Settlement Good News For E-Cat Development

I can remember well first getting the news about Andrea Rossi filing suit against Industrial Heat et. al. In early spring 2016, Rossi had previously announced that the 1-year test was over, and followers of the E-Cat story were anxiously awaiting the release of a report about tests performance.

Then on April 6, I got an email from an attorney representing Andrea Rossi containing this press release announcing that the test had been a success, but that Rossi was suing Industrial Heat for breach of its license agreement, and misappropriation of intellectual property. I was shocked, as I know were many others. What could be one of the most important technological advancements in history would now be tied up in court for an unknown period of time, and who could predict the effect on the dissemination of E-Cat technology?

Since that day, we have been following closely the unfolding events and debate surrounding the lawsuit. The discussion hasn’t always been pleasant, to say the least, and personally I have tried to avoid joining the fray.

As far as I am concerned, the most important issue has always been that the E-Cat gets deployed in the real world and gets put to use in the service of mankind. So I was delighted, and very surprised, to learn yesterday that case had been settled.

I think it was the best possible outcome, and something I had hoped would happen, although I admit I was not convinced that it would, given the fierceness of the battle at times. Regardless of the verdict in this trial, I felt there would almost certainly be an appeal from whoever lost, and the whole suit would have to be fought again, sapping more money, time and energy.

Regardless of the terms of the settlement, in my mind one immediate benefit is that Andrea Rossi is now able to return to doing what he does best — the development of E-Cat technology — without being distracted by legal issues.

Andrea Rossi wrote yesterday, “I will never anymore talk about the issues of the litigation. They belong to the past. The war is over, now we must build a constructive future.” A constructive future is what the E-Cat needs. My hope is that these developments will hasten the public unveiling of the QuarkX, and its eventual commercialization. I’m sure there will be future problems to deal with, but I felt that this lawsuit was dark cloud overshadowing the whole field of LENR, sucking positive energy from it. I’m glad it’s gone.

  • sam

    Andrea Rossi
    July 6, 2017 at 4:48 AM
    Marco Serra:
    Thank you for your sustain.
    The settlement agreement is under NDA.
    I made a toast with champagne because now I can return to dedicate myself full time to the development of the E-Cat/QuarkX.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Why not Spumante?

      • Skip

        Because it’s not Merlot…
        (Or champagne, yuck)

      • Nick Sunchild

        Because,
        the economic terms will remain under NDA, Bob. 😉
        i wish for Andrea, it is more then a bottle of champagne. 🤣
        And you Bob, come back with the prove, from India. So we can stop to wait for
        QuarkX. Good luck! I Believe in you, MFMP and open science.
        May the trues will be with you.

    • Michael W Wolf

      But Rossi could have popped the champagne after the one year test. He initiated the suit. Something had to go his way to pop that champagne. Sounds to me like Rossi won big.

  • Bruce__H

    It has been much obscured by all of the legal action but overall what has happened over the last 4 years or so is that IH attempted to replicate Rossi’s technology and failed. This should be part of the picture for people to consider and it is not good news for ECat technology.

    Looking forward, what is the timeline here? How much longer are people willing to wait for the ECat to prove itself? LENR G suggests 6 months. But I think few people posting here would go along with that in practice.

    Suppose that the lack of success continues. What Is your timeline? At what point, for you, does the absence of evidence begin to constitute evidence of absence?

    • Frank Acland

      Personally, there’s no ‘drop dead’ date for me. My conviction of the reality and validity of E-Cat has only increased over the last year. There’s still no guarantee that the technology will be a smashing commercial success, but I do think that this settlement has increased the chances for that.

      • Monty

        It would be good to have some stronger basis for the realness of the Ecat/QuarkX as till now aside from Rossi, the Lugano test and maybe Mats Lewan there is not too much to be optimistic about. As Rossi said he wants to be evaluated by the market which is fair for me. But till now there is nothing on the market…

        • Monty

          Interesting post right now on JONP:

          Prof
          July 6, 2017 at 6:25 AM
          Dr Andrea Rossi:

          1- will you make the presentation of the QuarkX within this year?

          2- are you still preparing the manufacturing of the E-Cat in the USA and in Sweden?
          3- are you satisfied with the settlement?
          4- will the general terms of the settlement be explained in a joint release from the attorneys of both parties?
          5- will remain under NDA the economic terms of the settlement?
          Thank you if you can answer,
          Prof

          Andrea Rossi
          July 6, 2017 at 8:17 AM
          Prof:

          1- yes

          2- yes
          3- yes
          4- yes
          5- yes
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.

          So within 2017 there should be something happening…

        • Bruce__H

          I don’t perceive Rossi’s statement that he wants to be evaluated by the market as “fair”. Historically, he has used it as a way to prevent people judging him based on his lack of success. The extent to which the meme of ‘let the market be the judge’ by the LENR community is disappointing.

          Fundamentally what Rossi has done is convince many people that what he is doing is just engineering. It isn’t. His claims are basic science claims. And yet he has managed to avoid the usual scrutiny that goes along with basic science by promoting the ‘let the market be the judge’ idea. If LENR enthusiasts are serious about this field they should be much more sceptical of results that have a recent history of failing replication.

          • Monty

            Well he repeatedly said now he wants to demonstrate something convincing in 2017. As long as there is not sigma 6 coming we should know quite soon what he has. But to be honest I thought the same in 2015 already 😉

          • Bruce__H

            Yes. Rossi has been saying he is on the edge of something conclusive since 2012.

          • Monty

            Well it’s time to deliver. 5 months left 😉

          • This whole Rossi/IH thing was NOT a replication. Rossi is not a scientist, he’s a businessman.

            Rossi’s claims of anomalous heat output are the same claims that LENR scientists have made but they are not getting access to peer reviewed science journals, they are getting shouted down. Rossi is different in that he intends to let the market decide. So let the market decide. To date, there is nothing in the market.

      • Bruce__H

        My post does sound as if I am asking for a “drop dead” date but that wasn’t my intention. Personally, I have a sort of sliding scale in my head regarding the probability that the ECat is real and I update it according to evidence. The marker can go up or down without going to either 100% or 0%.

        I still argue that taken over the long run, the inability of IH to replicate Rossi’s claims (even with Rossi’s help) should have moved everyone’s ‘ECat is real’ marker in the downward direction. I see little evidence of that sort of thinking here though. I can’t understand why people don’t incorporate this sort of evidence into their assessments. Now that the court case is over I think it is time to ask why.

        • TVulgaris

          The sliding scale of acceptance for ANYTHING reported by my senses perennially hovers more to the “incorrect” than the “correct” end of the scale- “cogito, ergo mendosus”, based on a near-endless data stream.

      • Rossi is about 70 years old, so the ‘drop dead’ date is probably when he drops dead. At least this time around it won’t be like when Patterson died and there was no information to dig through, it all went to the grave with him. Rossi’s info has been submitted as evidence in a court of law.

        • Omega Z

          65 or 66 years old I believe

    • William D. Fleming

      Unless you are in a position to contribute materially, the only reasonable option IMO is to wait hopefully, forever if need be.

      • Bruce__H

        Well I have contributed money to MPFP.

        I disagree about waiting forever though. That is not science. Nor is it interesting. Don’t you want to find out what is real?

        • TVulgaris

          Certainly not forever. How about we set a standard, simply fantasizing researchers got the same level of funding over the same span at the same rate, as hot fusion? We’ve already handicapped the equivalency by not having ANYTHING like a theory (some very good hypotheses, but no theory) from the outset, like HF did (and it hasn’t changed at all, ever). I think that would be legitimate.

          • Bruce__H

            As you point out, hot fusion is an engineering project. It’s not basic science since the basic physical principles are known. Hot fusion is definitely real and the only question is about achieving sufficient efficiency to be economical. Thus, the funding exists for hot fusion because it is a serious proposal. LENR is nothing like that. Why should projects with absolutely no background get equivalent funding to something that is better understood? Really, the failure of hot fusion to achieve economic success makes LENR funding less likely, not more likely.

            Despite this, LENR research has actually been funded pretty well recently — by IH and its parent entity. And look how popular that has turned out to be with the LENR community!

          • I proposed something similar to this a while back. I’ll try to dig it up.

        • I did too. So far they are 0 for 5 or so in terms of validating a true Anamolous Heating Event. So that means they are pretty trustworthy if they do come across one.

          What I don’t understand is how guys like ME356 and Celani can be so far off in their measurements.

    • nietsnie

      I was hoping that the outcome of the trial would signal the reality of the claims one way or the other. Lacking a decisive result muddies the water somewhat. It’s possible that the joint statement will make that more clear – but still: probably not *too* clear as it’s partial purpose will be to allow everyone to save face and to obscure the win/lose dynamic. Someone blinked, but it may be difficult to determine whom. Back to sitting on that familiar fence.

    • Jerry Soloman

      LENR G has privy information for sure, new and old.

      • I don’t have access to any inside information. Never claimed that I have.

    • Dr. Mike

      I agree that IH’s inability to reproduce Rossi’s technology is not good news for LENR. They should have been able to at least been able to duplicate Rossi’s patented technology (as should everyone else “skilled in the art”). Does this mean that the patents that have been issued to Rossi have not fully disclosed his technology?

      • Bruce__H

        Yes it does.

    • The point where I consider absence of evidence to be valid is when I can get skeptics to address how many of the 153 peer reviewed replications (by many of the top electrochemists of the day) are wrong.

      • Bruce__H

        Many of them will indeed be wrong. Over the past decade people have been looking more and more at the replicability of published work. Even in top journals (where it is difficult to publish and peer review is highly selective) studies are showing that 20-40% of results can’t be replicated. In less prestigious journals the rate could be higher.

        The mark of a genuine result is independent replication. Particularly replication in which one lab adopts the techniques of another lab so as to take the next step in research. The majority of procedures in labs I am familiar with are strings of techniques taken from published research and now instituted as standard operating procedure. This is what you see in successful fields (mine is neuroscience and I see it all the time). It worries me that I don’t see this dense network of research successes turned into everyday techniques in LENR. For this reason the whole LENR field feels false to me. I would be delighted to be proved wrong though. Rossi has certainly been no help.

        • Jed said that the first 100 or so replications of the Pons-Fleishmann Anomalous Heat Effect was from the “who’s who of electrochemistry”. So for someone like you to knock down the “who’s who of electrochemistry” we’d need more evidence than just “I play a neuroscientist on the internet”.

          There is obviously an effect there, and very few scientists want to do replication work because it is considered to be the lowest form of scientific work.

          At any rate, for you to say that “many” of the results will be wrong is far different than saying ALL the results will be wrong, which is what will be necessary to say that the PF AHE is not a replicated experiment.

          • Bruce__H

            OK. I see that you are sceptical. I am indeed saying that all of the published work is in doubt. I don’t see the pattern of one lab building upon another’s work that I see in more successful fields.

            You should take a look at what Science and Nature have been publishing over the past several years about the reproducability problem in science .

          • There are over 180 labs that have replicated the work, so for you to not see the pattern means that you don’t want to see the pattern.

          • Bruce__H

            Here is a link to a Nature article you should look at.

            http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

            The first sentence reads “More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.”

            Although failing to replicate previous findings is standard in science I had no idea it was such a widespred phenomenon across all disciplines until people started talking about it in about 2011 or so. Even 5 years ago I would have adopted the same viewpoint as you and said that surviving the peer review and publishing process is a pretty reliable indicator that an effect is real. I no longer think this. It is better than nothing but the only real guarantee that something is real is if it is picked up and becomes standard operating procedure in multiple independent labs across the world.

          • An effect is real if it is replicated once. This effect has been replicated more than 150 times in peer reviewed journals and in 180 different labs.

          • Dr. Mike

            Early replication efforts on the Pons-Fleischmann AHE were difficult because initially even Pons and Fleischmann did not know what it took to get reproducible results (mainly the deuterium loading). This should not be an issue with the NI-H systems since patents (requiring full disclosure) have been issued. I disagree with your premise that scientists consider replication the lowest form of scientific work. Any scientist wanting to investigate some aspect of science will first replicate the work considered to be the most advanced in that field before trying to make advancements to that science. For someone investigating LENR, it very well may be necessary to replicate a basic e-cat device, a hot-cat device, and then a QuarkX device before attempting to build a device better than the QuarkX.

          • cashmemorz

            Whoa! Not doing replication because of what? It is lowest form of scientific work? Another hinderance because of what, ego? If I had the resources, and could replicate LENR whether I did or did not get positive results or just to learn, I had thought I would have an obligation, to do the exact replication just to show that the originator of that particular method was somehow correct. I don’t get it.

          • It’s about Ego. Scientists want to be the top dog who have OTHER people replicating THEIR work, not vice versa.

        • Dr. Mike

          I believe that you are correct certain techniques in reproducing LENR (such as fuel preparation) should have already been reduced to a standard operating procedure since patents have been issued on LENR devices. One of Rossi’s patents states that the Ni powder needs to undergo a heat treatment process in its preparation, but I’m not sure that there is enough detail in the patent for anyone to reproduce his fuel prep process. Evidently the patent examiner concluded that Rossi’s description of his process was acceptable. However, it’s possible that the patent might be challenged if it is later determined that Rossi left out some critical information.

          • Omega Z

            It’s also very possible Rossi has other patents that give greater detail. The one that’s visible to the public was primarily about the construction of the reactor. The only reason this patent is visible is Rossi paid a fee to make it publicly available only weeks before it was granted.

            AND Yes, you can have patents concealed for a fee. The draw back is anyone could develop and use a similar device during the period it’s concealed. Only after it’s made public at the request of the inventor(with a fee) can a cease and desist order be issued.

          • Dr. Mike

            You might want to re-check the rules and regulations for patents and patent applications at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website.

          • Omega Z

            Check for what? That patents can be cloaked/sealed. It requires an extra fee. While sealed, you can not file for infringement or issue a cease and desist order to anyone who uses it. Also you can’t file for international patent protection while it is sealed in the U.S.. Probably why Rossi had the patent we know of unsealed just a couple weeks before it was officially granted. Likely he was for warned that it was being granted and had it unsealed so he could file for international protection.

            To have a patent unsealed requires an additional fee and permission by the owner of the patent. When it becomes publicly available, you can issue a cease and desist order to anyone using it. However, you can’t file for infringement for anything produced prior to the unsealing and the delivery of the order. Only that produced afterward should they not stop producing it. You also have no recourse if someone patented your technology elsewhere unless you can prove they accessed your patent prior to filing their patent. Usually very hard to prove.

            How am I aware that Rossi had it sealed. It was in the details of his patent application stating that he had it unsealed. It also showed it went through review for national security issues. They flagged it as a non issue.

            Rossi’s patent also said with a fuel charge it produced more energy out then input(fuel description was included, Ni/Al/H ect hydride). Like many things in the market. Power plants, cars etc where energy is applied, but fuel provides the actual output. One of it’s designated identifiers was listed as an electric heater. He patented a reaction chamber design. Nothing more. It stated nothing about Cold Fusion or LENR.(likely would not have been granted if it had)

            Rossi’s patent(a heater) is complete. It requires no additional information such as a computer controller or fuel preparation and such. They could be enclosed in other individually sealed patents. Not to be disclosed until Rossi is ready. It’s all Legit.

            Note: hydrides are under R&D(and patented) for hydrogen absorption desorption for fuel cells and hydrogen vehicles as a possible safe way to transport hydrogen. Apply a little heat and release the hydrogen for use as needed.

        • Observer

          In industry, independent replication is called theft.

          Polaroid did not appreciate Kodak verifying instant photography.

    • Omega Z

      “IH attempted to replicate Rossi’s technology”

      Have you given a serious look at the people Darden brought in compared to those Rossi has worked with and that provide support. Rossi has worked with multiple physicists in the nuclear field including working with the ITER project and CERN to name a couple. It’s like Darden went out of his way not to bring in anyone of real expertise.

    • Ged

      That is mostly inaccurate, though, or misleading. As I recall, the court documents and deposition showed that IH did indeed get a COP greater than 1 in their attempts, and could not claim it didn’t work at all; but they did not get to the 10+ level that Rossi claimed. So “did not replicate” has to be qualified: did replicate positive excess it appears, but didn’t replicate anywhere near the full magnitude.

  • Leo Kaas

    Thanks Frank for all you do to keep us all informed on this
    ongoing saga.

  • Jas

    Thanks for keeping ecatworld open and not biased. I looked at lenr forum for the first time in weeks to see how they are reacting to the news. They are still full of loathing for all things Rossi. That will never change. I’m hoping for a positive Quark X demo this year with proper discussion on ecatworld not hate filled slandering from that other site.

    • I have been putting Rossi on the back burner for a long time now, but with the trial getting started I was looking for a place to comment. EcatWorld was down, and Vortex was quiet. So I wandered over to LENR-Forum where I had signed up maybe a couple years earlier but didn’t pay much attention.

      Those guys are so anti-Rossi that I was labelled a Planet Rossi fan member even though I wanted 25:1 odds to bet for Rossi. I didn’t know that all the vehement anti-LENR skeptopaths from Ecatnews.com had invaded the place. Their moderating was incredibly one sided.

  • Alan DeAngelis
    • Mats002

      Yeah! That is a very good movie – also a true story about William Wallace some 800 years ago, he faught the English king for freedom of the people in Scotland and united the clans there. A simple boy who’s parents was killed in the strides that was going on in more than a generation. I saw it with my teenagers the other night.
      Freedom!

      • oldrolledgold

        And yet they recently voted to remain part of Britain.British!

        • Omega Z

          As an outsider, I think their better off united, But I understand that old grievances can be hard to overcome.

  • Rossi and the entire LENR field should know that they are in a race, getting past this Lawsuit is a good development. If the LENR industry is to emerge they need to do it quickly. Dr. Randell Mills and Brilliant Light Power’s Suncell may take the first mover advantage in the Emerging Energy market. LENR and “Hydrino” technologies seem to be very different (but maybe in the same family) and I suspect both will be important in the distant future as we come to better understand the physics behind each of them. However, in the short term, I suspect if Dr. Mills Suncell hits the market first it will stymie development in the LENR field as the Suncell reportedly produces light and heat. (I understand the Rossi’s Quark x may do the same?).
    In anycase the blowback against the Emerging Energy field will be intense by entrenched and vested interest. Ideally, both of the technologies will hit the market at the same time with different products and in different markets so that the technologies can proliferate quickly before they can be tied down by any powerful group. Also, the “hot” fusion group is a threat as it portends centralized energy production that will serve the status quo of controlling energy output through the grid. Personal power production is a threat to governments that want to maintain centralized control. “LENR” and “Hydrino” technologies represent a level of decentralization of clean power production never seen before and will pose unexpected opportunities, like every leap in technology has given us.

    • Mats002

      See the latest Spiderman movie, it came up here in Sweden on the theaters yesterday. They never mention LENR or Cold Fusion but we here know what must have inspired the filmmakers. Please see it – a good story it is.

    • MasterBlaster7

      The settlement of the case is an excellent development. I wouldn’t say the hot fusion group is a threat, hell they aren’t going to get first plasma till 2025…and if the e-cat can’t get up and running by 2025 we have bigger problems. Hopefully LENR succeeds, and if so, hot fusion and ITER will be excellent research projects like CERN.

    • “In anycase the blowback against the Emerging Energy field will be intense by entrenched and vested interest.”

      I believe this is a false argument. The oil companies are not against LENR. The only real opposition is the old guard physics establishment who would be embarrassment if LENR is proven real after so many decades of declaring LENR is impossible. The real problem is there has been no solid proof that LENR works in any way that could become commercially viable. Unless someone makes a product with LENR that accomplished actual work, it will not be considered proven.

      • cashmemorz

        One big fly in this ointment, is who has the best theory of how their device works. In the short term Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model of how small scale physics works, will most likely win, to favor Rossi. Because it is the currently accepted or “established” physics. I see the Grand Unified theory -Classical Physics of Randell Mills winning big in the long term. QM is nowhere near understanding all of the physical processes enough to even begin understanding gravity, while Randell Mill’ using his Gut -CP has made an anti-gravity device, an extemely accurate molecular modelling app, materials that are vitually indestructible, at least two different types of high COP energy producing devices, and more. What a fantastic theory, what fantastic devices . And they ALL work, according to theory, accepted or not!

    • Dr. Mike

      The “race” is even more important now that the first version of the SunCell will be designed to deliver only heat. An early success in the SunCell for delivering heat could severely limit Rossi’s market potential for QuarkX devices unless the QuarkX technology comes in at a much lower cost per unit of heat delivered.

  • georgehants

    Some may not be surprised with my total agreement with Franks view above.
    ———-
    “As far as I am concerned, the most important issue has always been that
    the E-Cat gets deployed in the real world and gets put to use in the
    service of mankind. So I was delighted, and very surprised, to learn
    yesterday that case had been settled.”

  • LION
  • Dr. Mike

    Frank,
    A very good post! I am in agreement with all of your thoughts. In my opinion the most important thing that came from the pre-trail depositions and other evidence (particularly the e-mails) is that the word of Rossi is not to be trusted. What is now needed is scientific proof that the QuarkX works as Rossi claims. I hope he is able to acquire patents for all new technology that he is using in the QuarkX so that the device can be fully disclosed by the time Rossi puts together a demonstration. In fact, if it assumed that IH still owns the rights to all of Rossi’s technology, it would be much better if IH put together the demonstration of the QuarkX performance.
    I don’t think that we will ever see the financial terms of the settlement, but assuming that IH retains rights to Rossi’s IP, I hope that IH is smart enough to tie all future payments to Rossi to IH’s ability to build working devices, perhaps another fixed payment after IH can produce working devices with most future payments going to Rossi as a percentage of the net profits. All test procedures and experiments for evaluating Rossi’s devices should be set up by IH’s engineers and scientists.
    Dr. Mike

    • Bohem FromCz

      You write: “…In fact, if it assumed that IH still owns the rights to all of Rossi’s technology, it would be much better if IH put together the demonstration of the QuarkX performance….”
      I would like to know where from is “assumed that IH still owns the rights to all of Rossi’s technology”?
      “…assuming that IH retains rights to Rossi’s IP…”
      Do You mean IP defined in this patent https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015127263A3 ?

      • Dr. Mike

        IH’s initial payment of $10M to Rossi gave them the right to all of Rossi’s IP as per the contract. (The definition of the IP is included as an attachment to the contract.) Did Rossi deliver his IP following the $10M payment? Based on Rossi’s 8/3/2015 e-mail to IH (included in exhibit #264-12), Rossi claimed IH was not entitled to the IP until after all money (the $89M) was paid, which is contrary to the contract. I believe this is sufficient evidence to show Rossi did not transfer his IP to IH at the time called for by the contract. Therefore, there are only a couple of possible settlements for this contract dispute. One is that Rossi return all money and expenses IH incurred and they are no longer partners, OR Rossi really now provides the information to IH for making e-cats that work with some new arrangement for future payments. My guess is that both parties chose the second option. We should know soon when the lawyers release a statement.

        • Bohem FromCz

          Again.
          You write: “…In fact, if it assumed that IH still owns the rights to all of Rossi’s technology, it would be much better if IH put together the demonstration of the QuarkX performance….”

          Fact is payment $10M.
          Fact is IH did not sue Rossi.
          Fact is Rossi said IH do not own his IP more.
          All other is Your fantasy and deduction if You are not press agent of IH or Rossi.
          Howgh.

          • Dr. Mike

            IH paid Rossi $10M and should be expected to get something for this money. IH did counter sue Rossi for the $10M back (plus other expenses). If IH no longer owns any Rossi IP, they should at least get back their $10M. Yes, it is my deduction based on reviewing the pretrial evidence that the most likely settlement is Rossi will provide IH with his IP with a new undisclosed future payment plan based on IH’s ability to produce working devices. What is your prediction of the settlement based on your study of the pretrial evidence? What evidence supports your position?

    • Omega Z

      Dardens history in brownfield remediation would lead one to expect Darden to bring in a Podiatrist to perform a brain surgery claiming he was a brain specialist. Seriously, He brought in people for remediation who had ZERO experiance. The pattern continued in the so called experts he brought in for the lawsuit.

      At least Rossi brought in people familiar with the field including several nuclear physicist who have worked with ITER. Hopefully, Should Rossi start manufacturing, he will bring in experts of similar expertise in that field as well.

      • Dr. Mike

        In pretrial hearings the court ruled that IH’s expert testimony would be allowed, whereas much of Rossi’s expert’s testimony could not be presented to the jury. There were some errors in Smith’s two reports, but Rossi’s team would have had to dispute those errors in court (by cross-examining Smith) since Smith’s reports would have been presented to the jury as evidence. Therefore, going into the trial, IH had a much stronger technical case.
        I hope you are correct that Rossi will eventually bring in experts in Manufacturing should the QuarkX go into production. For the trial Rossi ‘s team did not supply any witnesses that were other scientists working with Rossi. So far the e-cat development has been a one man show.

      • cashmemorz

        Rossi needs a specialist in Grand Unified Theory- Classical Physics, as in Randell Mills or one of the students attending his lectures at Massey U or Fresno State U. These universities have either tested the physics for the Suncell or have other wise vetted the theory, since they allow the theory to be lectured on. Also since the theory has produced a working anti-gravity device where Quantum Filed Theory has little hope of getting to understand gravity from that stand point is enough to clinch that the GUT-CP is far superior to QM.

    • AdrianAshfield

      Dr.Mike, I don’t know why you assume IH retains Rossi’s IP.. Rossi brought the case to court & I see no reason why he would leave it empty handed.
      As Rossi appeared pleased I assume that he got his IP back (why would IH keep it if they claimed it was useless.) That together with getting back the sales territories IH had acquired would be worth more than $89 million if the E-Cat works.

      • Dr. Mike

        This is my prediction based on reviewing the pretrial evidence. To make both parties whole, one settlement would have been for Rossi to repay IH the $10M plus all other expenses and IH gets no rights to Rossi’s IP. I don’t think either party wanted this as a settlement to the lawsuit. If Rossi keeps the $10M, he has to give some IP rights to IH. Court evidence document #264-12 (last page e-mail) clearly shows that Rossi did not understand the details of the contract, that being IH was supposed to get access to the full IP after the $10M was paid. Although we will never see the details of the new settlement contract, my guess is that future payments to Rossi will be made only after IH is able to make working devices with most future payments tied to profits from sales. Watch for the lawyer’s statement to say there were mis-understandings in the initial contract that have now been resolved. (My prediction-could be wrong!)

        • AdrianAshfield

          That wouldn’t make Rossi “whole again”,
          A.. I doubt Rossi has the money to pay IH $10 million.
          B. That would mean IH gets his IP without paying the $89 million the contract called for.
          C. What would have been the point of taking IH to court?
          D. Rossi expressed satisfaction with the deal so it is none of the above.
          E. IH doesn’t have to pay Rossi $89 million and has made out on the deal thanks the Woodford’s $50 million (and possible others) based on selling Rossi to them.
          F. I think there must have been a change in the IP ownership.
          G, After this bitter quarrel it is most unlikely Rossi would work for IH again.

          • Dr. Mike

            In my opinion the primary problem with the initial contract was that Rossi did not understand that all IP was to be disclosed to IH after the payment of the $10M, which surely wasn’t done or IH would have been able to build working devices. (This assumes Rossi’s devices work, which I believe they do, but perhaps not yet as good as claimed.)
            If you look at IH’s business plan, it is evident that their primary objection is to acquire rights to LENR technology and then make money from that technology (including combining ideas from various researchers and thereby improving the technology). My guess is that IH still wants Rossi’s IP if they can make it work. So what kind of settlement will make both parties happy? It’s certain that the only two ways to make IH happy. One is to get back all money and expenses and give up on Rossi’s technology (not really what IH would want) or continue to work with Rossi, but tie future payments to the successful transfer of the IP (IH can build working devices) and to give Rossi a percentage of the future profits. The question is: would the second settlement scenario also make Rossi happy? I believe it would. If he really has the technology, why wouldn’t he settle for a second payment of maybe the same $44.5M for a successful transfer of IP (IH builds the devices and runs the test of those devices) plus 5% of all profits until he receives $1B. Maybe IH would even sweeten the offer to allow Rossi to receive 5% of the profits up to $2B?
            Remember the settlement will represent a new contract. Both sides should now know what is needed in a new contract to keep both sides honest.

  • Grégory

    Yeah well, that’s another layer of “public will miss element of proof x because y”. Y generally is “I am protecting my trade secret” (although others achieve to get by without that). Y has been a mysterious customer (maybe it’s US navy ! but we don’t know !). Now Y is “private settlement”. I have been following ecat for what ? 4 years ? 5 ? More ? I have been patient, very understanding of the fact that industrial proof takes time, not in month but rather in year. Still, I am starting to see a pattern that’s far too prevalent to ignore. At the very least we’re facing with something muddy regarding the industrial ability of Rossi to get a product. Maybe it’s because getting such a product on the market from a fresh player on the market rarely happen to start with and Rossi is to proud to admit it that wall is a harder step than discovering something great with a mix of method and luck. Maybe he has nothing solid enough to make a product (and either lied about or got fooled, with others, with the complexity of the whole process). Or yes, maybe he’ll succeed after all. But I have to say I am more and more suspicious that this is going right to the pile of “awesome disrupting inventions that never happened”.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Publicly funded fusion projects by 2025 they’ll have a working reactor. Being that it is publicly funded, people have rights to doubt the viability of the program/s. But you would never see a post like this for fusion. Say fusion does come up with a device by then. Was it worth the money if another tech comes along in ten years and is cheaper and is clean? If Rossi’s tech is at all possible, what does it hurt us to think it may be real? It gives us hope. And that is good enough for me.

      • Omega Z

        A few people over time who have been involved with the ITER have said even should it work, CHEAP will not be in it’s vocabulary. Safety is also not likely to be a strong point.

        • cashmemorz

          All these points show that the basis for the problem is the ever getting closer to the answer based on soon to be defunct Quantrum Mechanics. Each new layer tries to answer what the previous version of QM started to answer then ran into a “mathematical” snag. Because it is the math that is being allowed to control the physics and not the other way around. And that is just a second blunder of QM. The first is that QM, in it’s “everything is a wave” was accepted even when Schrodinger said it was all a joke

  • psi2u2

    Very happy to read this news.

  • dst

    Let’s hope the ECCO is confirmed working and we can at least have progress without Rossi’s seemingly never ending dramas

  • jaman73

    Why go through all the effort to prepare a trial and then reach an immediate settlement unless the outcome was beneficial for both sides? What would be beneficial for IH? For Rossi? Would Rossi be better off with IH or without IH for the newer QuarkX technology?
    -J

    • mcloki

      Or IH settled when Rossi called their bluff.

      • cashmemorz

        That’s the one. There are some insightful commentators on this site after all.

      • I think they knew all along he would. They just waited until the last moment—first day in court. In games, always increase your opportunities.

    • I believe IH saw this coming all the time but all the way up until the trial they were prepared to see if they could find ways to produce sufficiently convincing material that could possibly persuade a jury.

      • Omega Z

        And had Darden not been convincing enough, Rossi could have received 3x $89M.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Mats, that is what they did. Have you read the opening statements? I was there, know the evidence behind them, and have a sense of how this would appear to an American jury. The idea is being promoted here that an alleged error in the Pace opening statement would be confronted by (whom, how?) and IH would collapse. If it is true that there were errors — and I don’t know that — the core of the IH case did not depend on that, and Pace would have told Lukacs to sit down and get on with the trial. That is not what happened, I’m sure of it. We should talk.

  • GiveADogABone

    Engineer48 Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax • 4 days ago [from 7/7/2017]
    ‘… Should be an interesting trial, especially if the IH lawyers repeat the various claims of Jed, Murray and Smith, that have been shown to be false.’
    Viewed in retrospect this comment was prescient and sums up recent events.

    An IH lawyer did repeat a falsehood from Smith within minutes of the trial starting. He repeated a Smith falsehood in his opening remarks to the jury. The falsehood was :-
    ‘ The amount of water that Rossi claimed the E-Cat machines were turning into steam each day — about 9,000 gallons — was impossible, because at most, the pumps available there could pump only 5,000 gallons of water per day [1:]’

    Rossi’s legal team would have picked up the falsehood as it was said. The 48 minute long court drama the following day was the result. The result: trial collapse. Which side had the bargaining power in the resulting settlement?

    There were so many engineering falsehoods in Smith’s depositions that this result was to be expected, but I naively thought it would come in cross-examination of Smith. That one of Smith’s falsehoods might be presented as the lead engineering fact in opening remarks to the jury I did not anticipate. Trying to fake the maximum feed flow rate down was IH’s deserved downfall.

    The consequence of all this for the future is that the ERV report stands unchallenged as a true record of the 350 day test run. I am satisfied that the :-
    1: feed flow rate at 1MW(heat) was close to 35,000 kg/day;
    2: E-cat was capable of supplying superheated, dry steam and the steam outlet pipes contained steam;
    3: electrical power consumption readings at the 10-15kW level were genuine, and
    4: as a result the CoP calculations in the ERV report are genuine.

    1: https://www.law360.com/articles/939793/judge-orders-restart-in-trial-over-89m-ip-licensing-dispute
    Judge Orders Restart In Trial Over $89M IP Licensing Dispute
    By Carolina Bolado
    Law360, Miami (June 29, 2017)

    2: The falsehood: Max output is 32 liters per hour – Smith quote from 248-6: page 31

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d9dcacb6787eaee83fa1be40e211221c378140ad5c721b58e7ee79cf36983bf9.png

    3: The reason: “When metering at atmospheric pressure the pump can achieve several times the stated feed rate.”

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aae418b05e834514b0dd283d5f4595f0abd31ecf6001809316c514f4c9485e8b.png

    • Agree. And I believe Rossi was prepared for this and expected an early settlement. Will see if I can bring some info on this.

      • Looking forward to more info. All we have at this point is speculation.

        Do you have any insight on whether Rossi got back control of his IP?

      • Barbierir

        Mats, did you get any answer from Gullström, if he personally witnessed the QuarkX running?

    • cashmemorz

      Now all that is left is the actual theory, not the one based on soon to be defunct Quantum Mechanics, but the one on the highly successful Grand Unified Theory – Classical Physics of Randell Mills. WIll Mills help Rossi use The GUT-CP to find out how Rossi’s devices work? Probably not, they are competitors. So who will have the first shot at the world market, lets see, 1+0=….

      • US_Citizen71

        Mills has been trying to perfect his theory into a working device for more than 26 years. He has received more than $70 million in investment money and when cornered claims that he will have a device in the marketplace within the year or at the least by the end of next year, this has been going on for more than 20 years. Something always happens and Mills is unable to produce said device. I have about as much confidence that Mills will beat Rossi as I do that Hot Fusion researchers will beat Rossi to market. I do not know if Rossi has the goods either but I am willing to give him at least as much chance as Mills and ‘Hot Fusion” have had to produce a working device. Rossi has at least allowed reports of his devices to become public whether anyone believes them is another story, this is something Mills hasn’t done. Mills’ current heavily modified arc welder doesn’t excite me. Until Mills closes the loop I will continue to view hydrinos in the way I view midichlorians, science fiction.

  • LION

    Professor Carlo Rovelli

    Kirsty Young’s castaway is the theoretical physicist, Professor Carlo Rovelli. His book ‘Seven Brief Lessons on Physics’ became one of the fastest-selling science titles of all time, catapulting him from the world of academia into the global spotlight. Committed to bridging the gap between science and art and making complex scientific issues comprehensible for the lay person, he is currently Professor of Physics at Aix-Marseille University.

    Born in Verona, and an only child, he was encouraged to learn, to be independent and dreamed of travelling through space. By the age of 12 his long-standing rebellious streak was visible and he would later interrupt his university career to travel. Now in his early sixties, his academic career has seen him work in Europe and America and among the scientific community he is best known as one of the founders of Loop Quantum Gravity theory. Producer: Cathy Drysdale.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08wmmwn#play

    a great listen BBC Radio 4

    • cashmemorz

      Does Loop Quantum Gravity allow production of anti-gravity devices as was done according to the physics of the Grand Unified Theory – Classical Physics of Randell Mills? This working, at the stage of proof of principle, device is now being develped by Huub Bakker at Massey University in New Zealand with the collaboration of Randell Mills towards a post lab device. There is ample reason to see that what LQG is, is another layer of Quantum Physics attempting to produce some kind of theory that was not able to come to grips with oridinary gravity via the earlier versions of QM. So while QM is still struggling to get to the understanding of what the first of three varieties of gravity is, GUT-CP has the three all figured out and has working devices based on anti-gravity being made currently.

      http://webcast.massey.ac.nz/Mediasite/Play/8ef7e03e26fc458b8eb7f351738f26811d

      Credentials of the above lecturer:

      http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/expertise/profile.cfm?stref=944130

      A lecture by Dr. Mills at Fresno State U.:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dCzVUnnL00

      • gdaigle

        Is reference to the working devices made in that lecture? If so, at about what time in the lecture?

        There are a couple of theories being proposed that suggest 5th, or even 6th forces that may be engineered. Not all depend upon LQG. Some don’t even require string theory.

        • cashmemorz

          GUT-CP simplifies everything beyond belief. There are only 4 forces. And Randell Mills has united them in a graph that is simply amazing. Here is a paper that gives a synopsis of the whole theory”

          http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BLP-e-4-25-2016.pdf

          • gdaigle

            Thanks. I went through it. Interesting points, but the major paper cited linking gravity and electrostatics has yet to be confirmed experimentally after 50 years. See My Notes.

            Summary of relevant section of the lecture:
            He starts with a restatement of results from the paper, “Experimental Comparison of the Gravitational Force on Freely Falling Electrons and Metallic Electrons” by F.C. Witteborn, and W.M. Fairbank, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 19 No.18, 1967.

            Free electron mass <0.09 electron mass
            Free electron does not feel gravity
            Electron in orbitsphere feels gravity

            The orbitsphere of an electron creates gravity, curves space when it forms.
            Positive curvature in the bound electron creates gravity
            No curvature in the free electron means no gravity
            Negative curvature (pseudosphere) describes a pseudoelectron which exhibits antigravity.

            [My notes: 217 citations. However, the methodology used in that key reference was later found to have faults by H.J. Maris. A 2015 paper by Becker, Caprez and Batelaan noted, “While the classical coupling mechanism between gravity and the fields of a charge distribution is theoretically well established, no experiments have been performed to confirm the coupling.“]

            More from the lecture:

            Experiment:
            In a stream of H atoms, fire electrons and some will be converted to pseudoelectrons. Pseudoelectrons will move against the gradient of gravity and go up.

            Mills found he can create pseudoelectrons by hitting them with gamma rays, creating electrons greater than 50GeV (as compared to 051 MeV resting mass). Put them in microwave to turn them to pseudoelectrons.

            Calculations: to lift 1,000 tons need 200 amps of pseudoelectrons.

            My View: Theoretically possible to produce enough pseudoelectrons to achieve 200 amps, but still no experimental evidence that such energy will result in an antigravitational field. I know theorists who forecast gravity-like fields based upon the actions of imaginary (pseudo?) electrons, but nothing about electrons with negative curvature orbits producing antigravity. So this seems pretty unique, but far from experimentally proven.

            Maybe we can take this to another thread.

          • Interesting points, but the major paper cited linking gravity and electrostatics has yet to be confirmed experimentally after 50 years.
            ***Thomas Townsend Brown found a coupling of gravity and electricity in the 1930s. The entire field of electrogravitics was classified in the 1950s.

      • LION

        Complexity is not denied or subtlety, but in my opinion when considering levity one should start by studying buoyancy and contemplate it- just my opinion and that is where I started, after all we often refer to –THE OCEAN OF SPACE–.

  • Nixter

    It seems that the settlement will be mutually beneficial to all involved, if that is the case then there is a strong possibility that Dr. Rossi has what he has been claiming. If there were any fraudulent behaviors or acts, it seems that any type of settlement would be disadvantageous to the aggrieved party. The terms of the settlement are private but they (the settlement terms), will be at least partially revealed by the forthcoming actions and interactions of the former litigants. The following weeks, months, and years will be telling.

  • This wasn’t a replication. It was a development effort.

    Similar to high temperature superconductors, they are replicable but there’s no theory to support it so the industrial development is stunted.

  • You obviously haven’t read very many of those 153 peer reviewed papers. Electrochemists know how to do careful electrolysis and calorimetry. Physicists don’t.

  • Gerard McEk

    So there is a settlement.
    Let us speculate on the terms of this settlement.
    1. Would AR agree on 89 M$ basis with a continuation of the IP as per the AR/IH contract agreement?
    I would say maybe.
    2. Would AR agree on 48.5 M$ and no IP for IH?
    My guess: Possibly.
    1 and 2 will be more likely when AR gets more money.
    I think IH will have tried to reach an agreement at the lowest cost, so number 2, unless they are convinced that the process works, then 1 will have been the way they have followed.
    So if IH remains to have IP on the Ecat, then I think that the process works and that IH has to pay AR maybe 100 M$.
    If IH has lost the IP and right to produce E-cats, then I think they are convinced that it doesn’t work.
    Any other suggestions?

    • US_Citizen71

      They might have chosen to go the $1 billion route from the contract where Rossi/Leonardo gets a percentage until they pay out a total of $1 billion to him.

      • Gerard McEk

        That’s a route I think is viable and possibly acceptable for both parties. AR would not be happy as he has no money to start the industrialization.
        On the other hand, if AR can convincingly prove that it works, it will not be difficult to raise money.

        • US_Citizen71

          I went back and looked at the contract, if they decided to go that route $44.5 million would be immediately due and Rossi would receive 5% of IH’s annual sales until one billion had been paid out. IH received $50 million from Woodford, so they should have the required funds.

          page 3 http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.21.pdf

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            That $50 million was clearly for other research and it appears more than half has been spent. However, Rossi’s claim that they did not pay because they could not pay was a smokescreen. They had a commitment from Woodford for another $150 million if needed.

    • Bruce__H

      The most obvious possibility is that both parties drop all money claims and walk away. IH doesn’t think Rossi’s stuff works at all. It will hang on to the IP unless it costs them something at which point they will say good riddance.

      • Gerard McEk

        AR would want to see money, especially if IH want to maintain IP. Besides that only AR is the claiming party in this process.

        • Bruce__H

          I meant that as part of the settlement IH would drop any intention of trying to recover the the $11.5M that they have already paid Rossi.

          • f sedei

            This approach would be a real bargain for IH. I don.t believe they got off so cheaply.

          • Bruce__H

            Why? I can’t figure out why so many people seem to think of this as some sort of triumph for Rossi. Objectively there is no sign of this. I mean … Rossi brings suit, IH countersues, Rossi drops suit. That seems to be the shape of it as far as I can see.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            That happened already, unless the settlement included something on this. That is actually what happened in court, unless something else appears in a private settlement.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        More or less, yes, that is how it looked to me, sitting there as the settlement appeared. They paid for disclosure of IP and a license to use it ( and to sublicense). They would not give that up without compensation. Even if they think it probably doesn’t work.

    • Dr. Mike

      My question to you is have you read any of the pretrial depositions and other pretrial evidence? Going into the trial, Rossi had received $10M (plus the $1.5M for the 1MW reactor) and IH had received nothing since the IP had not been successfully transferred after the $10M payment as called for in the original contract. Although IH might have considered a settlement whereby Rossi returned all monies paid including expenses in exchange for giving up on his IP, it is more likely that IH still wants Rossi’s IP if it can be shown to work by IH being able to build working devices. Since it is not likely Rossi would be in a position to return the $10M, it seems probable that the settlement will now include additional payment to Rossi only after successful transfer of his IP. My guess is that most additional payments will be tied to future profits as was the case in the original contract. I wouldn’t be surprised if the settlement contract calls for return of the $10M if Rossi is unable to transfer his IP to IH. (Of course we will never see the terms of the settlement, but if the parties are still working together after the settlement, it seems obvious that IH will have something in the new contract to insure that they will have to ability to use Rossi’s IP.)

      • Gerard McEk

        I accept your suggestion that payment will only be done on succesful transfer of IP, Dr. Mike. It would lead to an unhappy AR and I have the feeling that this is the case.
        Obviously this means that AR did not really transfer IP in the past, although he said to us he had done so. You assume AR is the bad guy in this affaire.
        When IH are the bad guys, this line of thinking is wrong.

        • Dr. Mike

          Gerard,
          When the lawsuit was filed, I was 100% sure that IH was the “bad guy” in this lawsuit. Then, I began looking at the pretrial motion evidence presented in the court documents. Read the e-mail that Rossi sent IH on 8/3/2015 (document #264-12, last page). He tells them that IH does not get the rights to the IP until after he receives his $89M, whereas the contract calls for the IP to be transferred after the $10M payment. In this same e-mail he also tells IH they have breached the contract for other reasons that are not consistent with the actual contract. Rossi made a big mistake sending this e-mail. He really should have discussed these issues with a lawyer, and then let the lawyer send a letter to IH with any concerns that he had regarding the contract (which he clearly did not understand). The other key issue in the evidence was Rossi’s honesty. On his blog Rossi repeatedly said that he never “said” the JM Products was affiliated with Johnson Matthey. He may not have made a verbal statement as such, but look at the court documents #245-03 pages 4,9 and 13: document #245-28 page 3: and document #245-29 pages 2,6,8 and18 to see if he didn’t represent JM Products as being a Johnson Matthey affiliate. Another issue that makes Rossi look very bad is how he broke the agreement with Hydrofusion. Check court document #279-12 to see how Rossi in his own words goes about breaking a business deal. These and other issues in the pre-trial court documents would have shown Rossi as a person not to be trusted in the eyes of the jury. The IH lawyers would have had a fairly easy task of showing the jury that Rossi was someone not to be trusted, and he was to be the primary witness for his side. Rossi’s 8/3/2015 e-mail to IH seems to be reasonable evidence that Rossi had not yet transferred his IP to IH, which would indicate that he had breached the contract. If you have reviewed the court documents and see a different picture, I would certainly like to hear your opinion and see what documents back up your opinion.
          Dr. Mike

          • Gerard McEk

            Thanks for bringing this to my attention Dr. Mike. Being an engineer I dislike reading legal documents and these are so many.
            I do think that AR distrusts many parties, possibly due to his past. That may make him also untrustworthy and behaving like he does.
            Big money makes nearly everyone untrustworthy, though… 🙁

          • Dr. Mike

            Gerard,
            I am also an engineer, but one of my favorite college courses was “Business Law”. I believe that Rossi’s actions are what make him untrustworthy, at least it seems likely that the jury would have viewed him as untrustworthy based on the pre-trial evidence. Other concerns about Rossi’s behavior include:
            1. Did he pay taxes on the $10M?
            2. Did he misquote Italian law to get IH to agree to change the conditions of the $10M test?
            3. Why did he send messages (through Johnson) to IH that indicated JM Products was satisfied with the steam they were receiving from Rossi’s reactor when JM Products was not really using any steam?
            4. Why is Rossi the only one that ever saw a heat exchanger? Why didn’t the person checking the facility for radiation (Stokes) testify that he examined the heat exchanger? (He testified before there was any mention of a heat exchanger.)
            5. Why was the heat exchanger and output pipe removed one day after the 1MW test was claimed to be complete?
            6. In his blog Rossi claims to be currently operating several 20W QuarkX’s. For what possible use does he have for the pipes and the fans from the phantom heat exchanger? (Rossi’s deposition testimony was that the fans had been modified in a proprietary manner and the pipes were being used in a proprietary process so that no one (IH or the court) could examine them.)
            7. Why was “heating tape” used near the temperature sensor on the steam output pipe?

            The information from the pre-trial evidence has made me quite skeptical about the performance that Rossi achieved from the e-cats used in the 1MW test. I certainly intend to keep an open mind on evaluating the results on the QuarkX when this device is demonstrated. If the settlement includes IH retaining the rights to Rossi’s IP, I hope that any demonstration of the QuarkX is run by IH’s engineers.
            Dr. Mike

          • Vinney

            The court case is settled, give it a rest. Sit back and enjoy the development of the E-cat to make your life easier. it’s going to be unveiled to the market sooner than you think.
            Rossi is on a mission, haven’t you noticed he is working at breakneck speed, and there wouldn’t be a lab on the planet (shorti of billions in resources) develop it any faster.
            But he also wants all the credit.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Basically, yes. Rossi made many business mistakes. I had missed that letter of July, only noticing what preceded it, the IH reply. It is clear that the relationship had broken down by then (and Rossi’s oft-repeated claim that “they only complained when it was time to pay” was misleading.) It looks like they were complaining in July, 2015 (which is also when Rossi refused admittance to Murray, violating the Term Sheet). This is all now legally moot, but is of interest to anyone thinking of working with Rossi or IH in the future.

  • cashmemorz

    The problem with not having this information available through normal physics channels is that it is so new and has developed so fast that it is totally unexpected. The other problem, from my experience with blogging about the subject is that there is too much incredulity. When I first heard Randell Mills talking about his Suncell in a video from one of his earlier demonstrations, I thought to myself, “How can anybody possibly be serious about his statements.” What he said sounded so out of left field and beyond fringe science or physics, as I undersdtood the field, that I was taken aback as to who could take him seriously and even invest in his devices. As I looked closer and read his thesis and how and who was involved and why the thesis was written in the first place, it was like a cloud lifting from my horizon of view. There really is other kinds of physics out there and it actually works. Not only that, why it works, but it also shows the Standard Model and what the SM is based on, I felt ashamed to be a part of it. SM, by comparison, is a sham and a tower of Babel, when compared to the new physics. Seriously. The Grand Unified Theory- Classical Physics is everything it purports to be and more. It actually will turn the physics community on its head in more ways than one. Here are several links to show what it really is. Be prapared to be shocked out of your socks. I was.

    For the lectures themselves, by others, see:

    http://webcast.massey.ac.nz/Mediasite/Play/8ef7e03e26fc458b8eb7f351738f26811d

    Credentials of the above lecturer:

    http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/expertise/profile.cfm?stref=944130

    A lecture by Dr. Mills at Fresno State U.:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dCzVUnnL00

    https://www.scribd.com/book/322776015/Randell-Mills-and-the-Search-for-Hydrino-Energy

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/futurist-dr-randell-mills-talks-suncell-off-grid_us_592ec431e4b07c4c73138706

    http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BLP-e-4-25-2016.pdf

    http://brilliantlightpower.wikia.com/wiki/GUTCP_Fact_Sheet

    http://brilliantlightpower.com/management/

    Rowan University’s report http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Chary%20Redacted%20Report.pdf

    Rowan University’s report II http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Jansson%20Redacted%20Report.pdf

    UNC Asheville’s report http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Dr.%20Booker%20Redacted%20Report.pdf

    University of Illinois report http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/GlumacReportwithGraphics2014.pdf

    http://www.brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/EUV-Mechanism-051817.pdf

    https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/why-quantum-mechanics-might-need-overhaul

    https://www.libertariannews.org/2016/07/12/randell-l-mills-a-living-legend-greater-than-einstein-and-tesla-combined/

    https://innercircle.engineering.asu.edu/2017/02/23/attend-powering-the-future-
    talk-with-randell-mills-march-1/

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/983-rmills-gutcp-evaluationv1-0-pdf/

    http://e-catworld.com/2017/07/03/new-paper-binuclear-atoms-a-model-to-explain-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-paolo-accomazzi/

  • CWatters

    Someone should ask Rossi…. Who does an American customer talk to? You or IH?

    • cashmemorz

      Leonardo Corp. at
      ecat.com
      has a pre-order place on their web site. I used that to get in line for 2 units. No money is expected from any potential customers until the units are ready to to be delivered. And then the order has to be confirmed by the customer before money has to be paid and then before delivery is made. So it looks legitimate, not some money making scheme to just suck money from the unknowing. I just checked their site and the order form seems not to be there.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Cash,

        In all the time I have worked with Rossi to secure several 1MW ECat plants, he NEVER asked for money up front. Sure he did require deposit funds placed into escrow but if the client backs out or Rossi can’t fulfil the clients requirements the escrowed funds are returned to the client.

        Never have I ever read that any customer has ever claimed Rossi cheated them. The only people making such claims seem to reside on LF and they never present any evidence.

        It should also be understood that while Rossi did underestimate the time to bring the 1MW plant to market and thus generated a few upset licensees, he did offer each and every licenses to refund their license fees. I know he did this with Roger Green as I emailed him and discussed it.

        This is NOT how a crook or scammer works. So anybody making claims that Rossi is a crook or scammer had better have their evidence ready to present to the court or face possible defamation action.

  • As far as I can tell, ALL of them. P-F found excess heat and these guys replicated it, across 180 labs. Some also found Neutrons, gamma rays, Tritium, Helium.

  • nietsnie

    I experience it as an effort to come to the truth, rather than to win or lose. “Winning” hadn’t occurred to me. I certainly have my preference as to how it turns out. But I’ve never “known something for sure” in order to win at it. What a weird idea. Do other people think like that too? I suppose it would explain a lot…

  • cashmemorz

    Ah, the old greed principle at work. So, too many in this field seems to see the possibility of riches. If only…

  • Thomas Kaminski
    • Bruce__H

      The patent itself is not impressive because there is no replication involved but I think that the work of the SPAWAR codeposition group is the right sort of thing to point out. They had all sorts of cool observations but in the end, instead of seeding an outgrowth of work in other labs it sputtered and died. Szpak’s work was the first stuff I read (on the recommendation of Engineer48) when I was trying to educate myself in the field. Ultimately the work couldn’t be replicated even within SPAWAR. Questions occur to me such as what about the meltdowns they say were so prolific? As repeatable large-scale events, wouldn’t meltdowns be a great testbed for research? You could look at the ash, hunt for coincident burst of x-rays and alpha particles etc. Not done as far as I recall.

      I do remember that other groups adopted codeposition so maybe I should look there for the pattern I say is missing in the LENR. It is a pattern that should be there in a healthy field because the best reviewers of published work are really the other groups who are trying to incorporate a published result into their own lab. They do this not with the goal of simple replication but because they want to use the result as a platform to take the next step in their own work. That is how all science works. I argue that over many years if you don’t see this done successfully then the basic effect is probably not there after all.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Hi Bruce_H,

        My point in calling out the patent is that they have published detailed instructions on how to make a device that exhibits “Cold Fusion” with reliably 30% increase in heat out over the electrical energy in and with demonstrated nuclear signatures. I think it would be possible for a typical engineering student to follow the recipe and demonstrate that F&P were correct. Perhaps even a headline like “8th Grade Science Project Proves Cold Fusion Works” would do more to goad researchers into examining the theory. I suspect that the public still feels “Cold Fusion” was a hoax even though results have been duplicated showing it is real.

        • Bruce__H

          That would be absolutely great if someone could follow the patent instructions and make a reliably functioning overunity LENR system. If no one has done done that then that sort of makes my point.

  • Vinney

    Let’s see now, a billion dollar company acting through a limited liability subsidiary with a complex share structure ( thanks to Abd Lomax for the details) between corporate creations to garner for investor funds (from other billion dollar organizations) and to rescind gathered IP from US jurisdiction, chooses to settle with an Inventor/Fraudster (net worth after legal costs under $10 million).
    If this isn’t a statement that the technology works, you have got rocks in your head.

    • Agree.

      • Michael W Wolf

        You know Matts, with the trial being so short, maybe Rossi’s lawyers said all IH has to do is give up licensing rights. It is the only reason in my mind why it would go so quickly. Heck maybe Rossi gave back the 11.5 million like he said. Less court and lawyers fees I would think.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          Possible. I don’t think so, but for complex reasons.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      It isn’t, and I didn’t make the statement, you did, so where are the rocks?

      (By the way, having studied the structure, it all makes sense, designed to allow investment while limiting liability to what was invested. This is standard business.)

      US jurisdiction remained over the Agreement (which explicitly established Florida law as governing, and the “Court of Miami” as the court having jurisdiction — a sign this was written by Rossi, no lawyer would write it that way). IHHI was formed in the U.K. because Woodford insisted. Had IHHI removed assets from IH, that could have been a problem, but IH spent its capital and more.

      My quick summary: by refusing to fully transfer the IP, as we see in his letter to IH responding to their email of about 7/15/2015, Rossi made it impossible for IH to pay him $89 million, even if he technically earned it (and I think he didn’t). This was awful business, completely disregarding the needs of the partner, depending on a self-serving interpretation of the Agreement, apparently.

      And now we can see why Woodford would not invest in IPH, as IH had suggested. IPH was a party to the Agreement (by the First Amendment) and would therefore be liable under it. However, IH owned IPH, and in May 2015, IHHI was formed to assume full ownership of IH. This was a stock purchase and did not create liability. Assets of IH and IPH did not “disappear.” Rather, the main asset was the License and Agreement they had bought. So if Rossi won a big judgement, he would have been their main creditor. He might, this way, have recovered the License.

      But he could not force IHHI to cough up the money. That is why he included Cherokee and Darden and Vaughn personally, on legal theories for which the technical term is “bullshit.”

  • Alan DeAngelis

    This is entertaining but responsible news organizations have more pressing issues that must be brought to the public’s attention. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/giants-report-steelers-nfl-under-inflated-footballs-article-1.2906977

  • Robyn Wyrick

    This is very big news. Glad you kept up on it, Frank. Thanks.

  • I wouldn’t be surprised if Rossi had evidence of the dissipation. When I talked with him, he explained that there were ways to introduce evidence that were not presented during discovery, and I would be extremely surprised if he didn’t have photos and documentation of the heat dissipator.
    I actually think that Rossi had material to give IH a very hard time at court, and that this was the reason for the quick settlement.

    • Björn-Ola

      Yes, Rossi must have evidence and IH must have been aware of it. It’s impossible to dissipate so much heat without anyone visiting the site taking notice about it.

  • If I were you I would check with Jed. Some of those papers are easier to get than others, and some are worth more than others.

    • Bruce__H

      So … the sense that I get is that you haven’t read any of them.

      • I have read a few. I talked to one of the researchers who has posted a peer reviewed finding in LENR. He has no problem accepting the fact that this is a replicated phenomenon.

  • Stephen

    I think he also mentioned his accountant likely having receipts for a lot of the equipment in his dispositions and that he could get hold of them if necessary.

    I think if there were receipts for the necessary fans, pipework and wood work he mentioned as well as for other things from that time frame it would be very hard to explain that away with something else.

    After reading the dispositions released for the trial. I found the the previous released excerpts during discovery to be very “selective” to say the least. In total context I get a much broader understanding I think. Especially regarding JMP the ownership by a independent Trust “American Platinum Trust” their relationship with out side parties and their ownership of the technology used at JMP and the project management by AR and compensation agreement with Leonardo. This gives a very different view and understanding than the very different selective release of letters with out context mentioned early in the discovery phase.

    Those complete dispositions read in their entirety give to me a much more honest account of what was conveyed and understood by both sides than some of the more wild interpretations made based on the very small amounts of selected data released earlier with out true context and background.

    The honesty of the dispositions and complexity and the self consistency of the real device conveyed there in and story of the development is very clear.

    Part of me is curious to see the data we missed but I think we only need to be patient and things will eventually become clear enough to doubters and believers alike.

    I still hope we see this this year in 2017.

  • Jerry Soloman

    looks like eCat World took the High ground and its integrity firmly established as THE premier LENR forum.

    • I gotta agree with that. Over at LENR-Forum they showed themselves to be overtly luddite. The moderator even agreed that their approach is “some farm animals are more equal than others”.

  • f sedei

    The genius of Rossi is too easy to underestimate. What he has already accomplished is still being pursued for years without success by other accomplished scientists and engineers. Do not give up on Rossi.

  • Jimr

    I agree with what you say with the exception of the number available in three years, I think i will be closer to 100 if everthing goes well.
    Of course I question many things about LE.NR. I think it likely that some U.S. black project has already developed the technology, otherwise why would the government halt work on LENR with Darpa, Navy etc.

  • US_Citizen71

    And why not?

    Petro Dragon worked! Several of the principles and patents of the Petro Dragon process are in use today in the biofuel industry. Rossi was railroaded by a corrupt law enforcement official working in a corrupt system. He stepped on too many toes with Petro Dragon, the waste management industry (italian mob) and the petroleum industry to name two. The whole toxic waste angle is nothing but perspective, any chemical plant shut and locked down unexpectedly for over a year would be considered a toxic mess when disassembled against the owners will. What got Rossi in trouble in the end was not the industrial chemicals and fuel he produced but the precious metals he recovered as well. It was not having the correct permits/licenses to trade in them as well as not paying the correct taxes on the metals he sold. This is what they jailed him over. Popular Science had two very large write ups on Petro Dragon before the SHTF, both stated respectable amounts of fuel production and nothing wrong with the process. Rossi even had his own racing team powered by his fuel production. As for thermoelectric converter, it didn’t work. But neither did how many hundreds of Edison’s attempts at a light bulb?

    • Chapman

      God Bless You for reminding everyone of that!

      Understanding how far ahead of his time he was even then, and how he was railroaded and abused, and the reality behind their continued insults regarding his “checkered past” makes one understand his current personality quirks and his at times seemingly unreasonable temperament.

      The man suffers from a form of PTSD. How much betrayal and abuse can ANYONE take without it affecting your social skills???

      • US_Citizen71

        He is once bitten twice shy for sure! When I read the original PopSci article my teenage self’s first thought was someone was going to kill him for the disruption he was about to cause. In the end what they did was probably worse.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Hi Chapman: I think you are on to something with the PTSD comment. I know that having been part of a startup with a product that technically succeeds but commercially fails, your psyche is exhausted when it finally dawns on you that it is over. You work like the devil to push it out the door against all manner of hurdles, not the least of which is management. In my case, I also invested and lost a good part of my family fortune.

        I can empathize with Rossi — been there, done some of that. In his case, the Italian Mob and corrupt politicians were way over my hurdles. Also, I was never a extreme marathoner the way he was. My guess is he now trusts no one and is pretty sure that he is right.

    • MorganMck

      Sorry, but Rossi has absolutely no track record of bringing his inventions into mass commercial markets successfully (no matter how brilliant he might be), so why would we think he is going to do so now. Since commercialization is his chosen path, this will not happen soon. How many months has he fooled around trying to achieve his 5 sigma (and we only have his word for that).

      I hate to say it, but I think Randell Mills (even with his dismal track record) probably has a much better chance of commercializing the thermal SunCell in the near future than Rossi has with the Quark.

      • US_Citizen71

        No one that brings an invention to the mass market for the first time has a track record of doing so, but that doesn’t stop people from doing it everyday!

        • MorganMck

          “People” are not Rossi who has stated this as his intent for many years and has led us to believe there were robotic factories to produce millions of eCats right around the corner. Not saying all this won’t happen eventually, but it is not likely to happen “soon” just because the court case settled as was implied above.

          If you think otherwise, please define “soon” for us. Within 3 months? 6 months?

          • US_Citizen71

            Settling the court case likely removed one obstacle and may have added another, lack of funds. We shall see after the joint statement from the lawyers. I have no idea what Rossi’s timeline is so I can’t give it to you. But it is quite obvious you have never participated in bringing anything to market even as something small as being Kickstarter backer if you think everything happens on an exact easy to define timeline. There is always problems and things tend to move forward in start and stop spurts.

          • MorganMck

            Of course you just had to turn this into a personal attack on me, assuming facts about my life and career that you know absolutely nothing about (and in fact you are very wrong about).

            I know a fair amount about the difficulties of bringing a high-tech product to market and the issues of constructing and maintaining a development schedule. In fact, that is why I think that “soon” (by my definition) is very unlikely. Since you think it will be “soon,” I merely asked what your definition was so that we could have a point of reference. You don’t need to know Rossi’s timeline to give us a worse case that you still consider to be “soon.”

          • US_Citizen71

            I never personally attacked you, I merely stated you appeared naive concerning the process of bringing a product to market. As for my expectations, I would think 1 to 2 years at minimum for something beyond a pilot plant to test the new QuarkX modules. I’m in no rush, the world maybe, but I am not.

          • MorganMck

            Oh I see when you actually said: “But it is quite obvious you have never participated in bringing anything to market even as something small as being Kickstarter backer if you think everything happens on an exact easy to define timeline,” you now characterize as: “I merely stated you appeared naive concerning the process of bringing a product to market.” The revisionism doesn’t work very well. In fact what you said was obvious was said without any personal knowledge about me and, by-the-way, ends up being incorrect as well. It feels like a personal attack to me.

            BTW, I do not consider 1 to 2 additional years “soon” (which is what started all this) but that is only my opinion.

          • Chapman

            Friend, you make good points, and it is a great discussion, but no one insulted you or otherwise impugned your experience.

            Chill. We are all friends here. Do not LOOK for reasons to get indignant! People just express opinions, and enjoy a bit of debate, that’s all.

            My wife used to smack me in the back of the head and tell me “Stop flaring your nostrils” when she would see me working myself up into a snit… worked every time…

        • Thomas Kaminski

          US:. Can you give me an example of bringing a nuclear plant to the “mass market”? Rossi’s petro dragon is more akin to a nuclear plant than an iPhone..

          • US_Citizen71
          • Thomas Kaminski

            Perhaps you and I differ on what is the “mass market”. The plant you cited has two purchases, neither of which (to my knowledge) are actually operating.

            “In 2015, DTE Energy received the first-ever ESBWR-based combined construction and operating license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Dominion Virginia Power has also selected the ESBWR as its technology of choice for a potential third reactor at the North Anna site.”

            If you include the phrase “commercially successful”, the GE plant will likely also fail.

          • Vinney

            He has engineered around handicaps, and you might have noticed the QX has become the size of a pellet. He has even shown us previews of how it’s going to be assembled (between High -Temperature ceramics). Obviously his market introduction will be industrial heating elements.
            Probably inter-changeable for existing large heating elements.
            Exactly what Engineer48 says he needs in his powerplants.
            But from there the sky is the limit.

      • Omega Z

        I suspect the only track record you are aware of about Rossi is the Trash the Krivits promoted. Rossi has sold past inventions and created/built multiple successful businesses in Italy and the U.S. of which he sold to finance his E-cat research.

      • psi2u2

        You don’t sound like you are listening to what US_Citizen said, but rather talking past him.

        • Chapman

          BINGO!!!

          • psi2u2

            ; )

  • Chapman

    Sadly, I must agree with you. Expectations are currently unrealistic.

    LENR, and the E-Cat technology, are not a Frisbee, where a simple invention is thought up and ushered to the marketplace following a wave of mass production.

    There are multiple considerations which limit the speed at which the technology is incorporated:

    1. What we see currently are devices that demonstrate potential, but are only first generation prototypes. Just consider the evolution from P&F wet cells, to E-Cat, to Quark-X. Which would have been a good investment? Would YOU want to start mass producing the Quark, not knowing if there is a more refined form soon to be developed? I am not just talking about obsolescence, but rather the fact that what we see are basically laboratory demonstration devices intended to show an effect, and allow investigation into its cause, but NOT an optimized product designed for the marketplace. There are, no doubt, a number of niches that could and would happily put a healthy number of the current iteration to good use, but transitioning from research to production on any design is a huge investment, and they will wait until they have a device that has universal, even if limited, utility and market value.

    2. They have not even established the physics behind its operation yet! Granted, you do not need to KNOW the physics to decide if LENR is worth pursuing, because demonstration and observation prove the net results OF the physics, but there simply is no way you are going to see a world-changing “magic heat/energy machine” show up on the shelves at your neighborhood Walmart when nobody even knows what is actually going on inside it, or what long term effects the devices emissions may have on health and the environment! It was pretty easy to assess those liabilities with the invention of the Frisbee, and it was quickly established that some folks might get whacked in the head, but the low mass of the unit limits the injury potential so “we’re good to go”, but the same can not be said for LENR. There will be a first generation rollout of ANY device that will be limited to industrial and commercial use, as well as some laboratory and government based installations, all operating under constant supervision and monitoring, but that will be the extent of its use for a number of years.

    The reality is that NONE of us are getting Quark-X BBQ’s or water heaters any time soon. That is just a fantasy. Home use is at least 10 years away. More likely 20. But LENR will be “on the scene” and start to be utilized generally within maybe 5 years. We will all benefit FROM it, but there will not be a reactor percolating in our garages come next summer…

  • Jerry Soloman

    —- Neil Woodford — “It’s a privilege frankly to be involved with technology that we believe will change the world” – Rossi eCat that is ..

  • Right. Hope to be able to re-launch the symposium later this year or next year, depending on how the things going on now play out.

    • Buck

      Mats,

      Rossi described a ECat QX demonstration by the end of October. Am I being too fanciful, too much of a dreamer to think of bringing these two things, your symposium and Rossi’s demonstration, together, same location and same timeframe?

  • Chapman

    All valid arguments. I understand your view that it seems straightforward. But go back and look at the actual timetable from testing, to product development, to initial market availability, to “common appliance” market saturation, for something historically equivalent… The “Radar Range”!

    They were high priced novelties for a long time after they were up for sale, and most people had their first experience with them at 7-11 for heating up a burrito YEARS before they ever became commonplace and cheap enough for the average homeowner. People still had suspicions that the darn things would fry their eyeballs or make them sterile!

    Same goes for Televisions and PC’s…

    Only “Pet Rocks” and “Fidget Spinners” show up on the shelves one day and achieve instant market share… well, also Cabbage patch dolls. Oh, and tickle-me-elmo I guess. But how long was it before you bought a flat screen tv? See what I mean?

  • Omega Z

    2025- THAT is a BIG IF

    If it isn’t moved farther in down the timeline. Even then it will be a giant energy sucking machine. No energy output. If the containment holds. How long to clean up the mess if it doesn’t? It is still decades away IF it ever succeeds.

    • clovis ray

      I totally agree biggest money vacuum ever, talk about an on going fraud that suckling the tax payers hard earmed dust.

  • Dr. Mike

    Bruce,
    Actually there is a lot of information available-the court documents for the for all the pre-trial motions, depositions, and other evidence. My guess is that very few people making comments on Frank’s website have examined any of these documents. In my opinion these documents do not show Rossi in a very positive position. I will wait to see the data from the QuarkX before I determine if it is real.
    Dr. Mike

    • Bruce__H

      Dr. Mike,

      I take your point. But when I referred to a “no-information situation” I meant lack of information about the nature of the settlement. Nothing has come out about that as far as I know and yet people have read into it whatever they want.

      You are dead right about the court documents. There are some things in there that I have never seen discussed and yet I think are damning for Rossi. For instance Smith’s supplementary report (235.10 page 31) shows that during a day-long power interruption Fabiani’s instruments reported constant power consumption by the ECat plant as well as overall pressure and temperature readings at the ECat outlet that neither increased or declined throughout the day. How is that possible? It is a shame that there was no chance to have issues like this addressed in court.

      • cashmemorz

        UPS= uninterruptible power supply. Rossi is smart enough to plan ahead for foreseen possibilities as that. What he might not have planned for are unforeseen events. Even then he was apparently able to fix all problems that came up. He is an expert in the art after all.

        • Bruce__H

          A UPS wouldn’t last out a whole day.

          Has anyone seen a generator in any of the photos? Should be pretty obvious, about 2′ x 3′ x 4′.

          • cashmemorz

            What kind of UPS did you think would power the E-CAT.?
            2′ x 3′ x 4′ is for home use supplying up to no more than 10KW. Double that size is required to get the full power for the ware house basic needs plus the E-Cat input Nothing obvious if it was anywhere by the dock doors. We don’t have pictures of that area do we?

          • BillH

            There were no UPS’s in the building, Penon would not have allowed it! It was critical that ALL the electricity be measured accurately. Any spare electrical capacity within the Doral facility would have invalidated the test completely, that was the whole point of measuring the total power input to the building. You might as well say a power cable was run through the wall from the unit next door and supplied all the energy…I don’t think you want to go there.

          • cashmemorz

            I’m not the one going there. If Rossi could get a pseudo customer of his making to use the power produced by the E-Cat he had the control of that area to do as he saw fit. This could have been anything. He supposedly had a heat exchanger on that mezzanine for getting rid of excess heat. Who would have stopped him from putting other “contingency items” up there. Another wire spliced into the mains would keep the E-Cat going as I said. Please do not try to censor anybody about what “might ” have happened. I am not privy to anything. It is an opinion based on previous possibilities stated by others who were able to piece together what “might” have been up there.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Cash,

            I would suggest to not place a lot of credence on the FL P&L data as I know from experience the data remotely retrieved from those meters can be highly inaccurate.

            Plus the prominent pumps don’t have, as I can see, any method to block flow from inlet to outlet when the inlet pressure is greater than the outlet back pressure. Which suggests that as long as the condensate risers had a higher level of condensate than the Tiger reactors, the plant could run without power as long as the reactors maintained SSM mode, which does not require any power input.

            As to the upper story heat exchanger, I have extended the image Dr. Wong took to try to properly show the size of the rubber marks on the floor.

            BTW Bruce, the units are 40ft wide or 12.2m and the upper story is 12.2m wide, not the 11×11 you claimed. To obtain that figure I measured the total width of the 7 northern units as 280ft / 7 = 40ft width per unit.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8c18df631711bf4aa0b6c627a1a1e0aa8ba0b37a5f0bb80bcf8f4836f150a004.png

            What I now think those rubber marks are is they are from an air supply plenum that was built under the heat exchanger box. This way all sections of the heat exchanger box would receive the same inlet temperature so as to ensure the max delta T across the pipes. The unit I drew before would have the pipes at the end transfering little heat energy to the air as it would be that of the pipes. So a VERY inefficieny design. Building an air supply plenum box under the heat exchanger box would be a much more efficient design. From the rubber marks on the floor and the foam sealed hole in the floor it would seem that maybe what Rossi did.

            This is only a guess but it would probably work well and would explain the rubber marks on the floor.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/58ebcb10c366e7a0997d723b7cf7b7d6f6ee3535d319f1b64033e670269460c5.png

            Clever boy. Or as Darden referred to Rossi as he walked out of the courtroom: “Smart Man”.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e3e74f55eae4d59daba7dd56972bc60b186dd384a75201165c4902e13b1f5cf9.png

            This then suggests that while the air supply plenum box, with the foam sealed hole in the floor to stop air leakage, which would be under the heat exchanger box, was a little smaller than the 6.5 x 10m heat exchanger box it is still around the same size.

          • cashmemorz

            Ok. I see from your schematic of the heat exchanger in the mezzanine, that there is little room for anything else. So my theory may in fact be unneeded for a UPS. But I still would have expected Rossi to at least try to fit one in someplace just in case.

          • Bruce__H

            I thought you said that the unit containing the pipes wouldn’t have much vibration and so wouldn’t leave a mark. So why are you thinking that the marks are now being made by the container for the pipes?

            On the other hand I thought that you said it was the structure supporting the fans (the one Rossi said he made) would vibrate and leave marks. Where are these marks? I suppose it depends on where the fans were. I have a recollection from one of Rossi’s depositions that he said those fans were pulling air through the exchanger. For this I suppose that they must be beside the windows so as to be expelling the hot air out that way. But wouldn’t there therefore be marks beside the windows? Do you see any? I don’t.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            Please see attached.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8c18df631711bf4aa0b6c627a1a1e0aa8ba0b37a5f0bb80bcf8f4836f150a004.png

            The room is 12.2 x 12.2m and the area of the rubber marks is much bigger than you suggested.

            I suggest the rubber marks are from an air supply plenum under the heat exchanger box. Note the foam filled hole in the floor.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/58ebcb10c366e7a0997d723b7cf7b7d6f6ee3535d319f1b64033e670269460c5.png

            The lower plenum feeds constant temp cool air onto the steam pipes to obtain max delta T temp differential and the upper plenum used heat air rising to lower the pressure on the top of the heat exchanger box and thus increased air flow rate.

      • Dr. Mike

        Bruce,
        I pointed out a number of things that make Rossi look bad in the evidence in my replies to Gerard in the comments below. I believe that the information released on the operation of 1MW plant is useless from a scientific standpoint. There are many issues like the one you pointed out above that indicate the whole 1MW plant operation was possibly a scam. The time period when the entire building was using less electricity than the amount claimed to have been used just to run the reactors seems like another bit of data for which there will never be an explanation. Maybe we will eventually get better data on the QuarkX?
        Dr. Mike

        • Engineer48

          Hi Mike,

          While the Prominent pumps Rossi used do have multiple back way flow valves, those valves do seem to allow straight through flow if the pump inlet pressure is above the pump back pressure, so in such a situation there is no need to electrically power the pumps. They need to be electrically powered to start the fluid flowing.

          We do know from the visual evidence there were 2 approx 2.5 mtr high condensate risers, so the pump inlet pressures would be higher than the almost 1 barg (1 atmo) pump back pressure.

          Thus energy generated in the ECat reactors could have provide all the energy needed to circulate the working fluid.

          So again it seems Smith did not do his homework to properly understand the dynamics of the pumps.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Mike,

          Hey how much power do you think to takes to run 24 pumps and the computers?

          You do realise SSM means the reactor heaters are NOT drawing power?

      • Vinney

        The power outage was only an hour or two, and the plant probably ran in low temperature SSM during that period, and this information was in the power supply readings.
        Sorry, you keep trying to tear Rossi down but he keeps coming up on top. He bet $millions with the knowledge of the truth and won, and will win again

      • Engineer48

        Hi Bruce,

        Another possibility you must consider is the FL P&L metering data is not correct.

        I do note that IH had no one from FL P&L scheduled as a witness, which suggests they realised their “Evidence” was weak and they would not bring it to the trial.

        Probably because no one from FL P&L would testify their data was 100% accurate as my experience tells me it is not accurate.

        So maybe stop bringing up data that FL P&L will not support?

    • Engineer48

      Hi Mike,

      Others here do not share your opinion.

      So we agree to disagree.

  • Vinney

    Both IH and Woodford have now done over 3 years of ‘due diligence’, spent millions on lawyers and experts, and choose not to close Rossi down when financially they easily could.
    They seem to have a lot of respect for his business and legal prowess and I might add his invention.
    This court case was a bet on overtaking and controlling his technology (hence all the corporate entities created to deal with a lone Inventor). It was Rossi’s belief in the value of his technology that prevailed.
    Congratulations Andrea Rossi and I hope you are happy in the new level of ownership of your creations IP.

  • bfast

    I was a big fan of hot fusion’s imminent arrival back in the 80s. Back then the arrival of net positive fusion was just 5 – 10 years away.

    • cashmemorz

      The reason for the delay, with hot fusion, is at least twofold. One is that the actual physics of ITER and the like, is based on, what is actually happening in the Sun, is only partially known in the physics establishment. There is a huge difference, between 3000 to 6000 degrees in the main body of the Sun and millions of degrees in the corona. The Standard Model has no explanation for that, although there are many theories(actually hypotheses). According to Randell Mills’ Grand Unified Theory- Classical Physics there is the hydrino pathway of converting hydrogen to hydrinos, or otherwise known as dark matter, that has enough energy resources to do that. The magnetic processes of the corona happen to be exactly what the GUT-CP predicts to act as a catalyst for accepting the energy from the ground state and higher orbitals of the hydrogen atoms electron orbitsphere, as energy holes by free electrons, in the Sun. There has been recent acknowledgment by the science establishment for the possibility of Rydburg matter, or condensed metallic state of hydrogen, as making up the cooler, dark spots on the surface of the Sun. Rydberg matter is the hydrino as the counter part in the GUT-CP. This is the first hold up of why hot fusion has such problems in simply replicating, basically, what the Sun is doing. The other hold up is another way the Standard Model is not allowed to go forward by the very nature of how Quantum Physics, Wave Mechanics, the Uncertainty Principle and the 27 free parameter lead to such a rough approximation to reality that the SM are more like rough curve fitting instead of a much more closely fitting theory as the GUT-CP which is base on a development of physics from first principles of classical precursors.

  • US_Citizen71

    Yes I probably bared my teeth more than I should have, but only out of passion not malice. My intent wasn’t to insult you, I apologize.

    • Chapman

      It is the same trap I fall in talking with George! I absolutely LOVE talking to the guy, but he always thought I was insulting him, when I was just expressing a counter opinion, and even THAT with only HALF the passion he uses to state his own. It took a long time, but I think he finally figured out that I am simply having a discussion and not on the warpath.

      And it is not a matter of some people being “sensitive”. I think it is more a regional thing, and how you were brought up. Do you know anyone from New York? It is like their mouths have no filter whatsoever. They are starkly honest, and it just never occurs to them that they just insulted you. None of their FRIENDS would ever take insult.

      But there are also “Southern Gentry” folks so fearfully polite that they never get around to expressing their OWN true thoughts in a conversation because they would be mortified if they committed some social faux pas and said something objectionable. Yet they remark to everyone that you are an uncouth imbecile after you exit. Go figure…

      Unfortunately, the internet brings us ALL together like a cage fight.
      Luckily, we seem to be evolving past the issue…

      • US_Citizen71

        I have to admit I view debating and arguing on forums somewhat as sport. Debating back and forth was something I grew up with making debate class in school more of a pleasurable hobby than a chore. Like Boxing there are different rules as to what is a acceptable in different venues. I often participate in venues like “The Hill” which are the internet forum version of bare knuckle brawling, sometimes it can be difficult to suppress the skills you learn in such forums when participating in a forum such as this one which is closer to an internet forum version of Olympic Boxing. Rereading my comment it had a little more bite than was needed or typical here.

        • Chapman

          Yes, I too was involved with debate in HS and College. It teaches you to separate emotion from logic, and makes digging into a complex topic intellectually rewarding.

          Honestly, I would rather be debating “the proper role of government in the healthcare industry” with someone I respect then sitting on the couch in a near coma, staring at the tv and binge watching “NCIS”, but I guess that makes me an oddball these days. God forbid, I would rather sharpen my wits then dull my senses, therefore I am a radical troublemaker!

          I will tell you ONE thing that is a fact! Our current generation of snowflakes that absolutely melt down when contradicted, and must seek refuge in a safe place whenever their opinions are in any way challenged, is a direct result of NOT learning how to cope with life. If one can not handle simply discussing opinions, then they are “developmentally challenged” and should rightly be considered handicapped. Oh, and we should make them wear bike helmets, just so they don’t hurt themselves…

  • Chapman

    I was not checking you. I was offering friendly support. You seem reasonable, but it looked like you read insult where none was intended, that’s all.

    Look, nobody gets more heated and vamped up in a discussion more than me! I am not criticizing you in any way. But it looks different, and more obvious, when you are an observer seeing it happen to someone else! I saw it, and thought I would give you a word of encouragement and point out that you were not being attacked, but being spoken to as equals and peers. It is a comfortable conversation, and folks say what is on their mind. That is what folks DO…

    We do not want to go getting upset because we read between the lines and take something meant as an observation as a personal slight and get all fired up! That is how Bar Fights get started. And then it’s “all well and good till somebody loses an eye!”.

    Chill… We love you. 🙂

  • It was pretty practical just a few short years later in WWI that pilots were flying over enemy lines and photographing, dropping bombs, interdiction, etc.

  • LT

    It;s funny to see that the guessing whether the ECAT is real, Rossi is a scam or not started years ago, went on during the trial and now continues after the trial. And all those guesses will not bring us any closer to the truth. Some will argue that they are not guessing but are basing their opinions on documented information. But that is how you interpret the information, which is again a kind of guessing. So maybe we should stop guessing and waiting what will happen in the (near) future. Maybe the press conference which is supposed to happen will shed some light on some issues.

    • GiveADogABone

      Agreed

    • georgehants

      LT, agreed, until and if Rossi ever shows an interdependent, testable device or publishes an open report that those skilled in the art can replicate reliably to produce a COP above one, then he in seven years has, in practice achieved nothing.
      At this moment he has shown nothing generally confirmable and all opinions, talk, speculation is nothing but time wasting fun.
      Facts, Evidence are the only things in science to achieve.
      I look forward to such Evidence ever coming from him.

      • Karl Venter

        Hi George

        I agree – The subtle shifting of the goal posts are becoming a trademark
        1MW plant
        Quark
        Sigma 5
        Court case
        And now we wait again
        I would like to venture a small wager that we wont see any verifiable third party test of the tech this year.
        And I mean third party in the sense of not associated to rossi in any way like Penon was.
        I would be very happy if MFMP would do it – but he wont let them – I wonder why?
        I really hope very hard that he has got what he says as it will change the world but unfortunately he has made me a sceptic ?
        I use to be a fanatic and spoke to all and sundry about Rossi
        Now when they ask me I sort of mutter that he has not quite got it right yet he is still working on it ?
        I hope I am proved wrong soon.

        • Omega Z

          Likely Rossi will give 1 more demo just before setting up production operations. There will never be a 3rd party test before sales begin.

          The only 3rd party tests will be customers who have placed a portion of the purchase price in escrow until product is verified to work as advertised..

    • Engineer48

      Hi LT,

      So soon we forget.

      Bolognia Oct 2011.

      Rrossi demoed his 1MW plant producing 500kW for 5 1/2 hours with power only applied to the pumps.

      Yes in Oct 2011 the entire plant ran in SSM mode for 5 1/2 hours.

      And you seem surprised that in 2016 a very much improved 1MW plant produced a COP of around 80 for 350 days?

      It is a process called R&D. How long it will take is not possible to predict as otherwise there would be no Research component.

      • LT

        Hi Engineer48

        In my statement above I am referring to what I see what currently is happening on the forums.
        It has not anything to do whether I believe the ECAT technology is working or not.
        But I can reassure you that from my own analysis of data of the Lugano report (Spend much more then 100 hours on that) I have come to the conclusion that the technology is possible true.
        At least the balance for me is currently going that way.
        However the problem with the Lugano report is as I see it that the contents are not complete in describing what they did and how they did it. Thus you have to think outside the box what they did and if you don’t then your assumptions and conclusions are most likely wrong. But if you do and calculate everything through then everything falls into place and the calculated numbers are all in line and have the expected values.

  • Chapman

    I got you.

    And what you say makes perfect sense. 🙂

  • Engineer48

    Hi Jag,

    Sure as the battery will be charged by a petrol motor and generator in the car.

  • Bruce__H

    That argument works both ways. You might just as well ask why Rossi dropped his suit if the ECat really works.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Could be he accomplished his goal of getting the IP and went back to producing a product, rather than wasting years on trying to get the money awarded if he won. Which path do you think would lead to financial success for Rossi? My bet is on the product, not the suit….

      • That, and the history of IH generating shadow companies that file bankruptcy. Rossi would never have gotten his money.

        • BillH

          They were all at it with the shell company idea…Rossi with Leonardo(NH) and Leonardo(FL) backed by the even more shadowy NewFire, JM-JMC-JMP backed by Platinum American Trust who’s sole beneficiary was Di Giovanni, now admitted to be a long stand friend of AR, and Fabiani with his USQL backed by an even more obscure trust. All equally guilty in shelliness:-)

          I laughed when Henry W Johnson was asked to explain why a private company JM need to backed by an even more secretive trust, he just waffled.

  • Axil Axil

    The year long test was far more that an attempt to extract money from IH, It was an attempt to verify a commercial product and the attempt failed at least in Rossi’s estimation. This attempt at commercial applicability was why the test was so convoluted, inappropriate to the spec, and needlessly involved. Rossi has a good idea about what will work in the marketplace and his E-Cat would fall short of Rossi’s expectations as Rossi saw it. The die was cast when Rossi first recognized what the QuarkX could do in his Christmas dream and he decided to change his plan…the QuarkX was in and the wafer was out.

    The lawsuit was Rossi’s method of punishing IH for messing with his IP and using Rossi in a game to extract money from others. Rossi had to get out from under IH who wanted to control Rossi. In the art of the deal, you take an extreme position and then you gradually give ground until you get what you want in negotiations, then you settle.

    Rossi frightened IH with bankruptcy until he wore IH down enough to give Rossi what he really wanted, There was no science or fair play in this maneuver for Rossi. The test was power, preparation, lawyers and tactics on power, other lawyers and countertactics. A good bisiness man never plays fair in getting what he wants, truth seldom plays a part in the game, It is shrewd cunning that is the trait that wins the day in court.

  • ITER as an experimental reactor expected to operate for about 20 minutes, providing 500 MW at a COP of 10 (wow…). It’s supposed to be followed by a prototype reactor called DEMO, producing 2 GW at a COP of 25, possibly in 2033. Only after that will we see commercially viable fusion reactors, maybe in 2040?
    So let’s say that if the ERV report from Rossi’s one-year test is true, which much seem to indicate, both before and after the recent settlement, then we already have a technology that can provide at least 1 MW at a COP of about 60. Expect that to improve further, and imagine what you’ll have by 2040…

    • It turns out that the situation with hot fusion is even worse:
      Fusion energy pushed back beyond 2050
      http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40558758

      • Thomas Kaminski

        When I was a teenager, fusion was “50 years in the future”. Now it is 50 years in the future and it is only “33 years in the future”. That is some progress, no?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Thomas,

          Might ask MIT why they never charged the hot fussioners with fraud for altering the P&F data from positive to null back in 1989?

          Even thought MIT know the data was positive, they have NEVER retracted their negative report that has been used time and time again to deny LENR researchers patent protection and funding.

          Just maybe MIT should be charged with crimes against humanity?

          • Thomas Kaminski

            “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

            ― Upton Sinclair

  • Michael W Wolf

    But the third party “confirmers” are swimming in the same money pool. They are all tied to the funding. I believe more in a single man trying to make a name for himself and change the world, than a worldwide group, risking losing their careers to change the world. In their mind they don’t want the world to change. They are secure. That scares me and should scare everyone else. Because that is the state of science today. Keep the money flowing and keep threats to said money out. No one can convince me otherwise.

  • How do you get that idea? Where is that in the contract?

    People don’t replicate their own work, for one. Rossi is no scientist, he’s an entrepreneur for another.

  • cashmemorz

    Sure. It may have been in many places about the warehouse. The second floor where the extra heat was vented, then the heat excahanger and UPS dismanteled and removed.

  • Replicating the ECat once IP has transferred to IH was IH’s problem, not Rossi’s. The contract does not get IH past Rossi’s Fred Flinstone kludge. I suppose that in Rossi’s mind, to get to the point where he shows them how to do it all is worth far, far more than $89M, more than 10X that amount. IH tried to leverage into a $trillion market for pennies on the dollar and didn’t account for Fred Flinstone.

  • You have exactly that pattern of labs replicating the result and even starting to improve on it, but the politics of a bunch of hot physics jerks stepped in and made this field a pariah for anyone’s career who isn’t emeritus.

  • cashmemorz

    Missed it like they missed the heat exchanger on the mezzanine for the excess heat and large fans that were deduced to be there by others more knowledgeable about the workings thereof. Did I miss anything else, according to you, that I should have noticed, or that you should also have noticed? A UPS can be considered as part of the main power input. No need to show extra schematics to indicate something that is only contingency. There were probably several contingency controls on the system making up the whole E-Cat. Showing every little wire, whether contingency or some other kind of sub-sytem for main part is assumed in a complex system and left out, since that is a reality of any commercial system that must have those kinds of extras for dependability. Too much info where not needed could and would otherwise confuse and lead to extraneous questions in regard to the main system. The schematic would therefore only show the basic parts that were needed to make it work, no more no less.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    There is no need of a UPS.

    Due to the energy generated by the reactors, the system should be able to self circulate condensate.

    As I stated above I would not put much faith in the FL P&L data. Even Abd now states that data is weak.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Do we really want the New Fire?

    MFMP live call on YouTube ‘Hangout on Air’ tomorrow, Thursday 13 July 2017.

    Open Q&A. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2c4be3dee0c38959955be9e921afd8268f6717c61688599f3e7ab77f65fc0f6a.png

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Please stop.

    The data was from FL P&L, data that even Abd considers weak.

    I work with remotley gathered metering data and I can tell you no one in Australia would go into court and swear such data was reliable.

    Unless you have direct experience with remotely gathered metering data and extra evidence the FL P&L data was 100% accurate, I suggest you do what Abd did and consider it weak evidence that would not stand up in court.

    I do note that IH had no witnesses from FL P&L, which would suggest they had no intention of entering the Smith data on his suppossed outage events into court.

    • Bruce__H

      Why would IH call FP&L as a witness?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Bruce,

        Why?

        You must be kidding. Right?

        You are saying the Penon data was not correct due to the FL P&L interval meter data showing a 24 hour outage and the 1MW plant not reflecting that supposed outage.

        If IH didn’t do it, Rossi would do it and FL P&L would tell the court that their interval data can not be relied on.

        So your continued reliance of data that PL P&L will not stand behind is not a good place for your to make a stand.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Abd,

    Of course not.
    Darden would never have any respect for Rossi.
    Wonder who just kicked Darden’s butt?

    Wonder who Darden will ask to fall on their sword, to take the fall, to be thrown under the buss, so IH can say we received bad advise and retain their license for ECat QX tech?

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      E48, you are writing extensive nonsense, wild speculation, based on thin and misleading evidence. Is your engineering like that? I’d hope not!!!!

      I have no opinion or evidence that they received bad advice. What bad advice? They took risks, eyes open, risking their own money.

      By the License agreement, they have the right to all E-cat or competing technology from Leonardo. Unless it was in a side agreement, that would not be list through the settlement. The issue of their license was not raised by Rossi in the suit. Rossi sued to enforce his interpretation of the Agreement, claiming breach and fraud. That was dropped. They countersued claiming various breaches and fraud that was dropped.

      Nobody disagreed that there was an Agreement. Unless it was or is so agreed privately, it would stand.

      From depositions, IH was willing to continue with Rossi even if there was a 1% chance of performance. At this point, I doubt that they would be willing to put more at risk, or certainly not more than it would cost them to continue litigation.

      However, unless there is fact you know that has not been shared, you have no basis for a claim that Darden is at any risk from his investors, and the way you think is not how someone on Darden’s level thinks. He would take full responsibility. I just haven’t seen major errors. I will be covering on coldfusioncommunity.net what I think may have been Jones Day errors, but it is all legal technical stuff and tactics, and I have the benefit of hindsight (but what I saw bothered me before it turned out ineffective). My respect for Pace remains.

      The Agreement clearly covers E-cat QX.

      Rossi has given up the war, and is acting consistently with that, but some here appear to want to continue. My interest is in documenting fact, so that others in the future may come to their own conclusions. I’m following ECW now because I’m on a bus. When I’m home, I have much work to do, organizing evidence on the blog. If I err in that, I will be welcoming evidenced correction.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Abd,

        Your opinion is your opinion.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          This comment makes no sense to me. Of course my opinion is my opinion, what else would it be? IH has never “exploited” QX reactors, such that it could “continue,” and has no standing expert opinion on them. On what would that opinion be based? Green cheese?

          Some more of my opinion: IH has not been given QX technology, even though the Agreement might require it. IH will not confront this unless Rossi actually not only demonstrates QX technology but it actually becomes available. Then they would assert their rights under the Agreement, because then it would be worth (very much worth!) the possible legal expenses. Before that, the most they might do is send some letter to maintain rights.

          This has zero relationship to expert opinion (i.e., Murray and Smith) regarding the Doral Plant.

          • “Then they would assert their rights under the Agreement, because then it would be worth (very much worth!) the possible legal expenses.”
            ***That Agreement is completely nullified in the dismissal. None of the original parties can file claims according to that agreement, ever. That seems to be something you don’t want to understand.

      • Omega Z

        “someone on Darden’s level thinks. He would take full responsibility.”

        If you had spent some serious time checking Dardens past brownfield history, you would never post such a statement. He has left many others holding the bag including tax payers. Many of his past associates not only don’t want to work with him anymore. They believe criminal charges should have been considered.

        But what can you expect from a V.C. They do have a notourious reputation for being underhanded. Just ask Brillouin Energies- Robert Godes. They have all of 95% of his IP.

        • That seems to be exactly what Rossi was working very sternly to avoid. He probably has all of his IP, whether or not it’s worthless.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    I don’t think I have suggested that….

  • CWatters

    Sometimes it’s safer to settle a case than risk the verdict of an unpredictable jury even if you are in the right.

  • CWatters

    Anyone know which document is the Penon disposition? Is there one?

    • Bruce__H

      There are many exhibits that contain exerpts from the Penon deposition. The most complete one is 207-10. To access it, go to the following well-organized page on Abd ulRahman Lomax’s “Cold Fusion Community” site …

      http://coldfusioncommunity.net/rossi-v-darden-docket-and-case-files/

      There you will find hypertext links to all the court documents

    • GiveADogABone

      289: is Rossi’s exhibit list. There is a group of Penon exhibits at 251 onwards. I cannot see a deposition but it is not really the right place for it. That leaves a flog through the google drive, possibly for nothing.

      I also tried a google search ‘site:www.e-catworld.com penon deposition’. I got a reference to a deposition from the Dominican Republic; 148: refers. I think that was Penon but there the trail goes cold.

      • Engineer48

        Hi GADAB,

        What we know from others was Penon was upset with Rossi as he continually modified the plant, making Penon’s diagrams non representative.

        But hey it was a real operational plant and modifications are par for the course.

  • Omega Z

    One would have to define “soon”. I believe sometime early 2018. However, it will be slow and likely the 1st customer will not be revealed. At least not at 1st. No one wants the attention it will bring until the device works conclusively.

    Even if all goes well, it will be a slow start. Just a few sold until unknown issues can be revealed and corrected. No one wants 30 million airbag devices recalled because of a single bad component. $5 billion in profits and $20 Billion in recalls and penalties…

  • By dismissing the counterclaim, IH did not give up the right to enforce the contract on matters they had no claims regarding.
    ***In the dismissal, all claims arising from this contract have been dropped with prejudice, so they cannot be brought up again in court. If some snarky lawyer thinks he can bring up OTHER claims arising from that contract, he has another thing coming, the judge will simply extend the dismissal to any and all possible claims and wash her hands of it. And she would probably fine the attorney.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Abd,

    What falsehood?

    IH built the 1MW plant reactors, built, installed and commissioned all the control systems.

    You really think Darden would have approved that expenditure if the plant did not work?

    That 1MW plant was not a lab test reactor. It was a major manufacturing effort. Only a fool would have built that plant if there was no evidence the reaction worked before IH built over 100 reactors and the control systems.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      I’m simple and literal. I told you above what you stated that was false. Yes, you didn’t get it. but it’s there, it is the “smart man” comment.

      You are reasoning from weak inference, something I don’t expect from an engineer. First of all, I’m not sure how much of the Plant IH built. It wasn’t 100 reactors, though. It may have been four “Big Frankies.” And IH built them to Rossi specs. I do not know what testing they went through, if any. They may have considered Doral the test. (They did consider it a test, just not the GP test.)

      According to Rossi’s email suggesting the move to Florida, it cost $200,000 to build that plant. This is small change to them. They did not issue invoices for as much as $300,000 or so allowed as charges for the power reported by JMP. (They could still issue those invoices. I wonder if JMP would pay? What do you think?)

      Are you arguing that IH was foolish to build the plant? I don’t think that taking a risk is necessarily foolish even if it does not turn out positively. If you have a solid game to play with clear odds, it is not foolish to place a bet in that game with net positive expectation, just because you then lose that particular bet. It’s part of the game, and if you make net positive expectation bets, routinely, you can get rich, and usually will.

      (Net positive expectation is benefit from winning, times probability of winning, minus cost of playing. The positive net benefit in the Rossi game was very high, possibly in the many billions of dollars. Darden said, in a deposition, as I recall, that if there was even only 1% chance of this technology being real, it would be worth the investment. They invested about $20 million (their original stock offering), which, then, at the 1% level, would value winning at $2 billion. That is quite reasonable, don’t you think? What could the Rossi technology be worth, if real and commercializable?)

      • “What could the Rossi technology be worth, if real and commercializable?”
        ***I would say about a $Trillion. Only a very short list of guvmints on the planet could afford to buy it outright.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Yup just like the co deposition LENR work of the SPAWAR scientists was real as was the fraud of MIT real when they altered the P&F replication data to change a positive result to show a null result and when exposed as a fraud MIT did nothing to those that did the fraud nor did they retract their null replication report.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    There is no evidence the condensate system was not connected to the 2 condensate risers.

    Would enjoy reading your evidence that supports your theory the condensate risers were not full of condensate.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Smith’s report is a work of fiction.

    Give it to any qualified thermal engineer and they will tell you that.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Maybe time to tell everybody that you do not believe LENR is real and so everything you see is proof that LENR is not real.

  • Engineer48

    Image for Bruce.

    I have reworked the comments on this image of the heat stressed tree, that has since been cut down, that covered the northern most set of windows of 7861 46th Doral.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4f9a769c03a602cc4f33ec9e890881ac232e1187f0fd3866381bd012d1d28956.png

    I suggest blind Freddy would have little issues in seeing the right most circled area of the tree is stressed vs the left most circled area. Both areas are in full sun, so no shadowing involved.

    As far as I’m concerned this ends the discussion on the heat stressed tree.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Sorry mate but anyone involved in the power industry will tell you that you can not 100% believe metering data.

    Which is why FL P&L would never appear for IH to swear under oath the metering data Smith used was accurate in the way Smith used it.

    Which means as Abd stated, the metering data was considered by IH as weak. Which it was.

    So maybe stop pushing it like it is 100% solid and reliable. Which it is not.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce who wrote:
    “The inability of SPAWAR to replicate the co-deposition findings in-house was a blow to my opinion too”

    Be careful, your bias is showing.

    The SPAWAR guys claimed almost 100% in-house reproducability. Did you not read / listen to their reports?

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    What you wish to believe is irrelevant.

    Those vertical pipes are connected to the condensate system and like they did for the smaller reactors they do for the Tigers and that is to provide positive inlet pressure to the pumps.

    Why would Rossi build in 2.5m high condensate risers to only supply positive pump inlet pressure to only the smaller ECat reactors? He would not that as it is nuts to only do so for the smaller reactors.

    You only speculate what you wish to believe so to believe the 1MW plant never worked, which you have yet to prove it did not.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    You got the size of the room wrong.

    You got the size of the plenum base wrong.

    Why do you think the middle heat exchanger box would need to be the same size as the lower air plenum?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/58ebcb10c366e7a0997d723b7cf7b7d6f6ee3535d319f1b64033e670269460c5.png

    All you do is try to discredit the 1MW pant worked as you do not believe LENR is real. It would not matter what the reactor was, you would deny it could work as you deny LENR is real.

    This is your issue so face it. You do not accept than ANY LENR reactor is real.

    • Bruce__H

      Engineer48 said to me

      “You got the size of the room wrong.”
      – Well I did call this an “approximately 11m x 11m room” and the word approximately was in there for a reason. However if you want I can try and push the measurements to greater precision a bit. By using Google Earth and its measuring tool, I find that the street side of the room is just a shade under 11.5 metres long. You have a figure of 12 metres for that measurement, but I suspect the difference between us is that when I do it I am trying to exclude the thickness of the walls. I do this by paying attention to the marks on the roof. Did you try that? Do you still get 12 metres for the room size?

      “You got the size of the plenum base wrong.”
      – I just went by your illustration. If you come up with another one (where the fans are beside the window and are sucking the air out of the exchanger which is what I remember Rossi saying in one of his depositions) then I would be delighted to view it.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    It was in the original build.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e44be26d32d975de1ff5285752e5a9178ab5cbbe66d2fcb4a9bfb5aa1b859812.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/12e22a60f4663e2c4692006da3207bd9b196950ebb8948b0ab7167c52d5b5e1f.png

    Note there is no wooden block under the riser

    Then Rossi altered it.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/22592da100cbb110fe93e17a61b76ef88ba8b414d9acbbfa2adfba54609c9bad.png

    Note there is a wooden block under the riser to support it as it is not longer connected to and supported by the horizontal condensate manifold pipe.

    Then he altered it again.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/73f262ccac1425da5a854e82acf994bc91c6e03f122bb5687394dee22d47e778.png

    For sure the alterations may have upset Penon as they changed the plant layout he drew at the start.

  • If the dismissal did not nullify the agreement then IH will be paying Rossi $89Million. I highly doubt that.

    The claim was that the agreement was breached. Those claims have been withdrawn and cannot be considered again. That nullifies the agreement.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      No, this is very fuzzy thinking. The Agreement stands, but the Agreement that stands is one where the GPT provision expired. If Rossi could get Ampenergo assent to the Second Amendment (which could, in theory, still happen, there was no deadline for signature), then if the parties agree in writing on a test start date (something Rossi did not bother to do before), the GPT could take place and Rossi could earn the $89 million.

      The claim that the agreement *was* breached cannot be reasserted. This does not — at all — nullify the agreement. A new breach could be asserted — by either party.

      One of the deficiencies in the IH claims about breaches by Rossi was lack of notifications of breach (until later). If IH believes that Rossi is in breach, anew, they would presumably notify him, and he could presumably remedy the breach. Over something like this, they could end up in Court again, but this time, I would suspect and hope that Rossi would obtain and trust good legal counsel. A good lawyer will keep him out of trouble, not merely pugnaciously assert his divisive opinions.

      And if Rossi doesn’t want to continue to deal with IH, he can negotiate a change in the Agreement. He might have to pay for it. (For example, if he wants to cancel the License, he’d have to negotiate a price with IH. I have no idea what value they would place on the License. Understand that it has a value as a hedge, even if IH presently thinks that “the devices didn’t work.” These people do not depend on fixed black-and-white judgments. They will think alternatives and assess probabilities, and they will adjust these based on new information.)

      The situation could be quite different if some private agreement was part of the settlement agreement. The private agreement would be a new contract, perhaps. I am only writing about the situation that there was not yet a private agreement, as to the status quo with a simple agreement to drop the complaint and counter-complaint with prejudice.

      There are signs that a private agreement is still being hammered out. I have no inside information on this, just what Rossi wrote and a hint from an IH attorney that possibly implied that more might be revealed later.

      • The agreement stands? What a joke. If any party to that “agreement” files a breach of contract suit it will be thrown out faster than you can retract that statement and sing “mea culpa”.

  • Dude, if you didn’t pay $89M in rent, don’t expect the landlord to keep you on the property. You have the scurviest interpretation of law I have seen in a long time.

    • OneDeplorableSmallVoice

      OFF TOPIC -I’m apparently banned on the PTC. Can’t find my name on the banned list. Would you please look and see if you can fix this please? Thanx.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Kevmo argued with actual lawyers on LENR Forum. For example, https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?postID=63932#post63932 shows Kevmo’s argument:

      Mike Dunford (attorney) wrote: “And, as woodworker and I have both told you, stuff that happens in settlement talks generally isn’t admissible. Federal Rule of Evidence 408:”

      Kevmo wrote: “Standard tldr lawyer talk that no one is going to listen to.”

      This is pure bald and ridiculous claim. What Dunford and woodworker (another attorney) wrote is very well known and well established. The word “generally” was a hedge, because there can be exceptions (to almost anything in law), but they would be extremely rare.

      A sane response would be to look at the cited Rule 408. Here is a commentary on it:
      http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/businesstorts/articles/summer2013-0713-admissibility-of-settlement-related-evidence-at-trial.html

      This gives some exceptions to the rule of inadmissibility. Instead of looking at whether or not they apply, Kevmo simply dismisses a lawyers’ attempt to explain with “tl;dr,” and “standard lawyer talk,” as if this means “stupid and wrong.”

      I don’t need this. Rossi’s supporters don’t need this. The world doesn’t need this.

      This has become blatantly obvious: Kevmo will argue forever, long beyond there is any reasonable basis. I’m not sure what led to his ban on LENR Forum, but surely this contributed to it. Hence, to avoid the temptation to respond, I’m personally “blocking” his account so I won’t see his comments. If someone else wants me to answer anything from him, ask me! Thanks.

      • Yeah, I was focusing on how a settlement could be on the table and, lo and behold, a settlement was on the table! I was labelled a planet Rossiite for such postings.

        Note that I did key up on the first lawyer who made a big deal out of how Penon wasn’t going to show up, but then someone found Penon’s deposition. And then that same lawyer wanted to illegally bet with me $10,000. Those 2 blatant legal mistakes made the lawyer look like a shyster. I’m no lawyer and I was poking holes in his position right and left but LENR-Forum moderators gave ME a timeout for being ‘boorish’. Over there, you’re allowed to insult anyone who says anything remotely pro-rossi (I wanted 25:1 odds to bet against Rossi) but they have real trouble with someone who answers insult with insult against anti-LENR Luddites.

        My temporary ban ends tomorrow supposedly, I also post at Vortex, where Abd has been permanently banned. And look at who was posting on this very thread, it was Abd posting to 5 day old arguments so he can have the last word when most of the others had moved on.

  • Obvious

    I made this image a long time ago for discussions like this one. The foliage isn’t close to the correct window. Anyways, why did no one mention all this air supposedly blowing out the window right next to the front door.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0981013d85eb37dc0b75ed8f5d8dc31ee5afcdbe9b34baf28afc0fd2cded1df9.jpg

    • roseland67

      Mercy,
      Now you’re arguing about
      “Heat stressed trees”?

  • No. Shadow banning is when the channel owner pays extra and if you’re banned, you don’t know it. You post your own responses and no one else sees them. There’s no way some other mod can shadow ban you.

    I thought I saw that you DID post at that thread?

  • Dave

    This settlement is just more evidence that the E-Cat does not work as Rossi claims. It doesn’t make sense for IH to say “OK fine take your E-Cat and go” with this settlement when it would be worth many billions of dollars at least if it worked. They would have given Rossi the money agreed to in the contract and been extremely happy to do it.