossi accent and vocabulary (I notice he directly translates Italian words in his English sentences).
        Also an opportunity for admin to gauge how many female readers we have on this forum.

  • wpj

    If you are faking the whole thing (as some suggest) why leave out the 6th April?? Makes no sense.

    • John Williamson

      Actually it makes perfect sense. When you fake something, the idea is to make it look real. And leaving out the 6th April makes it look real. Your post proves it.

  • wpj

    If you are faking the whole thing (as some suggest) why leave out the 6th April?? Makes no sense.

    • John Williamson

      Actually it makes perfect sense. When you fake something, the idea is to make it look real. And leaving out the 6th April makes it look real. Your post proves it.

      • Michael W Wolf

        But 63 to 139 COP does not look real, and any scammer would know better. So back to wpj’s logic. And your post proves that. 🙂

        • John Williamson

          Actually, I didn’t argue the the high COP or leaving out April 6 makes it look real or like a scam. Both are neutral in that determination, so my post proves nothing. I just said that doing stuff that wouldn’t be necessary for a fake makes it look less fake to some people, and therefore makes sense.

          You think the COP of 63 to 139 looks unreal, therefore you think it must be real. No scammer would make something look so unreal. Unless of course, that’s what they want you to think. It worked on you…

          It’s silly logic. Second guessing whether the alleged scammer is a step ahead or behind gets you nowhere.

          The reason it looks like a scam is because the claims are extraordinary, and the evidence, after 6 years, is *still* not accessible in a way that allows skeptics to test it in an unencumbered way.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yea, maybe, or IH’s FUD worked on you. Since we don’t know yet because IH has no proof, you could be the duped one, no matter how badly you think the odds are against Rossi supporters. IH can build the 11 COP device they described to the patent office. Which is now obsolete if Rossi can produce a device with 160 COP. That is what this is over I think. Would you pay 89 million for a device you could build that won’t sell? Neither did IH. They had to take their chances in court. This is supported by IH with an offer on the table to give up their license rights to the tech and get their money back and has not been accepted. If it is all fake why don’t they give up those rights? All they have to do is accept Rossi’s offer right here. If Rossi doesn’t return their money, he is a fraud. This all ends and Rossi will lose the law suit. But nooooo, IH want’s his tech, period,

          • John Williamson

            You lost me after “or IH’s FUD worked on you”. IH still thinks there might be something to LENR, and I never have, so they’ve always been *behind* me. All the rest of your post doesn’t address the reason it has looked like a scam from the start: lack of accessible evidence that it works. If someone claims pigs can fly, skepticism is the default until accessible evidence is presented.

        • wpj

          I agree- any real scammer would be using figures at 10% of these as they are so outrageous. Unless it’s double bluff. of course.

        • Vinney

          Figures like this presented to an average ‘juror’ would ‘spell’ fake straight away.
          An average juror would not be familiar ( as most now on this forum) with LENR or steam calorimetry. Yet Rossi is aiming for a jury trial. Simply financial suicide or he has something special still to present.

  • wpj

    Also interesting to see the reduced COP in the last couple of months which fits in with the statements that one/two of the reactors were beginning to show reduced efficiency.

  • wpj

    Also interesting to see the reduced COP in the last couple of months which fits in with the statements that one/two of the reactors were beginning to show reduced efficiency.

  • atanguy

    If all that is true,why IH did not continue with Rossi?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      AR: Remember, we had the contract, I did the 1-year test, ERV proves it, I teached you how to build a working reactor, Lugano is proof. Those were the terms, so please pay.
      IH: Yes but we only know how to build the Lugano reactor, and such low COP commercially worthless! The contract says you have to teach us the entire IP!
      AR: It’s not the teacher’s fault if the pupils are bad. Pay tomorrow, or see you in court.

      • LT

        The Lugano test was in disagreement with the data of the MFMP replica test.
        However I have come to the conclusion that the MFMP replica test was possibly wrong.
        I posted today a document about it on the “Always Open Thread”. If my analysis is correct then it possibly means that the COP values of the Lugano test are also correct.

        • SG

          That is quite interesting. Would be good to get Bob’s / MFMP’s response.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The basis of our test was that Lugano authors tested the outside of their reactor and determined it to be AL2O3

            On page 42 of the Optris manual, it says emissivity should be set to 0.95 for ceramic, something ignored by the Lugano reports writers. We used the correct Optris manual procedure for establishing it empirically using high emissivity paint and arrived at essentially the same value as they recommend in-situ. Given this value, the temperatures determined by the Optris bolometer by us live was in line with

            1. K-Type thermocouple in direct contact
            2. B-Type thermocouple in direct contact
            3. Williamson IR dual-band spot pyrometer (an $11,000 instrument noted as being the gold standard Alumina temperature monitoring tool since, based on MIT research, it self calibrates the emissivity value all the time)

            Given we put the same input power as was claimed in Lugano test into a purely passive resistive cell (physical Lugano analogue) – we observed ‘temperature’ reported by our equivalent Optris PI160 (same calibration and lens) nearly equivalent to those reported in Lugano ONLY when we using the emissivity values they had determined from analysing old literature established before the existence of the PI160 (which ignore Optris recommended values and procedure for determining the same).

            They got the emissivity wrong, they did not use the right procedure to determine it or even use the value given in the manual that gave the correct temperature as determined by 3 separate high-quality means which we conducted in a live broadcast.

            The adjusted COP was still apparently positive however, it was far closer to that determined by Piantelli and Focardi over decades of work, by our apparent GS figures and the recent flow calorimetry work of Alexander Parkhomov.

            The paper is published here, last paper:

            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedt.pdf

          • LT

            Dear Bob

            Despite the large respect I have for you and the MFMP I can only say that in the comment above you are not adressing the issue I brought up in my write-up on the “Always Open Thread”.
            That issue is that my calculations show that for the replica test there is a too large error between the power applied and the power derived from the radiated and convected power.when usiing the temperatures as given by the curve in the report..
            My conclusion was that there must have been made an error in the power measurement and that issue is not addressed in your comment.
            Now as a human I can make errors also. If I made them in my calculation then show me that I was wrong so that I can learn from it. But please don’t repeat information we already know and to which I also referred to in my write-up.
            We can only bring science forward by learning from our mistakes and correcting them.

          • Bob Greenyer

            A video for you… because I care, no promises, but a possibility – after all live empirical data is best.

            https://youtu.be/P8RG9G_yZV0

            Might be after GS 5.4 and 5.5 earliest – but you may have to convince Alan!

          • LT

            Thank’s Bob for your professional stance.
            I would be glad to cooperate with Alan and discus the issue with him.

            LT

        • Dr. Mike

          LT,
          There were 2 big mistakes made by the Lugano authors relative to the COP determination. First they did not run the “control” portion of their experiment anywhere near the operating temperature of the actual experimental run. Secondly, they did not follow the operating manual procedure for the proper calibration of the Optris temperature measuring instrument. For these two reasons we will never be able to determine the true COP of the Lugano reactor. All that can be done now is try to estimate how big of an error was made by the Lugano authors. I believe MFMP has made a much more accurate determination of the real surface temperatures on the Lugano reactor than was reported by the authors. My hope is that these two mistakes are never made again in LENR experiments.
          Dr. Mike

          • LT

            Dr. Mike

            If we follow what is reported in the Lugano test report then I have to agree with you.
            However I did a lot of recalculations on the Lugano report and from the results i have gotten a strong impression that the Lugano testers might have done most things in a proper way after all, but that their write-up of what they did was not correctly reflected in the report. This impression has with every calculation i did only grown over time for me.
            I hope that we get to know the details in the future so that we can make our final judgement.
            Concerning the measured surface temperatures of the Lugano rector i agree with you that the MFMP did a much better job on that. However I still believe that the MFMP during the replica test made errors in the power measurement. That issue is not yet cleared by the MFMP

      • BillH

        However, the teacher has to demonstrate that his experiment actually ever worked before he can blame his pupil for not understanding, that’s the way he will earn his fee.

        • Omega Z

          Actually there were several other tests prior to Lugano that proved positive with Dardens people involved directly. There was the 30 units Lt E-cat reactors in unison.

          Also the 3 separate Ferrara, Italy Hot cats 1 of which went into melt down. But all had the black body paint which avoided the emissivity issue of the Lugano test. 1 with a COP>3.2 and the other COP>5.6

          There was the claim of electricity being fed through the ground wire, how ever the tester pointed out that the ground wire was never hooked up. It was laying on the work bench. Also the claim that Rossi was secretly feeding DC voltage in with the AC, but anyone who understands a little about electronics and there interactions with AC/DC knows that was ruled out.

          • BillH

            Separate tests, separate payments triggered. No one so far has explained why a year long tests was needed because a month long test would have done just as well, unless you wanted to make sure a plant could run for 1 year with minimal intervention. I’d call that a long term reliability test.

    • wpj

      Look at the contact closely…… Sadly, it states that IH still gets the license without paying the $89m if the 1 year test doesn’t work out.

      I hadn’t realised this until seeing it on the LENR forum recently. Probably that is why DW calls it a “bonus”.

      • Vinney

        But what is a license worth without the co-operation of the inventor.
        It was meant to be a joint venture, I am doubtful IH has the skill to bring LENR to market.
        They ‘obviously’ have little skill at collecting ‘damning’ evidence.
        Or, at least communicating it.

        • wpj

          Totally agree, but this is possibly why IH did not set the test going once the plant arrived in the US. Maybe they thought that they could do it all themselves once the technical know-how (“IP”) was transferred especially if they were investing in other, possibly more pliable, LENR companies.

          • Omega Z

            IH/Darden probably thought here’s an old guy who has a shady past that we can just roll off into a ditch and take his technology for a pittance.

      • Omega Z

        The contract seems to indicate from the beginning that it must be completely fulfilled start to finish. Otherwise the contract may be considered null and void by either party. Both parties then return to the other what each received from the other. Rossi gets all his IP back along with the 1MW container and Darden inc gets the $11.5 million back.

        Any additional costs that either party is out is absorbed by the party. This is actually a standard business practice.

        • Vinney

          Omega Z, I think it was you that stated the amount in compensation and costs being sought by Rossi is 2 or 3 times the contract $89 million. If we were to revert to prior the contract existed, Rossi would be the major loser.
          I mean IH cannot ‘unlearn’ the knowledge they’re already acquired
          (and disseminated to Brillion) and their support of other LENR start-ups is only a disguise to continue to use Rossi IP, but explain it with other theories or techniques.
          So Rossi has worked 16 to 18 hour days for 2 years for nothing.
          He should have just continued to develop the QuarkX, keep the $11 million and Sue IH for IP theft when they had a product on the market.
          Concentrating also on European market.

    • roseland67

      atanguy,

      Is your question rhetorical?
      Exactly.

    • clovis ray

      GREED, They got caught trying to steal a golden egg, the goose seem their dirty deed. and now they must pay the piper.

  • We now have one piece of ground truth thanks to the Florida utility. The approximately 300 to 400 kWh per day used by the facility, if every bit of it went into heating water at the flow rate quoted in the data (36,000 kg/d), could only raise the water about 10 deg C.

    So, if there was any steam at all or a significantly greater than 10 deg C rise in water temperature, (and the temperature and water flow measurements aren’t completely fabricated), then a great amount of additional energy had to be coming from somewhere.

    The latent heat of evaporation is of course much much higher than the specific heat of water so turning any of that water into steam requires a lot of energy.

    So unless the water was flowing at a much lower rate and the incoming temperature was more like 90 deg C and no steam was actually produced, then Rossi is close to proving over-unity. There’s a lot of wiggle room in COP 80. The numbers just released would have to be totally, absolutely, unequivocally wrong and easy to disprove.

    Bad choice of flow meter doesn’t cut it; that flow meter would only under-report the actual flow. Thermocouples off by 30 deg C at low temperatures right from the start? Seems like a stretch. No steam at all but consistent measurements of 103 deg C exiting? Seems unlikely. I don’t know what the deal is with the zero pressure reading; seems like we need an explanation there.

    So of the three main explanations (worked, bad data/instruments, total fabrication), the bad instruments scenario seems really low probability as it would require multiple things being bonkers. I think we’re down to they totally made it up or it worked and IH is FUDding.

    • Jamie Sibley

      The 0 psi reading makes perfect sense. If the customer was using the steam in a condensing heat exchanger ( very likely) then the pressure in the exchanger would be below atmospheric. This negative pressure is used in steam driven machinery to increase performance. Instead of exhausting used steam into the atmosphere pressure, you discharge it into a head exchanger and gain the benefit of negative pressure. In this case, the negative pressure generated by the customers heat exchanger would be all the pressure necessary to cause the steam to flow from Rossi’s side to the customer. Even with a small 2 or 3 inch pipe, only a few psi would be necessary to move 1 mw of steam.

      • Stephen

        Thanks Jamie, I was curious so I’ve just been looking at some of your past posts. You don’t post frequently but what you say is always interesting. Thanks

      • TomR

        Ditto for what Stephen said!

    • wpj

      This is what Mats Lewan’s contacts said; the only way it could be wrong is is it was falsified.

    • SD

      Suppose you are IH and ask questions about e.g. the zero pressure reading, but get no response. Do you pay the $89 million based on this report?

      • My main concern is whether this technology is real or not. I don’t really care who pays what to whom.

        Unless somebody wants to pay me $89M, in which case I would care a great deal.

        • SD

          You say either “Rossi made all the numbers up” or “it worked and IH is FUDding”.

          Have you considered that maybe IH isn’t satisfied with the test results?

          Often when presented with black and white, the answer is grey or gray.

          • IH had no problem with the test reports until the last one came in and Rossi asked for $89M.

          • DNI

            I wonder how you know this?

          • Gerard McEk

            As LENR G was saying: The absolute figures might be wrong a bit, but the shown figueres show a huge excess energy that cannot denied. The differences between good and false are simply too large. NO way to say that NO excess heat was measured and that the aparatus did NOT work (as IH did).

      • LilyLover

        Suppose you are IH, and you receive perfectly satisfactory response. Your boss tells you to lie, muddle and obfuscate – there’s money or life or both for you in it. You know you should pay. But, you choose to steal the invention, instead. Would you pay the $89M? Or would you pretend that it doesn’t work?

  • We now have one piece of ground truth thanks to the Florida utility. The approximately 300 to 400 kWh per day used by the facility, if every bit of it went into heating water at the flow rate quoted in the data (36,000 kg/d), could only raise the water about 10 deg C.

    So, if there was any steam at all or a significantly greater than 10 deg C rise in water temperature, (and the temperature and water flow measurements aren’t completely fabricated), then a great amount of additional energy had to be coming from somewhere.

    The latent heat of evaporation is of course much much higher than the specific heat of water so turning any of that water into steam requires a lot of energy.

    So unless the water was flowing at a much lower rate and the incoming temperature was more like 90 deg C and no steam was actually produced, then Rossi is close to proving over-unity. There’s a lot of wiggle room in COP 80. The numbers just released would have to be totally, absolutely, unequivocally wrong and easy to disprove.

    Bad choice of flow meter doesn’t cut it; that flow meter would only under-report the actual flow. Thermocouples off by 30 deg C at low temperatures right from the start? Seems like a stretch. No steam at all but consistent measurements of 103 deg C exiting? Seems unlikely. I don’t know what the deal is with the zero pressure reading; seems like we need an explanation there.

    So of the three main explanations (worked, bad data/instruments, total fabrication), the bad instruments scenario seems really low probability as it would require multiple things being bonkers. I think we’re down to they totally made it up or it worked and IH is FUDding.

    • Jamie Sibley

      The 0 psi reading makes perfect sense. If the customer was using the steam in a condensing heat exchanger ( very likely) then the pressure in the exchanger would be below atmospheric. This negative pressure is used in steam driven machinery to increase performance. Instead of exhausting used steam into the atmosphere pressure, you discharge it into a heat exchanger and gain the benefit of negative pressure. In this case, the negative pressure generated by the customers heat exchanger would be all the pressure necessary to cause the steam to flow from Rossi’s side to the customer. Even with a small 2 or 3 inch pipe, only a few psi would be necessary to move 1 mw of steam.

      • Stephen

        Thanks Jamie, I was curious so I’ve just been looking at some of your past posts. You don’t post frequently but what you say is always interesting. Thanks

      • TomR

        Ditto for what Stephen said!

      • Jami

        If you page back a couple of days you’ll see that Pekka calculated that the steam pipe must have had an inner diameter of at least 20 cm – even if the “factory” end of it was at zero absolute pressure (which it can’t have been). Exhibit 5 says it had an inner diameter of only 40 mm (less than 1.6 in).

    • wpj

      This is what Mats Lewan’s contacts said; the only way it could be wrong is is it was falsified.

    • roseland67

      LENR,

      Which of your 3 explanations above would you bet on being true?

      • When can we expect your first post that indicates any sort of open mind?

        Name 3 pieces of evidence that fall on the Rossi side of the ledger.

        • roseland67

          G,

          Apparently the moderator didn’t like my response as it was removed, (as have been more than a few of my writings).
          I gave 6 pieces of “evidence” that I thought fell on the Rossi side of the ledger.
          IF, all 6 of that listed evidence is proven true, Andre Rossi will win the Nobel prize for physics, and I will, (gladly), be proven wrong on my assessment of him and his works.
          If this occurs in my lifetime I will also, (gladly), come back to this blog and take my beatings of “You were wrong & I told you so”

          However, deep in your heart of hearts, as much as you want the Ecat to be what is claimed to be, I get the feeling that you don’t really believe it works either.

          • Thanks for the honest response.

            I have already stated on the record that however this turns out the result will be utterly ridiculous.

            If I had to choose between the two utterly ridiculous choices remaining at the moment, I still lean toward working tech for two main reasons (Rossi making the reactors available for scientific testing and supporting results seen by other experimenters).

          • roseland67

            G,

            I don’t think the end will be utterly ridiculous, the Ecat will either work as stated, (Energy out > Energy in), or it won’t.

          • Oh but it will.

            We either have a 5+ person conspiracy approaching a decade of fraudulent activity whose purpose apparently was not money because they already got run-for-the-hills money and kept at it anyway, that was brilliant and confident enough to hand reactors off to scientists for unfettered measurement but stupid enough to fabricate customers and data with obvious flaws… and the cherry on top… actually sued their latest victim and didn’t settle before discovery. That’s like the definition of ridiculous you’d find in the dictionary…

            OR…

            A company that performed various validation tests and evaluations over a number of years, transferred $11.5M as a result, applied for various related patents, paraded investors past a plant that they surely believed worked at the time, netted tens of millions, and then decided to walk away from a working technology potentially worth billions because of a dubious customer and some white papers by engineers that went unanswered… or perhaps some sort of high stakes IP power play. So either stupid and careless enough to not know with certainty even 5 years into it that Rossi had the goods, or stupid and careless enough to risk it all because of what seemed to them a good business move. In the non-fraud scenario, either Darden and company looked at the Golden Goose and decided it was a frog because some people whispered in their ear that they heard some ribbits… or decided to kill it because its golden eggs were not quite pure enough for them. Ridiculous.

            You see? No way around it. We’ve got ridiculous up to our eyeballs.

          • clovis ray

            The real truth is I/H got caught putting their name on Leonardo’s devices, but did not realize Dr. Rossi had out maneuvered them. and this lie was their only hope, not much i’d say, they had better piss on the fire and call the dogs, before Dr. Rossi really gets mad.

          • Billy Jackson

            Having a voice of opposition is not a bad thing.. if you ask hard questions then we are better prepared to face future challenges. The real danger is in irrational illogical minds that refuses to acknowledge any points against their arguments..

          • roseland67

            Billy,

            After 6+ years and “nothing”, you gotta ask yourself, am I really a “voice of opposition” or a voice of logic and reason.

          • Billy Jackson

            There hasn’t been “nothing” simply evidence that you personally find unpersuasive.

          • roseland67

            Billy,
            The evidence presented, taken in context, is certainly persuasive, however, upon further review, none of it has been replicated by anyone anywhere, ever, so, did it really happen?
            I am a lifetime engineer and simply do not believe what I am told, I want replicated proof by trusted sources, and to date, this has simply not happened.

    • SD

      Suppose you are IH and ask questions about e.g. the zero pressure reading, but get no response. Do you pay the $89 million based on this report?

      • My main concern is whether this technology is real or not. I don’t really care who pays what to whom.

        Unless somebody wants to pay me $89M, in which case I would care a great deal.

        • SD

          You say either “Rossi made all the numbers up” or “it worked and IH is FUDding”.

          Have you considered that maybe IH isn’t satisfied with the test results?

          Often when presented with black and white, the answer is grey or gray.

          • IH had no problem with the test reports until the last one came in and Rossi asked for $89M.

          • Michael W Wolf

            I generally agree with you. But accusing people of fraud without proof, puts IH in the FUD zone. And they should have had certainty before they signed the contract. It is now in the hands of Penon, and they approved!

          • Gerard McEk

            As LENR G was saying: The absolute figures might be wrong a bit, but the shown figueres show a huge excess energy that cannot denied. The differences between good and false are simply too large. NO way to say that NO excess heat was measured and that the aparatus did NOT work (as IH did).

          • clovis ray

            no they are trying to steal Dr Rossi device, when they decided to defraud Leonardo corp. they made a grave mistake. and will soon learn that Dr. Rossi is no ordinary person.

        • clovis ray

          Oh it real, and most people have no idea what power is enclosed, in energy and in political power, the one with this power will rule them all.

      • LilyLover

        Suppose you are IH, and you receive perfectly satisfactory response. Your boss tells you to lie, muddle and obfuscate – there’s money or life or both for you in it. You know you should pay. But, you choose to steal the invention, instead. Would you pay the $89M? Or would you pretend that it doesn’t work?

        • clovis ray

          Their greed put them on the rocks

      • Bohem FromCz

        The law-suit is: After successful test must IH pay 89mega.!
        Understand?

        • clovis ray

          in a word NO, it will be much much more.

      • clovis ray

        There is no 89 million, there is only a breach of contract.
        and as i see it there will never be a 89 mill anything, it’s a thing of the past, Dr. Rossi wants his ip back along with just combination and harm, whitch will be no small sum you can bet your hat. and it just keeps going up. smile.

  • When can we expect your first post that indicates any sort of open mind?

    Name 3 pieces of evidence that fall on the Rossi side of the ledger.

    • roseland67

      G,

      Apparently the moderator didn’t like my response as it was removed, (as have been more than a few of my writings).
      I gave 6 pieces of “evidence” that I thought fell on the Rossi side of the ledger.
      IF, all 6 of that listed evidence is proven true, Andre Rossi will win the Nobel prize for physics, and I will, (gladly), be proven wrong on my assessment of him and his works.
      If this occurs in my lifetime I will also, (gladly), come back to this blog and take my beatings of “You were wrong & I told you so”

      However, deep in your heart of hearts, as much as you want the Ecat to be what is claimed to be, I get the feeling that you don’t really believe it works either.

      • Thanks for the honest response.

        I have already stated on the record that however this turns out the result will be utterly ridiculous.

        If I had to choose between the two utterly ridiculous choices remaining at the moment, I still lean toward working tech for two main reasons (Rossi making the reactors available for scientific testing and supporting results seen by other experimenters).

        • roseland67

          G,

          I don’t think the end will be utterly ridiculous, the Ecat will either work as stated, (Energy out > Energy in), or it won’t.

          • Oh but it will.

            We either have a 5+ person conspiracy approaching a decade of fraudulent activity whose purpose apparently was not money because they already got run-for-the-hills money and kept at it anyway, that was brilliant and confident enough to hand reactors off to scientists for unfettered measurement but stupid enough to fabricate customers and data with obvious flaws… and the cherry on top… actually sued their latest victim and didn’t settle before discovery. That’s like the definition of ridiculous you’d find in the dictionary…

            OR…

            A company that performed various validation tests and evaluations over a number of years, transferred $11.5M as a result, applied for various related patents, paraded investors past a plant that they surely believed worked at the time, netted tens of millions, and then decided to walk away from a working technology potentially worth billions because of a dubious customer and some white papers by engineers that went unanswered… or perhaps some sort of high stakes IP power play. So either stupid and careless enough to not know with certainty even 5 years into it that Rossi had the goods, or stupid and careless enough to risk it all because of what seemed to them a good business move. In the non-fraud scenario, either Darden and company looked at the Golden Goose and decided it was a frog because some people whispered in their ear that they heard some ribbits… or decided to kill it because its golden eggs were not quite pure enough for them. Ridiculous.

            You see? No way around it. We’ve got ridiculous up to our eyeballs.

      • Billy Jackson

        Having a voice of opposition is not a bad thing.. if you ask hard questions then we are better prepared to face future challenges. The real danger is in irrational illogical minds that refuses to acknowledge any points against their arguments..

  • sam

    Jed Rothwell seems upset and might not sleep.
    Or maybe he one of those people
    that can get to sleep if the roofs
    falling in.

    ERV core Report – opinion paper by Jed Rothwell,

    who if you remember has declared that he has seen a fragment of this ERV paper and concluded that any sane and rational individual looking to it must conclude in less then 5 minutes- zero excess heat! It seems he has not changed much his opinion, see below:

    You did not describe what data you mean. It is here, in document 128-01 – Exhibit 1.pdf :

    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

    This data is complete bullshit. It describes physically impossible phenomena, such as a factory in a perfect vacuum with a pressure 0.0 bar, and water that is exactly the same temperature to the nearest tenth-degree every day for weeks. The instruments used to collect this data were completely wrong for the task, and the configuration made it impossible to use any instruments properly. The major problems were described in Exhibit 5 at the above website:

    124-06 – Exhibit 5.pdf

    This data proves beyond question that the 1-year test was fraud. It was inept fraud, which anyone with a half a brain can see at a glance. People such as Peter Gluck are incapable of seeing it because they are mesmerized by Rossi, and deluded by wishful thinking.

    The opposite opinion from Ego Out blog

    ERV core Report – opinion paper by BOB COOK.

    The data reported by someone–it was not clear who or whether it was a factual document associated with the suit–is internally consistent and indicative of large COP’s. The nomenclature associated with the data–Exhibit 1– is inconsistent with the normal nomenclature associated with a factual document for submittal to the court, i.e., Exhibit A,B etc. with the use of letters instead of numbers.

    Regarding the data, the pressure reported as 0.0 is a little confusing. I assumed it was actually a differential pressure between 2 points in the system. A system diagram with the various instruments shown is needed to fully understand the report. For a flowing system of water and steam it would seem that there would be some measurable differential pressure created.

    That may have occurred in the customer side of the loop. Nevertheless, the energy added to the flow of water and steam could be determined by measuring the enthalpy (energy) added by the reactor without the knowledge of what happened in the customer’s plant. The specific enthalpy of water and steam (joules per gram) is determined by their absolute temperatures and pressures at any given instant. Thus, if the conditions of the water/steam varied with time, information regarding changes is necessary to determine the integrated flow of energy (steam and water) over time. The fact that the enthalpy was mostly steam at a significant supper heating (i.e., a temperature above saturation for steam at STP) suggests that the energy would be easy to determine.

    Assuming there were no other sources of energy supplied to the reactor other than FP&L electrical energy, the demonstration of performance as reported in Exhibit 1 looks sound to me. With the large COP’s reported small errors in measurements would make no significant difference in the conclusion about the reactor’s ability to produce useful energy.

    As far as I am concerned, LENR+ has been demonstrated.

    • bachcole

      Wow, that’s what I would call squiggles on a bright screen. I would believe Frank Acland or Mats Lewan or anyone I know and trust and even better people I know and trust who disbelieve in the e-cat/Rossi saying that they saw the machine in action and they burned their fingers on it and they watched it for days and days and it just kept on going like the Duracell rabbit.

  • Well, now it starts to get interesting. I’m still looking forward to seeing all evidence, from both parties, presented in court.

    BTW, here’s from my recently published piece in the Indian journal World Affairs:

    Meanwhile, people with insight to the ERV report that was never released have explained to me that the result presented in the report is conclusive and that the only possible way to attack it would be to attack Rossi, the ERV and other people involved for fraud. Yet, based on testimonials I have received, I find the fraud hypothesis highly unlikely. Obviously, it is premature to draw any firm conclusions while the lawsuit is ongoing. Still, my strictly personal assessment, adding all the pieces of the puzzle and weighing them in direct contact with several parties, is that IH was acting logically as a venture capitalist, trying to get hold of an incredibly valuable technology at the lowest possible cost, but that it misjudged the difficulties in dealing with the inventor and other people involved. This does not mean that I find IH’s behaviour correct or defendable but again that is for the court to sort out and I have confidence in its ability to do so.

    World Affairs, Vol. 21 No. 4, winter (October-December) 2016
    http://www.worldaffairsjournal.com/content.php

    • sam

      Or they might realize that the
      Business partnership was botched
      up from lack of trust and communication and settle out
      of Court.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      „evidence, from both parties, presented in court“

      Better: the judge orders a one day test by an independent engineer. I am not sure if she would do that, but to me it would appear to be the best solution.

      • Vinney

        Or ask Rossi to demonstrate LENR+ using the QuarkX, using Three Phase power with an extension lead from the court plant room. Everything else is in his suitcase. It’s almost designed for this demonstration.

        • clovis ray

          Not likely. Dr Rossi said no more proof of concept demos, only demo is the one he has planed, when I/H gets tired of throwing millions out the window by delaying and dragging their feet, we will see one of the kittys perrrrrr, but only when Dar. Rossi want to demo, and not until.

      • I think, though I can not prove it, that if there hadn’t been so much discrediting efforts going on we would probably consider Penon as the independent engineer you’re asking for. Meaning that what you’re asking for probably wouldn’t change much.
        I believe there might me lots of other evidence which can settle this issue, and I want to see it.

    • LION

      This is the story of the century, and the most important SCIENCE story of our time, it is great so see a TOP Journalist stay with it through thick and thin, and demonstrate once again the Absolute Necessity of free INDEPENDENT Thinking, and reporting. Power to your PEN Mats. RESPECT.

      • Thanks Lion. I will continue doing what I can.

        • LION

          Hi Mats, I have recently posted some of my X Ray film from LENR experiments, they can be viewed by looking at my Disqus profile, Enjoy.

    • Omega Z

      I completely concur. It’s as if Venture Capitalist have a play book and this follows it verbatim. I have followed another venture in the past and all one would need to do is change out the names and everyone here would think it’s the same case between Rossi and Darden/IH.

      Notice that they have already whittled Rodert Godes down to only retaining 5% of Brillouin Energy and if they can, I look for them to reduce that to 1% if not eliminate him completely.

      With the V.C’s holding 95%, they control everything. It’s like, “Robert, if you want more capital to bring this to market, you need to handover at least another 4%”. What can he do otherwise. Nothing.

      • Omega Z, what’s the source of your details on Godes’ share of Brillouin, and who is owning the 95%?

        • Omega Z

          Source was Robert Godes in which he included in his defense that considering the value of the technology, even 5% is huge. A valid point except that when you no longer control your IP, they have you by the balls.

          As to who the investors are, Darden is at least 1. I think others were involved before Darden, but I can’t be certain of that. Even if others were involved, they could have been bought out since.

          Darden just stated in an interview that he’s invested in about a dozen LENR projects, but has pared that down to 6 with good promise.

        • SG

          Dewey over on lenr-forum has previously stated that IH is an investor in Brillouin.

  • Well, now it starts to get interesting. I’m still looking forward to seeing all evidence, from both parties, presented in court.

    BTW, here’s from my recently published piece in the Indian journal World Affairs:

    Meanwhile, people with insight to the ERV report that was never released have explained to me that the result presented in the report is conclusive and that the only possible way to attack it would be to attack Rossi, the ERV and other people involved for fraud. Yet, based on testimonials I have received, I find the fraud hypothesis highly unlikely. Obviously, it is premature to draw any firm conclusions while the lawsuit is ongoing. Still, my strictly personal assessment, adding all the pieces of the puzzle and weighing them in direct contact with several parties, is that IH was acting logically as a venture capitalist, trying to get hold of an incredibly valuable technology at the lowest possible cost, but that it misjudged the difficulties in dealing with the inventor and other people involved. This does not mean that I find IH’s behaviour correct or defendable but again that is for the court to sort out and I have confidence in its ability to do so.

    World Affairs, Vol. 21 No. 4, winter (October-December) 2016
    http://www.worldaffairsjournal.com/content.php

    • sam

      Or they might realize that the
      Business partnership was botched
      up from lack of trust and communication and settle out
      of Court.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      „evidence, from both parties, presented in court“

      Better: the judge orders a one day test by an independent engineer. I am not sure if she would do that, but to me it would appear to be the best solution.

      • Vinney

        Or ask Rossi to demonstrate LENR+ using the QuarkX, using Three Phase power with an extension lead from the court plant room. Everything else is in his suitcase. It’s almost designed for this demonstration.

        • clovis ray

          Not likely. Dr Rossi said no more proof of concept demos, only demo is the one he has planed, when I/H gets tired of throwing millions out the window by delaying and dragging their feet, we will see one of the kittys perrrrrr, but only when Dar. Rossi want to demo, and not until.

      • I think, though I can not prove it, that if there hadn’t been so much discrediting efforts going on we would probably consider Penon as the independent engineer you’re asking for. Meaning that what you’re asking for probably wouldn’t change much.
        I believe there might me lots of other evidence which can settle this issue, and I want to see it.

    • LION

      This is the story of the century, and the most important SCIENCE story of our time, it is great so see a TOP Journalist stay with it through thick and thin, and demonstrate once again the Absolute Necessity of free INDEPENDENT Thinking, and reporting. Power to your PEN Mats. RESPECT.

      • Thanks Lion. I will continue doing what I can.

        • LION

          Hi Mats, I have recently posted some of my X Ray film from LENR experiments, they can be viewed by looking at my Disqus profile, Enjoy.

    • Omega Z

      I completely concur. It’s as if Venture Capitalist have a play book and this follows it verbatim. I have followed another venture in the past and all one would need to do is change out the names and everyone here would think it’s the same case between Rossi and Darden/IH.

      Notice that they have already whittled Rodert Godes down to only retaining 5% of Brillouin Energy and if they can, I look for them to reduce that to 1% if not eliminate him completely.

      With the V.C’s holding 95%, they control everything. It’s like, “Robert, if you want more capital to bring this to market, you need to handover at least another 4%”. What can he do otherwise. Nothing.

      • Omega Z, what’s the source of your details on Godes’ share of Brillouin, and who is owning the 95%?

        • Omega Z

          Source was Robert Godes in which he included in his defense that considering the value of the technology, even 5% is huge. A valid point except that when you no longer control your IP, they have you by the balls.

          As to who the investors are, Darden is at least 1. I think others were involved before Darden, but I can’t be certain of that. Even if others were involved, they could have been bought out since.

          Darden just stated in an interview that he’s invested in about a dozen LENR projects, but has pared that down to 6 with good promise.

        • SG

          Dewey over on lenr-forum has previously stated that IH is an investor in Brillouin.

  • Hhiram

    With these data, it is clear that there is no more wiggle-room from measurement error. Up until now, without concrete data, someone could always make the case that any COP > 1 was simply measurement error, as in the Lugano report – and it can therefore be ignored, regardless of what anyone thinks of Rossi.

    That is no longer an option.

    With these claims of average COP > 80 either the over-unity LENR effect is real, or Rossi is just a fraud and everything was falsified. There is no middle ground now.

    Of course many of us are hopeful that Rossi is not a fraud (although there is quite a bit of damning evidence now). But what we can be sure of is that the long years of uncertainty are coming to an end. We will know for sure, one way or the other, at the end of these court proceedings.

  • Hhiram

    With these data, it is clear that there is no more wiggle-room from measurement error. Up until now, without concrete data, someone could always make the case that any COP > 1 was simply measurement error, as in the Lugano report – and it can therefore be ignored, regardless of what anyone thinks of Rossi.

    That is no longer an option.

    With these claims of average COP > 80 either the over-unity LENR effect is real, or Rossi is just a fraud and everything was falsified. There is no middle ground now.

    Of course many of us are hopeful that Rossi is not a fraud (although there is quite a bit of damning evidence now). But what we can be sure of is that the long years of uncertainty are coming to an end. We will know for sure, one way or the other, at the end of these court proceedings.

    • roseland67

      hiram,
      So, if the cop > 80 as you indicate and Rossi and the data are in fact true, real and replicable, then Rossi is due the Nobel prize for physics.

      Do you believe it?

      • cashmemorz

        No prize in physics since what he has is a working device with a theory that has not been proven or peer reviewed or considered as a contender by others as being a viable theory by anyone in the mainstream. Nobel Committtee cannot put its own reputation on the line by giving prizes for unknown foundations however successful the devices are based on an unproven theory. Its all about “real” physics as the mainstream understand it of being a proven theory. When and if Rossi’s theory is proven to be the one that is actually doing what Rossi claims then Nobel may be persuaded to look at it. Life is not always fair, even for the hardest working individuals.

        • SG

          “a proven theory”

          Is that not somewhat of an oxymoron?

          • cashmemorz

            With the plethora of such unproven “theories” one is at odds what to call them. They all have the moniker of “theory”. All unproven, simply proposed, I guess. Until the proponents use proper terminology, such as “speculated” or “hypothetical” or “proposed” process, then one has to step in line with such terminology as is being used and play within the field as it is presented to all. The term “theory” is overused and misused in many cases of general dialogue. Even in scientific circles that term is used where the precursors “speculation”, “hypothesis”, and proposed process” should be used for more accuracy. In science, accurate terminology is a prerequisite. But by now you get my meaning, oxymoron or not. “Somewhat of an oxymoron” also implies a not totally moronic term.

  • John Williamson

    Actually, I didn’t argue the the high COP or leaving out April 6 makes it look real or like a scam. Both are neutral in that determination, so my post proves nothing. I just said that doing stuff that wouldn’t be necessary for a fake makes it look less fake to some people, and therefore makes sense.

    You think the COP of 63 to 139 looks unreal, therefore you think it must be real. No scammer would make something look so unreal. Unless of course, that’s what they want you to think. It worked on you…

    It’s silly logic. Second guessing whether the alleged scammer is a step ahead or behind gets you nowhere.

    The reason it looks like a scam is because the claims are extraordinary, and the evidence, after 6 years, is *still* not accessible in a way that allows skeptics to test it in an unencumbered way.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Yea, maybe, or IH’s FUD worked on you. Since we don’t know yet because IH has no proof, you could be the duped one, no matter how badly you think the odds are against Rossi supporters. IH can build the 11 COP device they described to the patent office. Which is now obsolete if Rossi can produce a device with 160 COP. That is what this is over I think. Would you pay 89 million for a device you could build that won’t sell? Neither did IH. They had to take their chances in court. This is supported by IH with an offer on the table to give up their license rights to the tech and get their money back and has not been accepted. If it is all fake why don’t they give up those rights? All they have to do is accept Rossi’s offer right here. If Rossi doesn’t return their money, he is a fraud. This all ends and Rossi will lose the law suit. But nooooo, IH want’s his tech, period,

      • Buck

        This is in reference to the graph of daily COPs presented by G McEk below . . . about 2 days ago.

        Rossi has over the last year spoken of his daily effort to improve the control (software & hardware) of the original e-Cat and the QuarkX.

        Has anyone taken note of the apparent change in value of the standard deviation at about day 175. Recognizing that there are only 3 major transitions from one average COP to another before the end of the 1-year test starting at day 175, one can visually assess a dramatic reduction in the COP variability as compared to the first 175 days.

        I point this out as a form of proof in the real change in the performance criteria of controllability. If memory serves me, Rossi did mention every so often real improvements in the e-Cat performance.

        Congratulations Andrea ! ! !

        • wpj

          He said that there were different charges in the tiger units to see how they lasted. One then a second started to have reduced power.

          • Buck

            WPJ,
            I remember that as well. I also remember him describing changes in the hardware, presumably to support the very high temperatures as well as to improve the heat exchange rate, as well as the software that both stimulated and inhibited the reaction to achieve a stable controlled reaction.

      • John Williamson

        You lost me after “or IH’s FUD worked on you”. IH still thinks there might be something to LENR, and I never have, so they’ve always been *behind* me. All the rest of your post doesn’t address the reason it has looked like a scam from the start: lack of accessible evidence that it works. If someone claims pigs can fly, skepticism is the default until accessible evidence is presented.

  • Veblin

    Feb 1, 2017, 5:26pm EST
    Triangle Business Journal
    Despite lawsuit, Industrial Heat continues mission, investor says
    http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2017/02/01/despite-lawsuit-industrial-heat-continues-mission.html

    • Gerard McEk

      What if the diapers don’t work as expected?

      • Vinney

        What if Rossi empties their trading account
        Anyway, I thought you said you were sleeping to September.

        • Gerard McEk

          Something awaked me…..;)

      • Omega Z

        They can’t patent recyclable Diapers.

        It falls under prior art.

        It’s quite easy to see these people are of the pampers generation and not the cotton flour sack generation…

        Years ago my neighbor bought pampers(60 or 72 pak about $5) every week.

        When my kids were little, I bought 3 dozen cotton diapers for about $10. Two years latter when they were no longer of use, they become polishing cloths for waxing the car and other such uses until they were not much more then a pile of lint. There were also some places that collected that to recycle. Some of that may have ended up in the U.S. currency as the paper it’s printed on has cotton fibers. Now that’s the ultimate in recycling.

        Note the ONLY time we ever used pampers was on all day road trips during the holidays. You understand, some things don’t travel well in a hot car. 🙂

  • Veblin

    Feb 1, 2017, 5:26pm EST
    Triangle Business Journal
    Despite lawsuit, Industrial Heat continues mission, investor says
    http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2017/02/01/despite-lawsuit-industrial-heat-continues-mission.html

    BizJournal Article: Industrial Heat Continues to Invest in “About Six” LENR Projects Worldwide
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/02/02/bizjournal-article-industrial-heat-continues-to-invest-in-about-six-lenr-projects-worldwide/

    • Gerard McEk

      What if the diapers don’t work as expected?

      • Vinney

        What if Rossi empties their trading account
        Anyway, I thought you said you were sleeping to September.

        • Gerard McEk

          Something awaked me…..;)

          • Bohem FromCz

            Money, Money ….?

          • clovis ray

            The truth maybe, that it all check out, just like Dr. Rossi said.

      • Omega Z

        They can’t patent recyclable Diapers.

        It falls under prior art.

        It’s quite easy to see these people are of the pampers generation and not the cotton flour sack generation…

        Years ago my neighbor bought pampers(60 or 72 pak about $5) every week.

        When my kids were little, I bought 3 dozen cotton diapers for about $10. Two years latter when they were no longer of use, they become polishing cloths for waxing the car and other such uses until they were not much more then a pile of lint. There were also some places that collected that to recycle. Some of that may have ended up in the U.S. currency as the paper it’s printed on has cotton fibers. Now that’s the ultimate in recycling.

        Note the ONLY time we ever used pampers was on all day road trips during the holidays. You understand, some things don’t travel well in a hot car. 🙂

    • clovis ray

      when this court case is over there want be any investors for I/H.
      THEY I/H WILL BE OVER.

  • wpj

    I agree- any real scammer would be using figures at 10% of these as they are so outrageous. Unless it’s double bluff. of course.

  • Gerard McEk

    Just another perspective (others hinted also to this possibility):
    Questions: So if AR made this apparatus, able to generate energy with a COP in average > 80, then that is a goldmine, also for IH (if it is all true), isn’t it? So why is AR so desperately developing the QuarkX as if the devil is on his heels?
    Can it be that AR has revealed just the Hot Cat know-how to IH? IH, not able to properly copy a Hot Cat and only get’s low COP’s and having no knowledge of the lower temperature E-cat, is frustrated and wants to have the E-cat with high COP’s too. Now AR is proving (ultimately also for the court) that he can make a reliable Hot Cat (QuarkX) with a high COP. Would that be a possible reason why all this is taking place?

    • Vinney

      He needs the money promised and agreed by IH to commercialize the E-cat.
      Once the cat is out of the bag, anyone can copy it.
      He needs ‘massively’ mechanized lines to even ensure he exists any time after market entry.
      Heavily ‘cashed’ up companies (and centralised governments) will quickly step on the band wagon.
      And as you correctly say, he wants to also get mightily rich.

    • Omega Z

      Gerard, The answers have been in front of us for quite a long while. We just don’t pay close enough attention to the small details alluded to by Rossi.

      One of Rossi’s great fears is to have millions of products in the market only to find it has a major flaw.

      Note: It doesn’t matter how efficient it is if you have to replace it before it pays for itself. It would be like, I bought a car that gets 5000 mpg. I Think? I can’t be certain as the engine blows up and needs replaced before I reach 5000 miles.

      Rossi’s devices tend to break down a lot when he is not present to override the control system. It’s as if they need to operate at the very edge of self destruct to achieve COP>1.

      Evidenced by Rossi always needing materials that can sustain very high temperatures for long periods of time. He’s in good company. Turbine manufacturers, NASA, the Military all have the same issue. Pushing the limits of material science.

      • cashmemorz

        Theory is everything in this case. Widom Larsen is being touted as the one theory that is the best contender. But that is like saying that the horse, that has won races most of the time, will win the next race. Maybe, depends on a better, younger horse. There will always be a younger horse and a better tweaked theory. A fully tested theory that has stood up to all manner of attempts to falsify it. Once that is in hand, and most physicists agree on that, then I will invest all my money in it and buy not just one but go into business selling them to all people with whom I have a reputation to uphold without fear of losing that reputation.

        Anyone who gets into this game before that point, with even one foot, may walk away a one legged cripple or worse.

        So the mainstream physicists are just being careful, reputation trap or whatever.

      • Gerard McEk

        Yes, but why isn’t he setting up an E-cat factory and earning money. I am sure that’s easier than trying to invent something new that might never work.

        • Because he’s an inventor.

          • Gerard McEk

            Yes Mats, but also an industrialist as you have described in your book. He has often said that he would start a massive production and he has confirmed to me that after the test the plant would be ready for production when some necessary changes (learnings of the year long test) are implemented.

          • Omega Z

            Gerard, Andrea still has some reliabilty issues to address before taking anything to market.

            If the technology takes 3 years to pay back it’s initial cost in savings, likely you as well as everyone else will want at least a 3 year warranty. If they break down well before then, Rossi would quickly be out of business due to recalls.

            Even should Rossi recover, the delay will allow competitors to reverse engineer the technology and overwhelm him. Make no mistake about it. Dozens of multibillion dollar corporations will be all over this as soon as just a few are on the market.

            The point is- Rossi has only 1 chance to get this right.

          • Gerard McEk

            I agree with that Omega Z, but as a ‘first user’ of a prototype phase apparatus, you would have an advantageous position. No doubt you can negotiate a better delivery contract with the Leonardo Company like 24/7 service, longer guarantee, 10 years free fuel or maybe even a lower price.
            I agree that AR must be sure that he delivers a quality product, but I thought the E-cat (not the QuarkX) has reached that level already with the learnings of the 1 year test.

      • psi2u2

        Very good analysis. He does have to be very concerned about that.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Ih was taught to build the unit that puts out 3-6 cop. Since, rossi has developed unit that put out 63-139 cop. Sure if rossi could only achieve what IH did, IH would be exited. But what good is the unit IH can build if rossi can put out 60 COP? IH is pissed they had been able to only build the obsolete unit. They want the IP that rossi used to build 60 COP unit. The only thing they could do is call rossi a fraud to force him to at least prove he can do it. And maybe keep from paying another 89 million for the obsolete technology.

      • Omega Z

        Michael,

        Had IH/Darden paid the $89M, they would have rights to all further developments in the technology. That is included in the agreement.

      • BillH

        That conclusion would have some merit if IH didn’t own the 1MW used for the Doral test. Then again maybe the COP figures achieved could not be obtained unless AR was on site 16hrs a day.

    • Gerard McEk

      Obviously AR does not want to answer a question about this, which I asked today:

      Gerard McEk
      February 3, 2017 at 7:50 AM
      Dear Andrea,
      I am very much impressed of the performance of the 1 MW plant. I know you are not allowed to say anything about this, but I wonder why you have not started the full speed production of these plants, as they are really a goldmine. Instead you are developing a QuarkX, which has probably even more potential, but may require also much more time to get it into production. Can you please give us some insight of what moves you in this?
      Thank you for answering our questions.
      Kind regards, Gerard

      Translate
      Andrea Rossi
      February 3, 2017 at 8:13 AM
      Gerard McEk:
      The E-Cat is not an alternative to the QuarkX.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

  • Gerard McEk

    Just another perspective (others hinted also to this possibility):
    Questions: So if AR made this apparatus, able to generate energy with a COP in average > 80, then that is a goldmine, also for IH (if it is all true), isn’t it? So why is AR so desperately developing the QuarkX as if the devil is on his heels?
    Can it be that AR has revealed just the Hot Cat know-how to IH? IH, not able to properly copy a Hot Cat and only get’s low COP’s and having no knowledge of the lower temperature E-cat, is frustrated and wants to have the E-cat with high COP’s too. Now AR is proving (ultimately also for the court) that he can make a reliable Hot Cat (QuarkX) with a high COP. Would that be a possible reason why all this is taking place?

    • Vinney

      He needs the money promised and agreed by IH to commercialize the E-cat.
      Once the cat is out of the bag, anyone can copy it.
      He needs ‘massively’ mechanized lines to even ensure he exists any time after market entry.
      Heavily ‘cashed’ up companies (and centralised governments) will quickly step on the band wagon.
      And as you correctly say, he wants to also get mightily rich.

      • clovis ray

        no, he does not need that money in fact that money is long gone. come on vinny, if anyone tries to copy it they will be shut down with out leonardo’s gets their cut. you haven’t been listening i suppose, he has mechanized lines , when leonardo has things close to 5 sigma, there is on one on earth that can do more in order to bring it to market than Leonardo corp. and Dr. Rossi.

        • cashmemorz

          Only the Chinese black market could try to compete. But without sigma 5, which the chinese could not hope to attain(an article recently stated they just now, 2017, were able to develop the tech to make the ball for the tip of a ballpoint pen), they don’t have much chance to flood any market if Rossi has the tech already. For anyone wondering how it is then that they have rockets and moon robots, its all copied from old tech literally given to them by the USA.

    • Omega Z

      Gerard, The answers have been in front of us for quite a long while. We just don’t pay close enough attention to the small details alluded to by Rossi.

      One of Rossi’s great fears is to have millions of products in the market only to find it has a major flaw.

      Note: It doesn’t matter how efficient it is if you have to replace it before it pays for itself. It would be like, I bought a car that gets 5000 mpg. I Think? I can’t be certain as the engine blows up and needs replaced before I reach 5000 miles.

      Rossi’s devices tend to break down a lot when he is not present to override the control system. It’s as if they need to operate at the very edge of self destruct to achieve COP>1.

      Evidenced by Rossi always needing materials that can sustain very high temperatures for long periods of time. He’s in good company. Turbine manufacturers, NASA, the Military all have the same issue. Pushing the limits of material science.

      • cashmemorz

        Theory is everything in this case. Widom Larsen is being touted as the one theory that is the best contender. But that is like saying that the horse, that has won races most of the time, will win the next race. Maybe, depends on a better, younger horse. There will always be a younger horse and a better tweaked theory. A fully tested theory that has stood up to all manner of attempts to falsify it. Once that is in hand, and most physicists agree on that, then I will invest all my money in it and buy not just one but go into business selling them to all people with whom I have a reputation to uphold without fear of losing that reputation.

        Anyone who gets into this game before that point, with even one foot, may walk away a one legged cripple or worse.

        So the mainstream physicists are just being careful, reputation trap or whatever.

      • Gerard McEk

        Yes, but why isn’t he setting up an E-cat factory and earning money. I am sure that’s easier than trying to invent something new that might never work.

        • Because he’s an inventor.

          • Gerard McEk

            Yes Mats, but also an industrialist as you have described in your book. He has often said that he would start a massive production and he has confirmed to me that after the test the plant would be ready for production when some necessary changes (learnings of the year long test) are implemented.

          • Omega Z

            Gerard, Andrea still has some reliabilty issues to address before taking anything to market.

            If the technology takes 3 years to pay back it’s initial cost in savings, likely you as well as everyone else will want at least a 3 year warranty. If they break down well before then, Rossi would quickly be out of business due to recalls.

            Even should Rossi recover, the delay will allow competitors to reverse engineer the technology and overwhelm him. Make no mistake about it. Dozens of multibillion dollar corporations will be all over this as soon as just a few are on the market.

            The point is- Rossi has only 1 chance to get this right.

          • Gerard McEk

            I agree with that Omega Z, but as a ‘first user’ of a prototype phase apparatus, you would have an advantageous position. No doubt you can negotiate a better delivery contract with the Leonardo Company like 24/7 service, longer guarantee, 10 years free fuel or maybe even a lower price.
            I agree that AR must be sure that he delivers a quality product, but I thought the E-cat (not the QuarkX) has reached that level already with the learnings of the 1 year test.

      • psi2u2

        Very good analysis. He does have to be very concerned about that.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Ih was taught to build the unit that puts out 3-6 cop. Since, rossi has developed unit that put out 63-139 cop. Sure if rossi could only achieve what IH did, IH would be exited. But what good is the unit IH can build if rossi can put out 60 COP? IH is pissed they had been able to only build the obsolete unit. They want the IP that rossi used to build 60 COP unit. The only thing they could do is call rossi a fraud to force him to at least prove he can do it. And maybe keep from paying another 89 million for the obsolete technology.

      • Omega Z

        Michael,

        Had IH/Darden paid the $89M, they would have rights to all further developments in the technology. That is included in the agreement.

        • Michael W Wolf

          Hmm but according to the contract Rossi is only obligated to teach them 3-6 cop. He is not a life long teacher for every development he makes. Cause, where would it end? I think this may end up being the issue and I think IH will lose.

      • BillH

        That conclusion would have some merit if IH didn’t own the 1MW used for the Doral test. Then again maybe the COP figures achieved could not be obtained unless AR was on site 16hrs a day.

    • Gerard McEk

      Obviously AR does not want to answer a question about this, which I asked today:

      Gerard McEk
      February 3, 2017 at 7:50 AM
      Dear Andrea,
      I am very much impressed of the performance of the 1 MW plant. I know you are not allowed to say anything about this, but I wonder why you have not started the full speed production of these plants, as they are really a goldmine. Instead you are developing a QuarkX, which has probably even more potential, but may require also much more time to get it into production. Can you please give us some insight of what moves you in this?
      Thank you for answering our questions.
      Kind regards, Gerard

      Translate
      Andrea Rossi
      February 3, 2017 at 8:13 AM
      Gerard McEk:
      The E-Cat is not an alternative to the QuarkX.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

  • Vinney

    Figures like this presented to an average ‘juror’ would ‘spell’ fake straight away.
    An average juror would not be familiar ( as most now on this forum) with LENR or steam calorimetry. Yet Rossi is aiming for a jury trial. Simply financial suicide or he has something special still to present.

  • purplepartyguy

    IH has stated that they have invested in several cold fusion companies and their technology. Perhaps while Rossi was undergoing his test one of these other companies had a breakthrough and developed a similar reactor with high COP. IH could own this other technology outright, or have a better license agreement, and no they no longer wish to work with Rossi. The best way out of the contract with Rossi is to say his test was a failure and that is why they refused to pay the 89$ million as promised.
    Comments?

    • clovis ray

      hi,purple.
      the 89 mill has nothing to do with this case any more, I/H broke their contract, end of story, they will first have to win this case. before starting another. 89 million want sufice.

    • No way.

      • purplepartyguy

        Mats
        No way as in the other companies didnt have a similar breakthrough? Rossi doesnt have what he claims? Please explain because Im trying to understand what IH is doing.

        • psi2u2

          Reading between the tea leaves here, I bet Mats means “no way is there another entity with a ‘similar breakthrough.'”

          I would have to say I’d agree with that anyway. IH has shown what it has – it has something through Godes and Mike MkKubre, who are really serious researchers. But they are still confirming LENR, and Rossi is light years ahead of that, if – and admittedly its still a big “if” — his data is sound.

    • Omega Z

      “they refused to pay the 89$ million as promised”
      And Darden/IH won’t relinquish their claims on the IP license.

  • BillH

    Hmmm, I’m getting drawn back into this again…if the monthly figure as supplied by AR are in fact correct, and that’s a big IF.

    The average mass flow rate appears to be 36000Kg/d but if you look at Oct 2015 data you will see that the flow rate was 27000Kg/d for every day that month, and the COP figures actually went up! Unless I’m reading this completely wrong there were only 3 reactors running instead of 4
    and the flow rate was reduced by 25% in order to maintain the steam output. I don’t remember AR ever mentioning that the output was ever running at 75% for a whole month? Also, there are probably about 90 days in total where the output was only 75% of rated, which points to an issue regarding reliability. In most instances when only 3 reactors were running the calculated COP figure actually went up, so running it that way could be seen as a fudge to boost the average COP.

    IH still has a strong case if they base it on reliability of supply, who would want a plant that works at reduced power for 25% of the year? and since JML is highly suspect as an independent customer there can be little trust that they would be an independent witness.

    Not withstand spectacular COP figures I think a judge would conclude that an unreliable plant is not worth $89M. More work need Mr AR.

    • clovis ray

      Bill hi,
      Come on here, are you saying That for 1 full year they did not see proof that this machine was producing steam in excess of the power going in at the meter, no they knew,their scam dident work

      • BillH

        If you look more critically you could probably discern how the steam could just circulate around and around losing little energy and give the appearance of great performance. Without a customer who’s to say.

        • psi2u2

          IH has not just said that there is no customer. They are also claiming that Rossi’s device did not perform as his data seems to show that it did. These are separate questions that should be discussed separately. Trying to undermine Rossi’s data by talking about the customer feels like a real diversion to me.

          • Brent Buckner

            I think the issues are tied together in that IH may claim that it was induced to accept the Doral test protocols in part because of the secondary check of an independent customer.

          • US_Citizen71

            The contract called for the test to be almost immediate after delivery, but some how IH the LENR love child of Cherokee a huge real estate concern couldn’t find a warehouse suitable to conduct the test in. So you are saying they are whining because they were forced to remove their thumbs from their rears and proceed with the terms of the contract they signed? A customer was not part of the contract. A customer was used because the way IH seems to conduct business makes the government seem speedy and efficient by comparison.

          • Brent Buckner

            I have no useful elaboration of my comment above to offer you.

    • Gerard McEk

      I am not sure reliability was a part of the contract.

      • BillH

        There were a certain amount of spare days built into the test, if required. This does suggest that reliability was part of the test. Why wouldn’t it be?

        • Omega Z

          Both reliability and the longevity of the fuel charge were both a part of the test, however, payment was based on the overall COP as is spelled out in the agreement. Reliability and the longevity of the fuel charge would be of an engineering nature. Both of which would be of much interest before marketing a product.

        • Gerard McEk

          I think the prototype would be allowed to fail. That is why AR had build-in 50 or so additional small Ecats. I understood that if the tigers would fail he had a back-up and the test would still be a success.

    • wpj

      Look at the invoices for power used. Quite a bit of it was for 750 usage and it even states on one that this was at the request of the client.

    • BillH

      Correction: the 27000Kg/d should be taken from the Aug 2015 or Sept 2015 data. In total I have counted approximately 90 days when the flow rate was that figure or less, so there would have been only 3 reactors running. Is it strange that no reactor seems to have been repaired during a day only between days?

    • Jamie Sibley

      Would it not make sense for Rossi, if he recognized that one of the reactors was losing efficiency and therefore providing a low COP, to remove that reactor from service. Even though there total output would be reduced to .75MW, the COP would improve due to the removal of a poor functioning reactor.

      • BillH

        take that to it’s logical conclusion and run just 1 reactor, wow, now you have even better COP figures, hmmmm.

        • Omega Z

          BillH

          Read Jamies post again.

          If 1 reactor is malfunctioning and running at low COP, it would reduce the average COP of all the reactors. By removing that 1, the average COP would go up.

          • Billy Jackson

            There hasn’t been “nothing” simply evidence that you personally find unpersuasive.

          • BillH

            If a reactor starts to fail it will of course effect COP, It can’t however be seen as a bonus to switch it off, the best you can do is return the COP to the value it was when all 4 reactors were working perfectly, but at what cost? you have to reduce the flow rate by by 25% and the output to 750KW. It’s the equivalent of saying a plane with 4 jet engines should switch one off because the plane will fly better.

    • Hmmm… wouldn’t that be just moving the goal? First we claim that the there were formal errors, and if that doesn’t work we claim the plant didn’t produce any energy, and if that doesn’t work we can always claim it’s a little bit unreliable. Even though it’s a late prototype that produces almost one MW of thermal power with a COP of about 100, which is ABSOLUTELY revolutionary from a scientific point of view, but that wasn’t really what we wanted to focus on. It’s unreliable for God’s sake! Let’s ditch it and the inventor, and above all, we won’t pay! Kind of?

      • BillH

        Does JML actually exist as a customer?, you would seem the ideal man to answer that question. Then I might show more positivity.

        • I don’t know. But as I have said before, we have to wait for evidence to be presented in court. The crumbles made public are only the tip of an iceberg and necessarily lead to biassed speculation. If there’s a real customer I expect it to be easily proven in court. There’s no reason to believe such evidence to be released before. If I were Rossi and I had clear evidence, I would definitely not release it, but would hold on it until the final moment.

          On the other hand, if Rossi is a fraudster that will also become obvious in court. And, regarding the released test data: Either it’s valid, or it’s faked and produced by a conspiracy. Have a guess. I cannot prove which but I believe that will also become clear in court.

          • Timar

            Indeed. To me it seems kind of absurd how the majority on LENR-Forum, who is more or less buying IH’s narrative and obsessively discussing the trial into the most speculative details, somehow seems to have become completely oblivious to the fact that it was was Rossi who sued IH and not the other way around. One could almost suspect that those people have become subject – and thereby part of – a rather successfull astroturfing campaign.

          • Vinney

            Hello Mats,
            You have said before that one of your sources has seen substantial plant through the door from Rossi’s side.
            I take this to mean more than a couple of heat exchangers and fans.
            Are you willing to divulge if this was someone outside of the inner circle of Penon, Fabiani and Levi.

          • wpj

            Not quite what he said. It was more along the lines of the person seeing through the open door what appeared to be production going on (presumably the door close to the e-cat plant)

      • BillH

        That would be fair if I hadn’t made comments about possible reliability issues at least 18 months ago. Around the time when AR was reporting several single reactor shutdowns and a drop in output to around 750KW.

        • I didn’t mean you BillH. I meant IH. Reliability has no importance in this case what so ever. That’s a later question, for commercialisation and going to market. Needs R&D. Absence of reliability issues would be completely unexpected at this stage.

          • SG

            In fact, the presence of issues at this stage lends some degree of credence. A perfectly operating one-of-its kind LENR 1MW plant would be a little suspicious.

    • LilyLover

      The unused 300% redundancy will take care of the reliability issue.
      (Remember? 3 extra E-Cat Cores per actively loaded core as stand-by?? Do you want to??)
      A judge concluding what you conclude would need to be a Trumpistani judge to base the decision: Rossi? Not born in US, therefore Tardy Dirtyden wins.

      • BillH

        I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Were there 4 reactors with 4 cores in each but with 12 of them switched off, I don’t see that mentioned. In any case, when the output fell to 750KW no redundant cores were switched in to compensate.
        In the worst case if one reactor(4 cores) shut down it should have been a simple matter to switch in a single redundant core from one of the running reactors to compensate for the 25% loss of output power, since this didn’t happen and the flow rate was reduced to 27000Kg/d the redundancy you speak of was probably not there.

        • cashmemorz

          Only the Chinese black market could try to compete. But without sigma 5, which the chinese could not hope to attain(an article recently stated they just now, 2017, were able to develop the tech to make the ball for the tip of a ballpoint pen), they don’t have much chance to flood any market if Rossi has the tech alread..

        • LilyLover

          “In the worst case if one reactor(4 cores) shut down it should have been a simple matter to switch in a single redundant core from one of the running reactors to compensate for the 25%In the worst case if one reactor(4 cores) shut down it should have been a simple matter to switch in a single redundant core from one of the running reactors to compensate for the 25%…”
          **
          It was a simple matter; the IH instructions (/future gaming-plan) at the time were that the switching is not necessary as reduced output was acceptable enough to meet the demand. They also wanted Rossi to keep using the failing reactor to verify whether the situation could be normalized, the reactors were controllable, or everything would descend into runaway failure.

          Lack of runaway failure demonstrated the resiliency of the system without need to replace the stand-by cores. That also provided ammunition for their lawyers (for future use).

          I hypothesize that during that process of bringing the failing core back to life, Rossi stumbled upon QuarkX principles.

          • BillH

            “as reduced output was acceptable”?

            You appears to have much more information about what IH told AR than is generally available, perhaps you would like to share the correspondence between IH and AR that would verify your statements….otherwise it’s just waffle.

          • LilyLover

            You should have understood the importance of endurance testing of the core. Your focus on wrong details and lifetime achievement of ‘not being sure’ and making ‘apparent’ statements puts you into “mild arguments are hard to defeat because they don’t say much” is my philosophy of life kind of a person. Deflect-argue-stupidity, however well written, is plainly as banal as your contribution to humanity or any conversation.
            I haven’t been engaging with you per-se; it was merely an illuminating exchange for newcomers. Documentation verification and cataloguing is for the mundane Harvard lawyers. Here, we do something far more superior, that goes beyond E-Cat.
            Collective wisdom of E-Catters is higher than collective wisdom of the Nobel laureates. Your vanity shall not be rewarded, here.

          • BillH

            So that’s a no then.

    • cashmemorz

      Not fudge. Using standard math, standard method using input as given that COP calculates to what it is. Why translate it into fudge? Because it coincides as higher COP when less Tigers are turned on? That is just plying intuitive thinking to the ignorant. Coincidences happen .But the math supports the outcome and all is normal in the math and physics.

  • BillH

    Hmmm, I’m getting drawn back into this again…if the monthly figure as supplied by AR are in fact correct, and that’s a big IF.

    The average mass flow rate appears to be 36000Kg/d but if you look at Oct 2015 data you will see that the flow rate was 27000Kg/d for every day that month, and the COP figures actually went up! Unless I’m reading this completely wrong there were only 3 reactors running instead of 4
    and the flow rate was reduced by 25% in order to maintain the steam output. I don’t remember AR ever mentioning that the output was ever running at 75% for a whole month? Also, there are probably about 90 days in total where the output was only 75% of rated, which points to an issue regarding reliability. In most instances when only 3 reactors were running the calculated COP figure actually went up, so running it that way could be seen as a fudge to boost the average COP.

    IH still has a strong case if they base it on reliability of supply, who would want a plant that works at reduced power for 25% of the year? and since JML is highly suspect as an independent customer there can be little trust that they would be an independent witness.

    Not withstand spectacular COP figures I think a judge would conclude that an unreliable plant is not worth $89M. More work need Mr AR.

    • clovis ray

      Bill hi,
      Come on here, are you saying That for 1 full year they did not see proof that this machine was producing steam in excess of the power going in at the meter, no they knew,their scam dident work

      • BillH

        If you look more critically you could probably discern how the steam could just circulate around and around losing little energy and give the appearance of great performance. Without a customer who’s to say.

        • psi2u2

          IH has not just said that there is no customer. They are also claiming that Rossi’s device did not perform as his data seems to show that it did. These are separate questions that should be discussed separately. Trying to undermine Rossi’s data by talking about the customer feels like a real diversion to me.

          • Brent Buckner

            I think the issues are tied together in that IH may claim that it was induced to accept the Doral test protocols in part because of the secondary check of an independent customer.

          • US_Citizen71

            The contract called for the test to be almost immediate after delivery, but some how IH the LENR love child of Cherokee a huge real estate concern couldn’t find a warehouse suitable to conduct the test in. So you are saying they are whining because they were forced to remove their thumbs from their rears and proceed with the terms of the contract they signed? A customer was not part of the contract. A customer was used because the way IH seems to conduct business makes the government seem speedy and efficient by comparison.

          • Brent Buckner

            I have no useful elaboration of my comment above to offer you.

    • Gerard McEk

      I am not sure reliability was a part of the contract.

      • BillH

        There were a certain amount of spare days built into the test, if required. This does suggest that reliability was part of the test. Why wouldn’t it be?

        • Omega Z

          Both reliability and the longevity of the fuel charge were both a part of the test, however, payment was based on the overall COP as is spelled out in the agreement. Reliability and the longevity of the fuel charge would be of an engineering nature. Both of which would be of much interest before marketing a product.

        • Gerard McEk

          I think the prototype would be allowed to fail. That is why AR had build-in 50 or so additional small Ecats. I understood that if the tigers would fail he had a back-up and the test would still be a success.

    • wpj

      Look at the invoices for power used. Quite a bit of it was for 750 usage and it even states on one that this was at the request of the client.

    • BillH

      Correction: the 27000Kg/d should be taken from the Aug 2015 or Sept 2015 data. In total I have counted approximately 90 days when the flow rate was that figure or less, so there would have been only 3 reactors running. Is it strange that no reactor seems to have been repaired during a day only between days?

    • Jamie Sibley

      Would it not make sense for Rossi, if he recognized that one of the reactors was losing efficiency and therefore providing a low COP, to remove that reactor from service. Even though there total output would be reduced to .75MW, the COP would improve due to the removal of a poor functioning reactor.

      • BillH

        take that to it’s logical conclusion and run just 1 reactor, wow, now you have even better COP figures, hmmmm.

        • Omega Z

          BillH

          Read Jamies post again.

          If 1 reactor is malfunctioning and running at low COP, it would reduce the average COP of all the reactors. By removing that 1, the average COP would go up.

          • BillH

            If a reactor starts to fail it will of course effect COP, It can’t however be seen as a bonus to switch it off, the best you can do is return the COP to the value it was when all 4 reactors were working perfectly, but at what cost? you have to reduce the flow rate by by 25% and the output to 750KW. It’s the equivalent of saying a plane with 4 jet engines should switch one off because the plane will fly better.

    • Hmmm… wouldn’t that be just moving the goal? First we claim that the there were formal errors, and if that doesn’t work we claim the plant didn’t produce any energy, and if that doesn’t work we can always claim it’s a little bit unreliable. Even though it’s a late prototype that produces almost one MW of thermal power with a COP of about 100, which is ABSOLUTELY revolutionary from a scientific point of view, but that wasn’t really what we wanted to focus on. It’s unreliable for God’s sake! Let’s ditch it and the inventor, and above all, we won’t pay! Kind of?

      • BillH

        Does JML actually exist as a customer?, you would seem the ideal man to answer that question. Then I might show more positivity.

        • I don’t know. But as I have said before, we have to wait for evidence to be presented in court. The crumbles made public are only the tip of an iceberg and necessarily lead to biassed speculation. If there’s a real customer I expect it to be easily proven in court. There’s no reason to believe such evidence to be released before. If I were Rossi and I had clear evidence, I would definitely not release it, but would hold on it until the final moment.

          On the other hand, if Rossi is a fraudster that will also become obvious in court. And, regarding the released test data: Either it’s valid, or it’s faked and produced by a conspiracy. Have a guess. I cannot prove which but I believe that will also become clear in court.

          • Timar

            Indeed. To me it seems kind of absurd how the majority on LENR-Forum, who is more or less buying IH’s narrative and obsessively discussing the trial into the most speculative details, somehow seems to have become completely oblivious to the fact that it was was Rossi who sued IH and not the other way around. One could almost suspect that those people have become subject – and thereby part of – a rather successfull astroturfing campaign.

          • Vinney

            Hello Mats,
            You have said before that one of your sources has seen substantial plant through the door from Rossi’s side.
            I take this to mean more than a couple of heat exchangers and fans.
            Are you willing to divulge if this was someone outside of the inner circle of Penon, Fabiani and Levi.

          • wpj

            Not quite what he said. It was more along the lines of the person seeing through the open door what appeared to be production going on (presumably the door close to the e-cat plant)

      • BillH

        That would be fair if I hadn’t made comments about possible reliability issues at least 18 months ago. Around the time when AR was reporting several single reactor shutdowns and a drop in output to around 750KW.

        • I didn’t mean you BillH. I meant IH. Reliability has no importance in this case what so ever. That’s a later question, for commercialisation and going to market. Needs R&D. Absence of reliability issues would be completely unexpected at this stage. ‘Discovering hot water’ as they put it in Italy.

          • SG

            In fact, the presence of issues at this stage lends some degree of credence. A perfectly operating one-of-its kind LENR 1MW plant would be a little suspicious.

    • LilyLover

      The unused 300% redundancy will take care of the reliability issue.
      (Remember? 3 extra E-Cat Cores per actively loaded core as stand-by?? Do you want to??)
      A judge concluding what you conclude would need to be a Trumpistani judge to base the decision: Rossi? Not born in US, therefore Tardy Dirtyden wins.

      • BillH

        I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Were there 4 reactors with 4 cores in each but with 12 of them switched off, I don’t see that mentioned. In any case, when the output fell to 750KW no redundant cores were switched in to compensate.
        In the worst case if one reactor(4 cores) shut down it should have been a simple matter to switch in a single redundant core from one of the running reactors to compensate for the 25% loss of output power, since this didn’t happen and the flow rate was reduced to 27000Kg/d the redundancy you speak of was probably not there.

        • LilyLover

          “In the worst case if one reactor(4 cores) shut down it should have been a simple matter to switch in a single redundant core from one of the running reactors to compensate for the 25%In the worst case if one reactor(4 cores) shut down it should have been a simple matter to switch in a single redundant core from one of the running reactors to compensate for the 25%…”
          **
          It was a simple matter; the IH instructions (/future gaming-plan) at the time were that the switching is not necessary as reduced output was acceptable enough to meet the demand. They also wanted Rossi to keep using the failing reactor to verify whether the situation could be normalized, the reactors were controllable, or everything would descend into runaway failure.

          Lack of runaway failure demonstrated the resiliency of the system without need to replace the stand-by cores. That also provided ammunition for their lawyers (for future use).

          I hypothesize that during that process of bringing the failing core back to life, Rossi stumbled upon QuarkX principles.

          • BillH

            “as reduced output was acceptable”?

            You appears to have much more information about what IH told AR than is generally available, perhaps you would like to share the correspondence between IH and AR that would verify your statements….otherwise it’s just waffle.

          • LilyLover

            You should have understood the importance of endurance testing of the core. Your focus on wrong details and lifetime achievement of ‘not being sure’ and making ‘apparent’ statements puts you into “mild arguments are hard to defeat because they don’t say much” is my philosophy of life kind of a person. Deflect-argue-stupidity, however well written, is plainly as banal as your contribution to humanity or any conversation.
            I haven’t been engaging with you per-se; it was merely an illuminating exchange for newcomers. Documentation verification and cataloguing is for the mundane Harvard lawyers. Here, we do something far more superior, that goes beyond E-Cat.
            Collective wisdom of E-Catters is higher than collective wisdom of the Nobel laureates. Your vanity shall not be rewarded, here.

          • BillH

            So that’s a no then.

    • cashmemorz

      Not fudge. Using standard math, standard method using input as given that COP calculates to what it is. Why translate it into fudge? Because it coincides as higher COP when less Tigers are turned on? That is just plying intuitive thinking to the ignorant. Coincidences happen.But the math supports the outcome and all is normal in the math and physics. If you understasnd math and physics in this simple example.

  • Omega Z

    Yes, Fabio doesn’t do LENR. He does the I can’t believe it’s not butter.

    • Vinney

      Incidentally, on a lighter note.
      We should run a thread on who should play Rossi in the blockbuster movie to hit the screens shortly after the E-cat technology makes its market debut.
      Actually Fabio (also a Milan native) looks like a distant relative.
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/style/2015/12/23/fabio/
      An added bonus to the producer, is that he can probably do the Rossi accent and vocabulary (I notice he directly translates Italian words in his English sentences).
      Also an opportunity for admin to gauge how many women readers we have on this forum.

  • psi2u2

    Reading between the tea leaves here, I bet Mats means “no way is there another entity with a ‘similar breakthrough.'”

    I would have to say I’d agree with that anyway. IH has shown what it has – it has something through Godes and Mike MkKubre, who are really serious researchers. But they are still confirming LENR, and Rossi is light years ahead of that, if – and admittedly its still a big “if” — his data is sound.

  • Omega Z

    Now you sound like some of the Rossi fans. Reading things that were never there. Not once have I seen anything about a parent company except from those speculating here on the blogs.

    In essence, we don’t know if there is a customer or not. What can be said is if there is, they don’t want to be known. They wouldn’t want the hassle. They also wouldn’t want their competitors to know what they are involved with. Many if not most of us new that the customer in Doral, Florida was a front and if there is a customer, did not want to be known.

    As an example. Bill Gates is funding LENR. Not really. He is funding entities who happen to be studying LENR among other energy technologies. Thus if asked, He can claim he is funding exotic energy technologies. Not a word about LENR. Which is how he wants it at this time. He also doesn’t want the hassle.

  • Buck

    This is in reference to the graph of daily COPs presented by G McEk below . . . about 2 days ago: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e24379d910aa9c0fbad649586cf21aa04d3181335f2008b3384a7f77d5d8dc65.png

    Rossi has over the years spoken of his daily effort to improve the control (software & hardware) of the original e-Cat and the QuarkX.

    Has anyone taken note of the apparent change in value of the standard deviation at about day 175? Recognizing that there are only 3 major transitions from one average COP to another before the end of the 1-year test starting at day 175, one can visually assess a dramatic reduction in the COP variability as compared to the first 175 days.

    I point this out as a form of proof of the real change in the performance criteria of controllability and stability. If memory serves me, Rossi did mention every so often real improvements in the e-Cat performance.

    This reduction in the variability and the standard deviation is an example of TQM and Statistical Process Control . . . and consequently is a strong example of Rossi’s successful efforts towards 5-Sigma ! ! !

    Congratulations Andrea ! ! !

    • wpj

      He said that there were different charges in the tiger units to see how they lasted. One then a second started to have reduced power.

      • Buck

        WPJ,
        I remember that as well. I also remember him describing changes in the hardware, presumably to support the very high temperatures as well as to improve the heat exchange rate, as well as the software that both stimulated and inhibited the reaction to achieve a stable controlled reaction.

  • cashmemorz

    No prize in physics since what he has is a working device with a theory that has not been proven or peer reviewed or considered as a contender by others as being a viable theory by anyone in the mainstream. Nobel Committtee cannot put its own reputation on the line by giving prizes for unknown foundations however successful the devices are based on an unproven theory. Its all about “real” physics as the mainstream understand it of being a proven theory. When and if Rossi’s theory is proven to be the one that is actually doing what Rossi claims then Nobel may be persuaded to look at it. Life is not always fair, even for the hardest working individuals.

    • SG

      “a proven theory”

      Is that not somewhat of an oxymoron?

      • cashmemorz

        With the plethora of such unproven “theories” one is at odds what to call them. They all have the moniker of “theory”. All unproven, simply proposed, I guess. Until the proponents use proper terminology, such as “speculated” or “hypothetical” or “proposed” process, then one has to step in line with such terminology as is being used and play within the field as it is presented to all. The term “theory” is overused and misused in many cases of general dialogue. Even in scientific circles that term is used where the precursors “speculation”, “hypothesis”, and proposed process” should be used for more accuracy. In science, accurate terminology is a prerequisite. But by now you get my meaning, oxymoron or not. “Somewhat of an oxymoron” also implies a not totally moronic term.

  • Omega Z

    “they refused to pay the 89$ million as promised”
    And Darden/IH won’t relinquish their claims on the IP license.

  • SG

    A few posters over on lenr-forum have determined that the old 1 MW plant probably had DN80 piping not DN40, and are questioning whether the Exhibit 5 incorrectly claimed that DN40 pipe was used in the Doral plant.

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?pageNo=39

    If it was DN80 piping, then the pressure riddle is largely solved.

    • DNI

      Then we got the riddle why Rossi/Pennon didn’t answer this to IH. I think it would have been appropriate to explain to IH that they got their measurments wrong before suing them for not paying $89.000.000.

      • US_Citizen71

        Your evidence that Rossi/Leonardo didn’t inform them first is what exactly?

        • DNI

          I might rember wrong about Rossi not answering. I can’t find a source that say he has not answered. My memory might have played trick on me. Sorry about that.

          The source for Penon not answering is in document 124-1 §91.

    • Why then Rossi has not simply informed IH that they got the wrong diameter?

      • SG

        He might be waiting to see if IH corrects Exhibit 5 themselves, and if they don’t, hit them over the head with it later during the trial.

      • SD

        Rossi is sueing IH. Chances are he knew he was gonna sue before Murray even pressed “send”. Why would he give them such information unless it helps him with the court? He can just prove they are wrong when they bring it up in front of the jury and mark some points.

  • SG

    A few posters over on lenr-forum have determined that the old 1 MW plant probably had DN80 piping not DN40, and are questioning whether the Exhibit 5 incorrectly claimed that DN40 pipe was used in the Doral plant.

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?pageNo=39

    If it was DN80 piping, then the pressure riddle is largely solved.

    • DNI

      Then we got the riddle why Rossi/Pennon didn’t answer this to IH. I think it would have been appropriate to explain to IH that they got their measurments wrong before suing them for not paying $89.000.000.

      • US_Citizen71

        Your evidence that Rossi/Leonardo didn’t inform them first is what exactly?

        • DNI

          I might rember wrong about a source for Rossi not answering. I thougth it was in IH answers but I can’t find it. My memory might have played trick on me. Sorry about that.

          The source for Penon not answering is in document 124-1 §91.

    • Why then Rossi has not simply informed IH that they got the wrong diameter?

      • SG

        He might be waiting to see if IH corrects Exhibit 5 themselves, and if they don’t, hit them over the head with it later during the trial.

      • SD

        Rossi is sueing IH. Chances are he knew he was gonna sue before Murray even pressed “send”. Why would he give them such information unless it helps him with the court? He can just prove they are wrong when they bring it up in front of the jury and mark some points.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I do not care that much about the question if there was steam or not. As
    has been pointed out, even without steam the COP would have been high
    enough (although not as spectacular as claimed) – provided that the
    reported temperatures and flow rates are correct. So it seems that
    mainly the flow rate is the crucial component. JR suspects that the
    inlet pipe was not completely filled, which would have resulted in an
    overrating of the water flow. But: Haven’t there been sight glasses at
    the inlet of each reactor? And: Wouldn’t a half-full pipe cause a
    characteristic noise?

    • DNI

      I agree that the flow rate and the temperature measurements are important. If they are correct there was a COP > 1. But we have seen before that both flow rates and temperature measurements can be wrong in many different ways. I don’t think we have enough facts to tell for sure.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Of course you are right. Therefore I’d appreciate a quick test of the plant by an independent expert, ordered by the judge. That could answer most of the open questions.

        • DNI

          I have wished for a independent test for several years. It would have been easy to carry out such a test if Rossi had wished for it. Lugano came pretty close and for a while I was pretty positive. Although I did not like the complicated method for calculating output power. And after a while came the revelation of the mistake they made in the temperature measurements.

          But I’m pretty sure that the judge can not require such a test. The case is about if a valid GPT in accordance with the agreement has been performed or not.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I do not care that much about the question if there was steam or not. As
    has been pointed out, even without steam the COP would have been high
    enough (although not as spectacular as claimed) – provided that the
    reported temperatures and flow rates are correct. So it seems that
    mainly the flow rate is the crucial component. JR suspects that the
    inlet pipe was not completely filled, which would have resulted in an
    overrating of the water flow. But: Haven’t there been sight glasses at
    the inlet of each reactor? And: Wouldn’t a half-full pipe cause a
    characteristic noise?

    • DNI

      I agree that the flow rate and the temperature measurements are important. If they are correct there was a COP > 1. But we have seen before that both flow rates and temperature measurements can be wrong in many different ways. I don’t think we have enough facts to tell for sure.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Of course you are right. Therefore I’d appreciate a quick test of the plant by an independent expert, ordered by the judge. That could answer most of the open questions.

        • DNI

          I have wished for a independent test for several years. It would have been easy to carry out such a test if Rossi had wished for it. Lugano came pretty close and for a while I was pretty positive. Although I did not like the complicated method for calculating output power. And after a while came the revelation of the mistake they made in the temperature measurements.

          But I’m pretty sure that the judge can not require such a test. The case is about if a valid GPT in accordance with the agreement has been performed or not.

  • Burt

    Look at page 3 in the report. After date 02/28 comes 04/01 and then 03/02. Is this an automatically generated report or hand-made?

  • HappyHighwayman

    Has the eCAT been successfully implemented ANYWHERE at this point and is any company generating heat or power? ANYWHERE? Like a single successful example?

  • HappyHighwayman

    Has the eCAT been successfully implemented ANYWHERE at this point and is any company generating heat or power? ANYWHERE? Like a single successful example?