Jed Rothwell: Industrial Heat Don’t Believe ERV Report

Jed Rothwell has been quite active on the Vortex-l forum talking about the current situation between Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat. He says that he is in touch with IH and that they have been talking to him about the ERV report.

Here is what he posted in this message today:

“They say the one-year test did not work. Believe me, that is what they say.

“Yes, the ERV report said the gadget works. That is what the lawsuit papers say. I.H. disagrees with ERV report.

“Let me try to clear up a few points of confusion regarding this subject.

“I did not mean I know there is a second, formal report. I just meant that I.H. has sent experts, and they disagree with the Penon report. I know they have written a report. I don’t know if it is another official ERV listed in
the contract.”

So this is a very strange turn of events. It’s one thing to argue over the contents of the license agreement, but to challenge the content and conclusion of the person who was authorized to take measurements in the test and report results is something very different.

Basically it sounds to me like IH is not disputing that ERV Penon wrote a very positive report — Jed Rothwell is saying that they don’t believe it.

Jed Rothwell is saying here that IH has been taking its own measurements from experts who disagree with the conclusions of Fabio Penon. Who are these experts? What measurements did they take? On what grounds do they disagree with Penon? These are the questions that will have to be asked.

Interestingly AR has said that there has been continuous 24/7 hour video surveillance of the test. He also has said that he set up his own measurement system, using the exact same meters as the ERV, and putting them in series with those of the ERV. He said his results were the same as the ERV (within the margin of error of the instruments used)

If the upcoming lawsuit comes down to having the jury pick between two competing reports, it could be a very technical trial.

  • JedRothwell

    You responded 4 days before I posted the comment?!? You must have a time machine.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Comments below have discussed the other measurements can be made in series/parallel. Thermocouples can be used in series if you know the junction temperature of each meter, or if each meter can read the other meter’s junction voltage. However, a simple thermocouple input on a DMM has no such compensation provisions.

    Thermopiles are essentially a number of thermocouples in series used to multiply the tiny voltages into a usable value.

  • DrD

    I hope not. They might have a COP of only 25 if their current mearuements were parallel. I’m sure they couldn’t be so amateurish.

  • Roland

    Stupidity sometimes has vast consequences.

  • Pweet

    It depends on what you are measuring. Meters to measure power and current would have to be in series but voltage measurements are done in parallel.
    Modern metering now has very small insertion losses so inserting such things in series or parallel is not a big issue providing the equipment is chosen suitable for the scale of what is being measured.
    Other parameters such as temperatures and flow rates would be done by installing separate probes, flow rate sensors and transducers etc.

    Really, there was no need to specify how they were set up other than to say the telemetry was duplicated and the readings were either the same or not the same. IH says they were not the same. That will be the case they have to prove in court, if it gets that far. I have a feeling it wont. I think Mr. Rossi will realise he is on a hiding to nowhere if he goes that far, so after he has got all the mileage out of publicly justifying his position on his blog for six months or so he will drop the case just before it goes to court, probably on the basis of him not having time for arguing with snakes and clowns etc. Too busy bringing the ecat X to market, which will of course be almost ready for massive production.

    One other thing, I think Rossi is probably telling the truth when he says IH did not dispute the results during the period of the test. I have wondered why that might be because if it was me, I probably would have said straight off that ‘there seemed to be a significant error in the readings’ and ‘why was that?’
    There are a few possibilities, and I think the most likely one is, they had decided not to draw attention to the difference on the basis that telling Rossi they knew something was wrong would only alert him to the fact that another tactic was required, and that could be a tactic they might not find out about, in which case they would then have to come up with the later payment of 89 million. If they just let it slide it provided a reasonably safe exit for them at the end of the test period should they not want to continue for any reason.
    And yes, I know, that is just speculation but until the dirty laundry is hung out in public that’s about all anyone can do.
    At this point, all we have for sure is that IH say their results did not agree with those obtained by Mr. Rossi and the official verification person.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Actually, the reading Rossi obtained and the reading of the ERV may MOST certainly have agreed.

      Keep in mind the semantics here. Rossi is not stating the COP is 50. What he is saying the ERV report shows a COP of 50 (a true statement).

      Also, Rossi states that if he placed his measuring meters beside the ERV meters, then again we see a COP of 50 (again, likely a true statement).

      In the above, Rossi at any given point in time has NOT admitted or stated the COP is 50, but only ERV stated so, and that if Rossi duplicates the ERV testing, then again we see a COP of 50.

      All the above are at this point 100% true statements. On the other hand, if an additional power source is being fed into the container, then ALL OF THE above statements are STILL 100% true!

      The simple matter is that IH does not believe the ERV report. We don’t know the reasons for this, but we know that’s their position right now. However, this disbelief DOES NOT mean that the ERV and Rossi saw different COP’s when Rossi duplicated the ERV method of measuring!

      So NONE of the above eliminates or disproves that additional power sources and input don’t exist for the plant.

      One has to keep in mind that stating the ERV sees a COP of 50, and Rossi doing the same measuring results in the same output STILL does not mean that the plant has a COP of 50, but only that the parties measuring the COP the same way gives the same results!

      This ALSO MEANS that Rossi NEVER claimed a COP of 50 at any time (NEVER EVER!!). I simply cannot stress this point enough.

      So the ERV sees a cop of 50, and that when Rossi does the same measuring as the ERV, then again was a COP of 50. Again, NEVER any point in time has Rossi stated or claimed a COP of 50! He ONLY stating that WHEN measuring the SAME way as the ERV, then we see the same result.

      So the assumption that the ERV measured 50 and Rossi when doing the same also sees a COP of 50 does not mean there is disagreement between the ERV results and how they measured.

      However, this does mean never at any point in time has Rossi public stated that the ecat has a COP of 50+ but he ONLY confirms that WHEN he measuring like the ERV, the results are the same as the ERV.

      Even if Rossi has full knowledge of additional power inputs to the plant, every single one of the above statements are still 100% true.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • bachcole

        “Rossi states that if he placed his measuring meters beside the ERV meters” Ah, see. That’s how he manipulates the data. He has special machines that can cause other machines to mis-measure. My cousin told me this, so it must be true.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    It was a message that McKubre tested dry Brillouin reactor. The result is a cop in the area 4.

  • Roland

    I’m sure that’s struck others, judging from the commentary, that Jed Rothwell hasn’t contributed an original thought to the development of LENR; Jed Rothwell is a librarian with a thinly disguised envy of those who create the contents of his fastidious archives.

    When a rival publisher opened the opportunity to slag a best selling, but oh so suspect, author our hero jumped at the bait with, apparently, genuine avidity. The publisher read him like a book (or a useful idiot to stretch a metaphor) by allowing our hero to, briefly, rub shoulders with his ‘betters’ a in a landscape far, far beyond the insular comforts of his dusty shelves where he, blindly, committed to a course towards a very public undressing to satisfy a pressing need to humble a certain author.

    Now, his arrow fired and his humiliation complete, he still fails to understand how childishly simple it is to manipulate his glaringly obvious animus’s, on command, to to achieve goals our hero still professes not to comprehend.

    Still, after everything, utterly certain that the pernicious author should find no place in a, proper, library, our hero stands on guard for thee and me.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    And by the way, “Rossi is an idiot,” Forsley said. And yet: “It’s entirely possible—I think it’s highly improbable—that he actually managed to scale up Piantelli’s work,” Forsley said. “It’s possible.”

    Did Piantelli have LiAlH4 in his reactor?

    • Fedir Mykhaylov

      Apparently Russia originally used pure lithium. Later began to add lithium aluminum hydride as the hydrogen source.

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        Sorry Rossi

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Or is it sorry Piantelli?

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            Piantelli recognized pioneer LENR reactions Ni-H. Why feel sorry for him?
            — реклама ———————————————————– Поторопись зарегистрировать самый короткий почтовый адрес – и получи 1Gb для хранения писем

      • Pweet

        I agree. He had a hydrogen bottle connected to the reactor via a tap which he turned off prior to starting the reactor. He explained how little hydrogen was required to charge the reactor with sufficient hydrogen the support the reaction.
        I also remember someone on his JONP recommending using aluminium hydride as a safe source of hydrogen and soon after, the hydrogen bottle disappeared from the scene.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      I was just thinking that Rossi was the first to use LiAlH4
      and that the primary reaction is the following:

      Li(7) + p > Be(8)* > 2 He(4) 17,3 MeV.

      The MeV alphas, He(4) from the classical lithium reaction we’ve been talking about could be used to initiate this other well known classical transmutation of aluminum into silicon and a MeV proton.

      Al(27) + He(4) > Si(30) + H(1) 2.3722 MeV

      Then this MeV proton, H(1) could be used to trigger the original lithium,
      Li(7) to helium He(4) reaction.

      Therefore, it would be quite different from Piantelli’s
      hydrogen nickel reaction.

  • Andrew

    Rossi doesn’t need an export licence if he sells them in the US. The customer would then need an export licence. Round and round we go.

  • billH

    It is a shell company though, menos is correct. That’s why it was prudent to include Cherokee in the law suit. IH was initially funded with about £11.5M, I’m betting their next accounts show very little cash left and no new investors. Woodford probably invested in Cherokee, not directly in IH.

  • JedRothwell

    Undeserving, no doubt. People should read my papers. That will disillusion them.

  • JedRothwell

    A pedestal?!? Clearly, you have not worked with academic scientists and professors. Do you know what I do? I copy edit their papers. I fix their spelling, correct the unit abbreviations, and I recommend revisions to transmogrify incomprehensible academese into English. In payment for that they complain, kvetch, rail against me and treat me like an undergraduate who is late turning in an assignment. If this is a pedestal I would hate to see abuse.

    • A sub-editor for a science journal? I did that for a couple of years – definitely not very rewarding work. In my case that was down to the editor whose job I did for a quarter of her pay, rather than the academics whose work I hacked about.

    • winebuff67

      Jed there are a lot of haters right now purely from frustration and lack of knowing what is going on. I look forward to your unbiased analysis of the report not tidbits you are spoon fed. U seem confident that the test is less than impressive. But I would rather see u wait till the facts are out to make comment on the science which u are extremely quallified I am hoping u can break down this report for people like me who don’t understand the methods.Otherwise you’ll be considered a shill for IH.

      • JedRothwell

        I certainly agree that we need to see the report or reports before we can be sure. I hope I have made it clear that I judging this by looking at previous work by Rossi and Penon, and by I.H. Of course I could be wrong in my evaluation of previous work. Or, maybe this time Rossi did a better job than I.H. I doubt it, but you never know.

        I think that looking at previous work is better than speculating about motives. I hope the reports are definitive. I also hope they are published. The reports appear to be tangled in the lawsuit. Who knows how long that will take.

        • Mats002

          Jed, what do you think about other people than Rossi who claim NiH excess heat at will? See

          For us here at ECW, me356 is a skilled and open scientist.

          • JedRothwell

            The nickel studies are frustrating! There have been several, going back to Mills and Thermacore in 1994, and Piantelli.


            Nickel seems to work, and then not work. Srinivasan went to great lengths to replicate at SRI, but he failed. Others tried, and failed. There are nowhere near as many replications as there are for Pd-D. Is that because few people have tried, or because it is difficult? Or because it is impossible? It is hard to say.

            I don’t know what to make of it, but it is discouraging.

            Arata pioneered the use of nanoparticle Pd. It seems to work well, presumably because of the tremendous increase in surface area. Rossi introduced nanoparticle Ni. It seems like a good idea. Some of Rossi’s tests seem positive to me, especially the first Levi tests. But the second Levi test at Lugano was poorly done and inconclusive. I.H., which participated, finally decided that Lugano and the other tests they took part in did not “substantiate” the claims. That’s where things stand.

            • Michael W Wolf

              I don’t trust IH, They have said so little and have some contradictions. Serious contradictions. But you aren’t the only one discouraged.

        • Michael W Wolf

          The SEC has ruled against Cherokee, be careful who you back. They can turn out to be the snake Rossi says they are. For all that Rossi has said, no one has really cracked his shell yet.

    • Mats002

      Welcome to the peanut gallery Jed.

      • Michael W Wolf

        The good, the bad, and the ugly. But all in all you guys here are alright. This is not an echo chamber for sure. And that is a good thing, most of the time. 🙂

    • Michael W Wolf

      cmon Jed, you brought this on yourself. Suck it up and move on. You should make an apology, but don’t have to. But this sounds like what you do to Rossi. Bring proof or tamp it down.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Can Industrial heat does not have time to collect the necessary sum ?

  • A high profile commenter who doesn’t take the time to acquaint himself/herself with the facts before commenting negatively is doing at least as much damage to the truth as a deliberate misinformation troll. Personally I have lost all respect for Jed, who has not only fallen seriously behind the curve, but is making completely unjustified comments which include insulting language..

    • Michael W Wolf

      I don’t like Jed’s tone, usually. A man can make a mistake because of bias. We should only chase people away if it is a pattern. But he definitely deserves the radar that will be put up on his negative comments. If he is sincere, he will make it through this. We all want to learn, even if it is from someone who makes us angry.

  • Hi all

    It appears Jed misunderstood and has withdrawn his comments on this matter.

    From others speculation it may have been Michael McKubre who was the source of Jed’s misunderstanding.

    Kind Regards walker

    • JedRothwell

      I did not exactly withdraw my comments. I knew there were several people evaluating the reactor. Three are listed in the lawsuit documents. I thought all three would submit reports, but I was mistaken. Only Penon is the official report writer.

      I know that I.H. does not agree with Penon’s conclusions because they told me so, when they asked me to upload their March 10 statement, which says they disagree with Rossi:

      “Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn from both. . . . [A]ny claims made about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third parties who have verified our results in repeated experiments.”

      And their response to the lawsuit: “Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success.”

      Not able to “substantiate” means they think there is no significant heat. That’s what they said.

      Penon thinks there is heat; I.H. thinks there isn’t.

      I am not saying I know for sure I.H. is right, but in my opinion they are better at calorimetry, so I expect they are right. That’s my prediction. We’ll see, after the report or reports are published.

      Sometimes, experts disagree about whether results are significant. Levi et al. thought the Lugano results were significant, but other experts said they are not.

      • Ged wrote: “I know that I.H. does not agree with Penon’s conclusions because they told me so, when they asked me to upload their March 10 statement, which says they disagree with Rossi:”

        Prove it that they told you so. You haven’t done that yet.

        • JedRothwell

          Believe it or not, as you wish. Ask I.H. yourself.

          But this is silly —

          Why should I care whether you believe me or not?

          What else do you suppose they mean by “substantiate”?

          I am a little curious to hear from you how I might “prove” this. You could prove it yourself, I suppose, by asking I.H. Then I suppose other people would not believe you, which would be mildly funny.

  • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

    Well. It is fortunate that we are adults and talk here in a constructive way. Im in the optimistic side but im glad when a skeptic gives right reasonings.

    I just dont want to hear – IH says then it is true – Rossi says then it is false.

    As long as the argument is reasoned it is gladly welcome, it doesnt matter who post it – optimistic or skeptic –
    Because both sides should be open to be wrong. The skeptics because if Rossi is right then we have something so big here that must be more important than being wrong or right.
    And the optimistics because we should be aware of a possible scam and to not get deppressed if everything turns wrong.

  • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

    Yes, everyone may make mistakes sometimes. Even Rossi 🙂

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Those are good points Bob. If there is no baseline energy bill due to the fact that the company was not in existence before, it’s difficult to extract any meaning from said bill. If however the manufactury exists, then possibly the energy bill exists also. Then the “new” customer is just an administrative setup.

    At this point I do not know what to believe.

  • LarryJ

    Rossi commented on this question and his response was essentially that to declare victory before you have a victory is bad luck and could backfire. He was not going to second guess or declare a victory ahead of the ERV. He has now commented that his measurements are in line with the ERV measurements within the margin of error of the instruments.

  • LarryJ

    I see no correlation between those two points. The ERV report is no longer necessary because its purpose was to validate the technology which it now has done. We all know the main finding. Read Rossi’s legal statement of claim.The report was never intended to prove the technology to the public, that is not possible. The ERV’s report was a contractual obligation between Leonardo and IH which was fulfilled.

    Rossi has said he intends to announce his quarkx (F8) at a press conference in Sweden and do an interview at Mats Lewan’s Symposium. Mats has said he wanted to know the results of the ERV’s test before he went ahead with the Symposium. Now that he knows the result I expect the Symposium will go ahead, but if it doesn’t it won’t be Rossi’s fault and I expect Rossi would still hold his press conference. He has already stated that his press conference was not going to be a Symposium event.

    Your comment sounds like you think Rossi is intentionally withholding the ERV report and his “next” outrageous move will be to bail on Mats’ symposium. I would give odds against your prediction.

  • LarryJ

    IH made the 1 MW test plant that had a cop of 50. They built the prototype and they can and will build more of them. Their technical/scientific team is Brillouin and they are ready to compete with Leonardo. They don’t care about the ERV report. It has done its job. They know the device works. The patent/licensing fight will go on in the background for many years. Now they need to try and beat Leonardo to the market and get market share.

  • Jerry Soloman

    Jed Rothwell if you are speaking with Industrial heat, they also have a copy of the report why don’t they show you a copy before you start making wild accusations?

  • JedRothwell

    Why not put aside discussions of intention and honest for now, and take the two press releases at face value? One says there was 50 times input. The other says they could not substantiate the effect. One has to be right, and other wrong. That’s all I am saying.

    We cannot judge which is right until we see the report.

    Let us assume it is an honest, unintentional mistake.

    I said it is my impression that I.H. is better at calorimetry. That’s just an impression, not scientific data. I could be wrong. You should not put much faith in my impressions. I do not ask you to. Feel free to ignore it.

    • Bob Tivnan

      “Let us assume it is an honest, unintentional mistake”. I would like to believe this scenario, but the discrepancy is far too great for this to be realistic. We are left with the unfortunate but more probable option- someone is lying. We simply do not have enough information at this point to say definitively, but one thing is certain. It can’t be both parties. I’m leaning towards IH as the villain in this saga based on their payment to Rossi in 2013 for the 24 hour test (presumably successful) and subsequent deals with Woodford and the Chinese promoting Rossi. If Rossi is lying, then it suggests that he duped IH from the outset making IH grossly incompetent. This is hard for me to believe given the enormous investment and stakeholders they have created. So, I disagree with the premise that someone is simply making an honest mistake.

    • menos50

      Why would you assume that IH who didn’t exist before 2012 ( I had said 2013 in error previously) is better at calorimetry? As far as we know publicly, they have no real staff. Why assume an honest mistake when $89 million is at stake, that IH was never able to raise ? If it quacks like a Duck???

    • Omega Z


      Your mistake was making statements with only a few facts.
      What I read was COP>50 for periods of time.
      Without the report, that can not be put into context and has little importance. How much time was COP>1 and everything in between.

      We also don’t know from the contract what each party expected. It could be Rossi handed over a model T that needs much work to be a product and Darden was expecting a Formula 1 ready to put into production.