Most people following the E-Cat story are by now aware of the different positions of Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat regarding the 1 MW plant test. Although we have not yet seen the full ERV report (the report written by Fabio Penon who was hired by Leonardo Corp and Industrial Heat to do an independent evaluation of the 1-year test), I think we have a fairly good idea of what is in it.
From the accounts we have had from Andrea Rossi, and from people who say they have been in contact with Industrial Heat, it seems that the ERV report states that on average, over the course of the test, the 1MW plant operated above a COP level of 50 (i.e. it produced 50 times more energy that was input into it). From what I have read, it does not seem that Industrial Heat is disputing that is the conclusion of the report, even though they are telling people that the ERV report is mistaken. Andrea Rossi, on the other hand, is saying that the ERV report is accurate.
To my mind, to get to the truth of the matter regarding this report, there are two key pieces of information that we need to know.
1. The customer, who was apparently using the steam produced by the plant, would have to know how much energy was being produced, based on what they were able to produce. According to people Mats Lewan has spoken to, the customer was producing some kind of metal sponges. The customer would know that x much steam would be required to make x number of sponges. So production data is going to be very important.
2. The customer would also know how much they were paying for electricity that was being used to produce the steam. They would know if they were making significant energy savings by using the E-Cat plant, or if they were not.
Since this dispute looks like it’s going to be adjudicated in court, those two pieces of information would seem to me to be critical evidence, and I asked Andrea Rossi about that on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today. Here are my questions and his responses:
May 15, 2016 at 7:20 PM
Regarding the 1-year 1MW E-Cat test:
1. Is production data from the E-Cat customer recorded ? 1. yes
1-bis. if yes, is it available to you? 1-bis. no
2. If so, does the production data harmonize with the ERV report that apparently states that circa 1MW of steam was produced by the plant for the duration the test? 2. they every month delivered a report restricted to the amount of steam they received and it has always been coherent with our production data
3. Are the electricity bills paid by the customer retained, and are they available to you? 3. yes, we have copy of all of them
4. If so, do these electricity bills harmonize with the data from the ERV report that (according to court documents) the plant operated at a COP of over 50 for the duration of the test? 4. yes
So Rossi is saying here that he does not have access to the production data of the customer (this data may be requested in the court case, however), but he did get monthly reports on the amount steam the customer received — which apparently was in agreement with the amount of steam that Rossi’s team delivered.
Regarding the electricity bills, Rossi says he has them all, and says when compared with the amount of steam produced by the plant, they confirm that the plant produced over 50 times more energy than was input.
We have heard that Industrial Heat is disputing Rossi’s claims, and they have told some people that the plant did not produce any excess heat at all. For this position to be accurate, Rossi would have to be lying about the COP of 50 or totally mistaken in his measurements, Fabio Penon would have to either be lying about the COP 50, or be totally incompetent in his measurements, and the customer would have to either lying or completely mistaken about the amount of steam they measured was being delivered to their production equipment.
However, from what Rossi is saying, reports and documents from the customer confirm what is in the ERV report. If all this data is produced in court it could make a strong case in favor of the E-Cat really being a revolutionary new energy technology.