UPDATE (April 13, 2016)
This is a Q&A on the JONP today on the same topic.
Patrick Ellul
April 13, 2016 at 7:13 AM
Dear Andrea,Jed Rothwell alleges that there is a second ERV of the 1 year 1MW plat test and that his report draws an opposite conclusion to the the one from the ERV that you described.
Does this second ERV exist?
Best regards,
PatrickAndrea Rossi
April 13, 2016 at 7:52 AM
Patrick Ellul:
Jed Rothwell is an intelligent person and has a remarkable sense of humour. Obviously he is joking.
The only ERV has been the one accepted by contract from both the counterparts with a signed agreement.
It is true that IH had their men constantly in the plant all the 352 days of the tests, and never said anything was wrong. It is true that for one year of the test they were free to bring with them anybody they wanted to control everything, but they never raised any doubt or critique. As well as it is true that Tom Darden, JT Vaughn and their investors from Woodford and from China have been in the plant many times, bringing with them their consultants, have talked with the director of JM in his office of the factory, have made their investors talk with the director of JM, who said good things giving good references, based on which Woodford has given to Tom Darden 50-60 millions of dollars and the Chinese started with him a 200 million concern in China.
Tom Darden , IT Vaughn also in this case danced like opera ballet etoiles around their investors, the director of JM, myself chanting ” Stellar, stellar”. No remarks of any sort have been communicated from IH, Cherokee Fund or Woodford, let alone the Chinese, who have been there with their engineers, about the plant, the ERV, the Customer. Until our bill loomed. Witnesses available. In due time and place.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I’ve tried to find a reference to Jed Rothwell posting about this alternative and contradictory ERV report, and so far I can only find this quote on the vortex-l from him:
Jed Rothwell has said that he is in contact with personnel at Industrial Heat.
He wrote (thanks artefact) in this message: “1. There is more than one ERV.”
He then wrote:
“I do not know if there is another complete report, but I do know that the I.H. observer disagrees with the Penon report, for good reasons.” (on this thread: https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg109049.html) so maybe the question itself is faulty.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
April 12, 2016
Here is an extended Q&A from the Journal of Nuclear Physics today regarding the issues surrounding the lawsuit the Andrea Rossi/Leonardo Corp. has filed against Industrial Heat et. al. Rossi’s responses to the questions are below each question in bold. His original comment can be accessed here.
Soky
April 11, 2016 at 10:30 PM
Dr Andrea RossiCan we have the following information about the ERV that made the report:
1- education
– doctorate in nuclear engineering, obtained with 110/110 csumma cum laude in the Alma Mater of Bologna (Italy). Note : the University of Bologna is one of the main Italian universities and in particular the Faculty of nuclear engineering is considered very selective2- has he been chosen and agreed upon by both Industrial Heat and Leonardo Corporation ?
yes3- has IH been able to talk with him for any complint for all the 1 year long test ?
yes4- has the ERV experience in plants that produce steam ?
yes5- has the ERV experience of nuclear reactions ?
yes6- who paid the ERV ?
50% IH, 50% Leonardo Corporation7- has he experience of validations ?
yes8- how old is he ?
I think around 55
9- whose were the instruments he used to make the measurements ?
the ERV used only his instruments, and retrieved them at the end of the test to control their status
10- who installed the measurement instruments ?
The ERV, helped by personnel of Industrial Heat11- did IH participate to the choice where to install the instruments ?
yes12- did IH maintain his personnel in the plant during all the days of the test ?
always, every single day13- did IH have the right and the possibility to contact the ERV for delucidations along all the test period ?
yes14- is it true that IH visited multiple times the plant in operation with their investors ?
yes15- is it true that they collected 50 million dollars from Woodford funds and initiated a 200 million business in China after theyr delegations visited the plant in operation ?
yes16- is it true that during the visit IH made also their investors talk with the director of the factory of the Customer during their visits, after which the investors gave them the money to be invested ?
yesThank you very much if you can answer: your answer will clear a situation after Mr Darden has diffused information based on which IH was totally unaware of the fact that there was a test on course based on the agreement.
Regards,
Soky
So Andrea Rossi continues to be quite public about his position in connection with issues surrounding the suit against IH et al — IH meanwhile are still remaining quiet in public, but surely they will be making preparations in private. I would expect that every statement that Rossi makes on the Journal of Nuclear Physics will be scrutinized as possible evidence in the case, so he would be wise to be very careful what he posts publicly. No new documents have been posted in the court docket for the case here: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/11135976/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al.
