Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test

The discussion about wet and dry steam is one that goes back a long way in the E-Cat story, and there has been discussion here about the quality of the steam used in the 1-year 1MW E-Cat plant test. The question has come up on the Journal of Nuclear Physics recently with people trying to get more information for Andrea Rossi about some details of the ERV test which as not yet been published.

Rossi has not given much information away, but has given a few clues away. Interestingly, he has said that Fabio Penon (the “ERV”) has discounted some energy in his COP calculation to be conservative. Here are some Q&As from the JONP.

“You told Mats Lewan that to be conservative, the ERV ignored the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature.

“Did the ERV also ignore the energy corresponding to heating the vaporized water to temperatures above boiling point?”

Andrea Rossi
May 22, 2016 at 1:53 PM
Sebastian:
Good question. Yes, the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point, as well as the energy necessary to raise the temperature of the water from circa 60-70 °C to the boiling point, to be conservative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

“About your answer to Sebastian:

“Does this imply that heating was done in stages?
I mean one core was boiling water and the next was superheating the steam from boiler section?”

Andrea Rossi
May 22, 2016 at 4:31 PM
Oystein Lande:
It’s ok, thanks for your comprehension.
The circuit was complex, but yes, the steam was superheated.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

If the steam was superheated, as far as I understand things it would be dry, and the temperature would be likely be some degrees higher than the boiling point. I will, however defer to readers here with more knowledge on the subject for more analysis.

  • Engineer48

    This simple image may help to further understand how superheated steam is created.

    1st the water is heated in a boiler to produce wet stream or steam that has water molecules clumped together.

    As far as I know, heating water to a boil can’t create dry steam where all the water molecules exist as individual water molecules.

    Next the wet steam is passed through another seperate heater, the superheater, that adds enough additional heat to break apart all the wet & clumped together water molecules and produce superheated dry steam.

    From Rossi’s description on his blog, the long and flat 250kW ECat modules are comprised of several sections, the last being the superheater.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    we know nothing,but all the 1MW claim is only in the dryness of the steam.
    it is unprofessional, not to neglect liquid heat, but to hide it.

    once you accept that dryness is unknown, then minimum heat is zero.
    moreover you don’t even know if water back in the reactor was 60C, with a fair COP much below 50, or 90C with COP=1.

    moreover there is claim that like in Defkalion demo the water measurement was carefully badly made. yet to confirm.

  • John

    I reviewed the description on the Brillouin website http://brillouinenergy.com . The description sounds similar to the E-Cat. Since IH is also working Brillouin, once they understood what the E-Cat is and saw it function, they may have concluded the E-cat technology had already been developed. Brillouin says they had already proven their technology at Berkeley in 2010. Since the technology had already been developed by Brillouin, IH may feel the contract was void since the intellectual property was not Rossi’s to sell.

    • Chapman

      Nice try, but Brillouin abandoned it’s previous research thread and design roadmap conveniently following Rossi’s release of his research notes and IP to IH. They changed to what you have yourself witnessed and observed is a virtual clone of Rossi’s design.

      Godes was at a dead end. They had technical ability but their science kung-fu was weak. They were happy to take Rossi’s tech and run with it. IH believed Godes could copy, and then improve on Rossi’s tech and produce uniquely patentable designs. This would position IH to move on a global market without territorial restrictions or royalty considerations.

      It will be all too easy to prove via the timeline, and demonstrate that they are now merely copying Rossi’s original and unique designs.

      Unfortunately, should IH lose it’s battle with Rossi it will place Brilluion in an impossible position. With no inherited “sub-licensee” right to the Rossi IP from IH they will be officially pirating his tech and in violation of Patent law.

      Any attempt to publish research or Patent designs will be automatically subject to objection and legal action based upon their exposure to the Rossi IP. In short, their research division has now been poisoned by their exposing themselves to Rossi’s tech and it would be impossible to claim coincidence or parallel research overlap. Anything they do that even remotely resembles the E-Cat will be ruled de facto derived FROM Rossi IP.

      Furthermore, there is a binding “non-competition following default” clause in the contract that prohibits IH and all it’s partners and sub-licensees from engaging in any LENR related activity that would be in competition with Rossi, or his agents. Brillioun is bound to this contractual obligation as their agreement to receive the Rossi IP was also agreeing to all limitations and contractual obligations outlined in the source contract.

      For Brillion the Rossi tech may well turn out to be a poison apple that they choke on. But they made their choice, and agreed to involve themselves in some unsavory activity, so they will fully deserve what comes of it.

      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        I disagree with you claim? where is data that let yous ay that ?

        WET reactor is electrolytic with Qwave electric excitation.
        HHT is pressurized dry cell with qwave electric excitation.

        like rossi, like miley, like piantelli, HHT is a pressurized dry cell.

        If someone have stolen something, it is Rossi to Piantelli, Celani and Miley, with heat excited pressurized cell and nanostructured material. I don’t say he di, but technology is much more similar than with Brillouin HHT.

        if real e-cat is better for some application because it is less complex than qwave based cells. qwave based cells have however the advantage to be fully controllable.

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          I forgot elements of comparison.
          One key element in rossi is lithium, which is the equivalent of potassium used by thermacore, and piantelli (not sure)

  • billH

    pay day, not per day, but you already knew that…

  • Engineer48

    Been following Dewey Weaver’s comments on LENR Forum:
    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1580-Dewey-Weaver/

    It should be fairly clear that the guy appears to know very little about superheater steam engineering and makes statements that to non engineering folks may make sense but to engineering types are simply not correct.

    Superheated / dry steam is invisible as the water molecules are just single isolated H2O molecules and as such are not visible.

    Superheated steam gives up very little heat to the walls of the pipe it is travelling down and is why it is preferred to transfer heat a distance from the superheated steam generator to the thermal load. That means if superheated steam is travelling down black rubber heat tubing it will not overly heat the tubing and when exiting the tubing, will rapidly lose heat to the atmosphere and cause the single dry and invisible water molecules to clump together, forming wet and visible steam.

    Superheated 100% dry steam can be created at standard atmosphere as per the attached and at less than 100.1C, being 99.9743C which gives a superheat temperature margin of 0.1257C at standard pressure.

    http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/superheated-steam-table.html

    • Andreas Moraitis

      “Superheating” the steam by increasing the temperature by a fraction of a degree does not help much, since the temperature that you can measure with an inserted thermocouple is not representative for the entire volume. This has already been said. It has also been said that a tiny volume of remaining liquid water would reduce the vaporization rate drastically. For example, 1 cm^3 of liquid water per 1700 cm^3 steam at 1 bar would reduce it by 50%. Therefore, we should better wait for more detailed information before we try to draw any conclusions.

  • Engineer48

    The Leonardo/Rossi & IH contract stated the max cost, in high volume, to manufacture the 1MW ECat plant would be $100/kW or $0.10/W and the fuel cost for 1 year would be $10/kW which means $10 worth of fuel per year to make 1kW x 24 x 365 = 8,760kWh = 0.114 cents per kWh!!!!!!!!!!

    So a 1MW ECat reactor should cost $100K to make and the thermal power should cost 0.114 cents per kWh. Assuming 33.3 conversion efficiency to electricity, that is a fuel cost per kWh of electricity generated of approx 0.34 cents per kWh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    That is less than 5% of the existing wholesale cost to generate electricity. Of course added to that fuel cost per kWe needs to be added the cost to amortise the plant capital cost and maintenance.

    What this production costs means is any fossil thermal power plant on the planet can easily afford to convert their fossil fuel fired boilers over to QuarkX boilers and pay for them from saved fuel costs.

  • Engineer48

    The fuel was not replaced during the 1 year test.

    They energy delivered over the 1 year test was very much more than can be extracted from any chemical / battery.

    Nuclear energy density is approx 1,000,000 times greater than the best chemical energy density. So VERY little ECat fuel = a LOT more energy than can be extracted from any chemical reaction.

  • BillH

    Initially, back in 2011 AR said his fuel cells would run for 180 day without replacement, and that they would be very cheap to produce, of the order of tens of dollars, so it’s unlikely that there manufacture would be an issue. I think one of the reasons for a one year test was to verify exactly how long a fuel cell could run without replacement. As far as I have read no cells were replaced during the duration of the test but near the end of the test they were showing signs of decreased efficiency. To me this wouldn’t be an issue if the plant ran reliably for say six month, if an engineer or one of the customers trained staff was able to replace a fuel cell quite easily.

  • http://www.drboblog.com Doctor Bob

    Psychology

    • bachcole

      Are you always this obtuse?

  • http://www.drboblog.com Doctor Bob

    There is a distinct difference between an avatar, troll and alias. In the context of this forum and these topics, as per my definition, you are not a troll.

    It is not a persons beliefs or the right to free speech and expression that makes him or her a troll, instead it is the behavior of intentional provocation and manipulations.

  • http://www.drboblog.com Doctor Bob

    Bachcole, then you will not like what is heading your way.

  • http://www.drboblog.com Doctor Bob

    No, that is not what I said.

  • billH

    Having pondered this for a few days I’ve come to the conclusion that AR has made a big tactical mistake. What he should have done was made strong demands for payment based on the successful completion of the test. I think the claims of copyright infringement will eventually become a side show with nothing proved either way, as the patents submitted so far are too vague. AR should just allow IH to launch any product into the market they like at which point they can either pay AR his due royalty or claim it is their own patent, in which case if AR can prove that this isn’t so he can sue them for at least $1Bn as stipulated in the LA. In the meantime, if he truly believes that the E-Cat X is a far superior device he can go full speed ahead on that, knowing that it will be able to sweep the 1MW plant type devices out of the market, and probably ruin IH/Cherokee in the process. Since this hasn’t happened we can only ponder on…

    • Thomas Kaminski

      No one is stopping IH from launching any products. What makes you think they actually want to launch a product? Darden claimed he is in no rush.

      • billH

        Even better then, if E-Cat X is a viable product then the 1MW plant will be dead in the water. I’m not sure Darden has actually said very much, it might be that what he means is that he is willing to wait for a reliable product before going into mass production, that’s a different thing.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          From Macy’s article after his ICCF 17 keynote: “Darden: A valid criticism is around the whole question of urgency. The question of urgency in settings like this is interesting. I know people feel urgent. I know I can be at the patient extreme. You don’t want to have patience cause you to move slowly as opposed to having patience make you be willing to pursue something longer. One form of patience is not good. The other form of patience I would argue is good. I’d accept criticism around any of those things or I’d spend too much time trying to get things set or get things ready.”

          There are other places where he essentially says he is “In it for the long haul”, though not in those specific words. It seems like he ignored his own idea in not wanting to have a one-year 1-MW test.

          • Engineer48

            I have seen nothing to indicate IH has an intention to be a large scale manufacturer of ECat reactors. To do this is a massive undertaking and to compete with the likes of GE and Siemens is almost totally folly.

            What I suspect would have happened is they would flip the IP to someone like GE or Siemens and gain a nice flip profit and ride the sheep’s back on commission of sales.

            Now ask yourself why would GE or Siemens sign with IH, being a Rossi licensee, and pay more money as against signing directly with Leonardo for less money and direct access to the inventor?

            Sorry but no matter what happens in the court case, long term IH will not be involved as they have nothing to add in the supply chain and will be linked around.

            • billH

              IH have built 2 plants, at least, that’s 2 more than anyone else.

            • Chapman

              It is SO nice having you here!

              You cut through crap like a chainsaw on styrofoam.

              Also, I would like to thank you for the detailed information you have been providing regarding the steam questions. I am well versed in the general sciences, but the fine details of latent heat are a speciality that requires more than a general understanding of the concept. It is nice to have someone with us who IS well acquainted with those details. It is a shame that some have a hard time following you and end up arguing endlessly.

          • billH

            But why would AR agree to a 1 year test, and why would he sign a binding contract to that effect, knowing that IH didn’t even have a customer to run the test with. IH inability to find a suitable customer was reason enough to invalidate the contract? The only reasonable answer is that AR was willing to go along with the charade because of the $89M pay day at the end of it. AR can be naive or cunning, he can’t be both.

            • Thomas Kaminski

              Another possibility is that he needed a commercial product and IH was footing part of the bill. I think the commercialization was far more important than the payout, though the payout was a means to ramp up production.

  • Engineer48

    The only steam that can be heated above 100C is dry steam. Heating wet 100C steam doesn’t increase the steam temperature, it just breaks water molecule to water molecule bonds and “dries” up the steam. When all the water molecule to water molecule bonds are broken the steam is 100% dry and with more thermal energy applied, the dry steam temperature will increase.

  • Engineer48

    Just to make a point, it is possible to create superheated dry steam at 100.1 C at atmospheric pressure as attached.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      That would be only a few tenths of degrees above the boiling point (about 99.6C at 1 bar abs). Although one might call this stem “superheated” by definition, there is no guarantee that it will be dry. I guess it would be dry if the temperature was at 101.1C across the entire volume. But that cannot be easily controlled with an inserted thermocouple. In the extreme case there could be a 101.1C gas phase in the upper part of the tube, while there is still liquid water in the lower part.

      • Engineer48

        Suoerheated steam is dry. Can’t be above boiling point at what ever pressure and be wet.

        In your example, the liquid water will be at or below boiling point but not above as it then becomes dry.

        Is like watching ice melt, do a solid to liquid phase change. Needs a massive input of thermal energy to break the ice bonds but at no time does the ice get warmer than freezing until all the ice has phase changed (melted).

        OK sure in a real situation there can be a mix, at the phase change temp, of “dry” single H2O molecules & “wet” joined H2O molecules.

        My point was it is possible to create superheated dry steam at 100.1C at 14.7615 abs PSI. Of course it may require good steam enginerring to achieve close to 100% of the H2O molecules are “dry” single molecules. But it can be done.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          It can certainly be done, but not by simple means. Especially since steam at 1 bar abs is about 170 times less dense than liquid water. That is, if you had 170 cm^3 steam that contains 1 cm^3 of liquid water you would have reached only 50% vaporization – which gives a huge difference in the energy balance.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Correction: The factor comes to 1700. Even worse…

  • CWatters

    This report is very confusing. It says..

    1) “the ERV ignored the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature”.

    and

    2) “the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point, as well as the energy necessary to raise the temperature of the water from circa 60-70 °C to the boiling point, to be conservative”.

    So it appears the ERV ignored ALL of the energy required to heat the cold return feed (at 60C) to make the hot flow (at some unspecified temperature “above the boiling point”).

    Exactly what energy was included in the calculation?

    • SD

      “Exactly what energy was included in the calculation?”: the energy necessary to vaporize water, which accounts for approx. 90% of the total.

    • Engineer48

      Producing dry sream from wet steam is a phase change in which the steam temp is not increased, just all the moisture droplets (joined water molecules) are turned into vapor (single water molecules)

      Once that has happened, the temp of the steam will increase.

      So 3 effects.

      1) energy needed to change non boiling water to wet steam while temp increases. (Not a lot)

      2) energy needed to phase change wet steam to dry steam with no temp change. (Massive amount of energy)

      3) energy needed to increase temp of dry steam. (Not a lot)

      On the flip side, when dry steam reverts (phase changes) back to wet steam / water, it releases all the massive energy stored doing the earlier wet to dry phase change, which makes dry steam a very good carrier of heat.

  • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

    Thinking about it; the only way IH have a chance to win in the trial in front of a jury is to go all in on acting totally defrauded about LENR as a whole … So, they will probably play the safe card, and go all in on the 1989 F&P strategy again? Brillouin etc will be collateral damage and Darden will be sacrificed as defrauded fool, but still a good “save-the-world” business man. Stakeholders in energy/politics/AGW will be happy. Bill Gates 10y prophecy will come true.

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/underestimating-the-evilness-of-ih-apco-are-they-planning-to-do-the-fp-89-again/

    • Engineer48

      Rossi needs the QuarkX demo to convince GE and or Siemens to take up a license and he needs a really good QuarkX patent. Then GE and or Siemens will take care of IH in the only way that VCs understand.

      IH, even Cherokee are really very small fish in a multi trillion dollar NEW QuarkX market, which to control means you are 1) 1st, 2) Best, 3) Cheapest. GE and or Siemens want 1 & 2 and both know how to play the game and very quickly ramp up massive production.

      You do realise this will totally destroy the hot fission / fusion nuclear, renewable and all fossil steam boiler markets sector as QuarkX powered thermal power plant will generate electricity 24/7/365 and without any CO2 or other stack pollutants. Plus QuarkX replacement boilers will enable all existing nuclear and fossil thermal plant boilers to be powered by QuarkX steam. I also believe the idea of individual homes powered by QuarkX reactors will never happen as the grid load needs to stay there so investment in QuarkX replacement boilers can be amortised over many years.

      Have a look at the attachment, which I believe are bolt compatible small boiler replacement elements that were powered by DogBone reactors but could just as easily be powered by QuarkX reactors. Which means the QuarkX boilerisation process can extend from the biggest thermal power plant boilers to those in every home and office building.

      Rossi needs to very quickly show GE and or Siemens that the QuarkX can do the above job. Then he can retire and let the thermal power system pros take it from there. There is NO WAY Rossi can manufacture what is needed.

      If this QuarkX boiler hybridisation process takes 15 – 20 years, that is more than enough time for those with fission nuclear and fossil assets to wind back their positions, besides people who own those assets have known for some time what is going to happen. I do feel for the renewable guys, but that is what happens when you invest in fast changing technology, especially when it is not reliable and available 24/7/365.
      .

      • kdk

        GE is a notoriously entrenched company. It won’t be through them, unless it’s okay’d by the honchos.

        • Engineer48

          Every company involved with steam boiler / turbine thermal generation of electrical power is VERY, VERY conservative. However if they see that the QuarkX can deliver 600C sub and supercritical dry (superheated) steam, well they will be in it like a shot and after a few years of their own R&D to make sure it is 100% right, the rollout will begin.

          BTW they will not be interested in dealing with any licensee of Leonardo. Even less if the licensee is a VC. They will go with Leonardo and deal with any objections IH and other licensees may have.

          • kdk

            I mean their leadership in the past has been involved with unsavory characters, who have lots of money invested in things like oil. As a part of that network or club that watches out for each others interests, they wouldn’t get involved if it got in the way of those interests. This also ties in with media blackout on other issues, as they are mostly all owned by a few people and corporations (the infamous 60 people who own as much as the bottom half of humanity).

          • Albert D. Kallal

            GE will be dead set against the ecat and LENR. They have the LARGEST contingency of global warming lobbyist in Washington. (larger than any other corporation or political group).

            With global warming, then GE can sell billions of dollars of CO2 scrubbing equipment to general industry. They are 100% on the CO2 band wagon and will lose billions of dollars of sales of such equipment, and they lose 10+ years of lobbying Washington. So GE has a long term vested interest in CO2 and global warming.

            And given that Obama appointed Goldman Sachs as the official government carbon trading entity, then you fighting not only GE but the financial industry that eager to fleece your pockets by trading CO2 as a commodity.

            Clean non-polluting energy is the last thing GE wants, and their army of lobbyists in Washington have no interest in giving away the CO2 farm they been building.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

            • Engineer48

              With QuarkX replacement boilers, GE can sell trillions of dollars of upgrade equipment to every thermal powee plant owner on the planet. As the QuarkX boilers are a one time capital item, with almost no future fuel costs, they can easily be paid for from fuel savings, putting downward pressure on wholesale electricity generation costs.

              So which thermal power plant owner will say no to switching to zero CO2 emission QuarkX boilers & very significantly dropping their fuel costs so much it can easily pay for the QuarkX boilers?

              But you are right as QuarkX boilers would destroy the CO2 trading market and in say 15 years or so, there would only be thermal heat losses being emitred by all the worlds thermal power plants, with atmospheric CO2 levels dropping back to pre industrial levels and ocean acidification likewise dropping.

              Gotta say all vehicles on the planet, in 20 years, being QuarkX electric is a no brainer as well.

              .

      • NT

        The horses are out of the barn and running free. The big boys have missed their golden opportunity to control their grid for much longer. They should have jumped on the P & F bandwagon years ago and developed their IP and patents. Instead they believed the hogwash we all are aware of regarding cold fusion. The Internet will allow for LENR to proliferate eventually to the average Joe. Big energies window of opportunity in that regard is and will be short, IMHO…

      • DrD

        Yes, appreciate that and it can’t come soon enough.
        One thing that surpises me is that AR keeps saying LENR will NOT replace fossil fuel, even long term, and that it will co-exist alongside existing. I think that’s be more of a “political” than technically motivated response. It’s probably true that there will always be a some fossil fuel used, just like we still have steam trains and horses but I think AR implied more than just a little.
        I also hope your wrong about the domestic use. It is a concern that it might be prohibited but I hope soon to replace my gas and electric heating source with Quarks and produce my own electric, almost as a byproduct.
        I currently have Solar but it’s contribution is negligible. It will likely not pay for itself at current prices.

        • Engineer48

          To convert all sream boilers on the planet over to QuarkX is a very massive job. Will take say 15-20 years. So slowly over time LENR generated steam in thermal power plants will be integrated with other steam boiler heat sources.

          Even 20% of grid load going off grid would cause massive increase in energy bills for on gridders as maintaining the grid is an increasing cost. That would be worn by less and less numbers of on grinders, who are probably the less well off that can’t afford to buy the gear to take them off grid.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            The conversion process will be faster than you think. The HVAC industry originally fought the whole conversion from ozone-depleting refrigerants until they realized that they could make a lot of money replacing perfectly good equipment with new equipment. The non-ozone-depleting refrigerants could not be substituted in existing equipment. Once they realized this, conversion was sped up.

            I suspect that the traditional fossil-fueled boiler manufacturers will get the hint and rush to capture market share, speeding up the conversion process.

    • LuFong

      Why must it be this extreme (‘LENR as a whole’)? IF what DW is saying today is anywhere near true then Rossi will withdraw his civil suit because he will never win a jury case with that as evidence. And if IH counters with a suit of their own and this will be purely about Rossi. DW is really sticking his neck out here on this one, making himself subject to libel if wrong, so I have to take it somewhat seriously. Time to lay the cards on the table I think for someone.

      • Ged

        Never a dull moment.

        • LuFong

          I can’t wait for the movie!

      • psi2u2

        What D.W. says in the linked article is not, in my opinion, libelous. It may be bullshit and it is certainly not edifying, but it is not libel. On the other hand, granting that Rossi is a public figure, which is certainly the case, a libel case against Weaver would require proving not merely negligence in his presentation of the facts, but also malice. Any number of his past comments could be taken to prove his malice, in my opinion, at least if Rossi’s account of the facts is valid.

        • LuFong

          I’m actually referring to something else DW said.

          • psi2u2

            ok.

    • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

      Some more thoughts here on this, as it seems, for Weaver et al. very disturbing hypothesis.
      http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/more-information-on-the-new-ih-apco-agenda-to-ditch-lenr-completely/

      • wpj

        Hmmm, depends how patriotic the jury is. Having had a declaration from the US Navy on LENR, that would also implicate them as idiots as well.

        • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

          Of course it’s not a done deal. But it is by far their best shot and they might actually succeed. It’s much easier to deny LENR completely than to deal in the vague uncertainties of the official statements that do exist. Better go all in on “has not been proven” (by any prefered institition/media anyway)

          • wpj

            The elephant in the room, though, remains the client.

            • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

              They are planning to not even get that far. That is why they are going to ditch LENR at the top, so that no one would never even need to consider what happened in the plant, regardless ERV and customer. That is why Weaver is so sloppy commenting on Penon, etc. They will stop the trial on the impossibility of LENR. That is the plan.

              • psi2u2

                That seems pretty desperate given all their past public statements and the acknowledged fact that they also purchased IP from other LENR researchers, huh?

                • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

                  They have made very few public statements. As I say, Darden has to be sacrificed as a somewhat naive fool being defrauded but still being a “good save-the-world” kind of business man. And they paid for the IP mostly by stocks, not cash (except for Rossi). And they will still have the IP …

                • wpj

                  And Woodford does what?

                • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

                  Well, they will never invest in Darden again of cours. But by claiming his own stupidity he might get out of it without getting sued. Probably the best way, since it puts all blame on Rossi as the millenium fraudster they plan to make out of him, with all MSM coverage Apco can mobilize. They are planning a spectacle and they do have those muscles. Everyone will fell like winners, except LENR of course.

      • Roland

        The LENR is a complete fraud and Darden is a credulous idiot hypothesis could conceivably fly in the court room, though I have my doubts, which would get IH off the hook for the $89 million payment due under contract.

        This would constitute a clear win for Rossi & Leonardo as it would achieve the main goal of the court action; the invalidation of the licensing portion of the agreement.

        I would strongly suggest that the least desirable outcome of the trial would be a finding that IH be directed to pay the $89 million (granting that they can come up with that kind of money when directed to do so) and that Leonardo be directed to transfer all the current E-cat IP to IH. Leonardo should immediately appeal any verdict that directs them to transfer further IP to IH based on IH’s previous behaviour.

        Regardless of the outcome of the trial the real world result will be a decade of appeals unless the licensing provisions are struck down and IH fails to appeal that outcome. The next phase would then begin with the extraction of damages from IH, and partners, for the misappropriation of the IP transferred to them in violation of the contract provisions.

        I find it difficult to envision any outcome of the trial that will materially improve the position of Industrial Heat as all their early moves were predicated on Rossi’s failure to make significant advances on the IP initially transferred to IH.

        Having lost that bet they are screwed any way you parse the potential outcomes as long as Leonardo proceeds as though the contract with IH is already null and void.

        IH has obsolete IP and can’t compete in the marketplace.

        Every effort to deploy that IP by IH will be under the cloud of eventual forfeiture which means that all their potential partners going forward will, of necessity, be untrustworthy sleasebags who’ll turn on them in a heart beat.

        The only upside for IH in the LENR is a fraud and Darden is an idiot strategy is if they succeed in court with this they may dodge the bullet when Woodford comes looking for their $50 million; heads up Woodford…

        • Chapman

          A perfectly logical argument.

          But you failed to mention the fact that during the time when all this is being hashed out in the American courts Rossi and his European partners will be manufacturing, selling, and refining designs. Via brokers and international retailers, even the American market will be fully serviced.

          Even if IH is able to force a settlement agreement that allows them to proceed at that time – some years hence – they will be trying to break into a saturated marketplace with an obsolete product line.

          They have effectively removed themselves from the future picture. And compromised Brillouin in the process.

          Darden can only hope to minimize the backlash against himself personally from Woodford, as you so rightly point out, and from the Chinese (but not to worry, I hear they are a forgiving bunch…).

  • psi2u2

    And you know this because?

  • psi2u2

    I don’t think this would be true in actual practice in this instance. I see what you are seeing, but it is a matter of IH credibility. They claimed a cop of 11 in the patent, which is in direct and unforgiving conflict with their claim now that they “cannot substantiate” Rossi’s IP.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    No, not quite! SSM mode is not no drive power for hours on end. SSM mode is a like 2 seconds drive power, and then 6 seconds no drive power. It is this ratio of off and then on that gives the higher COP. If the static COP is say 6 (without SSM) and then you can go for 2 seconds drive and 4 seconds no driving, the you will double the COP from 6 to 12. So NO NO NO we not talking about pumps and other control power.
    SSM is not a mode in which the device runs for hours on end without drive power. It is a cycling of ON then OFF. The greater the ratio of the off time, the greater the COP . As noted, if the drive power was off for hours on end, the COP would be MANY MANY MANY TIMES that of 50.

    This is grade school math.

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • http://gkos.com/gkos/meego/combokey.html Seppo

      Please consider this. If the COP is 6 (without SSM) and then you go for 2 hours drive (input ~1/6 MW) and 4 hours no drive (input of 8 kW for controls etc.), then you will increase the COP of 6 to 16. And YES, A.R. is talking about 8 kW power for “control panels, triacs, transformers, safety systems” during SSM which can last hours according to him. Math for the 6 hours: Output average = 1 MW (100 % of the 6 hours time). Input average = (2 x 1/6 MW + 4 x 0.008 MW)/6 = 0,0609 MW. Then, COP = 16, not so many, many times 6, just less than 3 times. Note above, the drive power was off for hours. – An SSM of 93% would give COP = ~ 52 (e.g. 1.5 hours no drive & 7 minutes drive).

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Well, that possible from a math point of view, but not practical nor what we been told about SSM mode. I never heard anything that suggests that SSM mode means 2+ hours of drive time.

        And regardless, if SSM mode was 2 hours, or 2 seconds off, and then 4 hours or 4 seconds self-sustain, the math and ratio does not change.

        If SSM was for hours on end, the COP would be fantastic unless one cooks up the idea that SSM mode suggests that drive “on” times are hours at end. I don’t have the reference handy, but one of the reports or tests spoke of SSM mode – the ratios of off/on were expressed in seconds – not hours.

        I am most happy to be corrected on the above, and as I stated, such an drive ratio of 2/4 may well be seconds, hours or minutes, and as such different units of time will not change the basic multiplier concept and math I outlined. It is this math ratio that gives the high COP.

        If anyone has info on the ratio times of SSM, do chime in – I can’t find that reference that spoke of seconds.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • http://gkos.com/gkos/meego/combokey.html Seppo

          I already gave you the JoNP link explaining that during SSM there is no drive. Now, please also check e.g. JoNP 2nd March 2013 to find that “SSM mode can last up to 2 hours”. And, please reveal us the math that gives the fantastic very, very, very high COP. Beats me. My math above ends up with the ‘reasonable’ COP of ~52, as an example though.

  • DrD

    So it’s fine for salesmen to be fraudulent.

  • Ged

    It seems you don’t understand patent law (albeet, it is rather convoluted in places, particularly after the AIA)? You keep claiming others don’t know things, yet it seems the joke is that it is you who doesn’t actually understand the argument? I guess perhaps it is just because you are conflating and mangling your arguments so as not to present them and yourself correctly?

    In a court of law, if you claim you can’t substantiate something, yet file a patent–which requires data–that shows it is substantiated (all patents require accurate substance, contrary to your claims, or they are null and a waste of thousands of dollars), your argument is immediately invalidated by your own behavior. They would be thrown out of court on their butts.

    But there is worst trouble they could get into. Let’s look at actual law, shall we?

    http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302875912

    Contrary to what you said to another poster, when one files a patent one has to make an oath and declaration about the accuracy of the filing, and breaking of that oath is punishable by imprisonment or fining (or both). If IH claims COP 11, and then claims that is not so without withdrawing or amending their patent (or if it is shown they knew before filing), they violate section 18 U.S.C. 1001, particularly part (a)(2).

    It is irrelevant for the patent office to try to validate data itself, because presenting false data is a criminal offense. Perhaps that is all you have missed?

  • Ged

    It is the job of the sale’s person to verify the claims before presenting it for investment/sale, or provide the appropriate caveats and make it speculative funding; otherwise it is fraud. That’s the law. I don’t advise trying it to find out. I think you have missed that most important fact of real life.

  • DFarwell

    Wow another day of my respectful posts being removed. Why do you moderators have to do this? You let the Rossi-supporters rail on saying anything they want in any tone, yet censor critical thinking skeptics.

    • DFarwell

      I completely understand curbing the rhetoric, but removing 6 posts of mine in one day is a bit extreme. I seriously am just trying to have a legitimate conversation here, I really am not trolling. I would think the context of my interactions would show that versus those who just come in here to argue nonsense.

      • http://www.drboblog.com Doctor Bob

        Lets analyse the context of your interactions then:

        The definition of a troll is someone who posts confusing or negative comments on the internet, anonymously. If we take into account only your username DFarwell, twenty negative posts a day amounts to +7000 over a year.

        By definition you are not an avatar, you are definitely a troll.

        • Ciaranjay

          I cannot speak for people here, but personally I want to read a range of views.
          If this forum turns into a one sided discussion then debate ends and we just end up with lots of back slapping.
          Again, personally I have learned a lot over the last couple of months and my views are evolving. Something important is going on and I want to find out more.

          • http://www.drboblog.com Doctor Bob

            Well when the click-factories take of, you will not be able to do so because your voice will be drowned by paid one-sided comments.

            You can believe that DFarwell is just another “chap” and that his opinion is worth just as much as yours, while I’ll continue to belive that DFarwell is probably making more money on E-catworld than admin does with all his paid ads.

            Neither I want a one sided discussion, about anything in life, but what I do not want

    • Andrew

      I read many posts by you in this thread. Unless your commenting on many more than I see I don’t see any serious censorship going on.

      One major part of critical thinking is; lack of evidence for doesn’t constitute for evidence against. Yes all the so called evidence that has been put forth so far has its errors but so does the LHC however when single events in LENR take days and weeks to obtain the LHC can do 600 million collisions a second.

      I know your probably not discounting LENR in general just the Rossi effect of supercharged LENR.

      For me I’m just enjoying the show and maybe, just maybe get to see future history unfold.

      • psi2u2

        Sometimes posts get lost by discus.

    • Robert Dorr

      I count 19 replies from you in the last 12 hours. How many are missing?

    • Michael W Wolf

      That is not true. Frank rejects my posts on a regular basis. But I tend to be off subject when he does this. I also let my emotions get the best of me sometimes, and he absolutely keeps me in check. Not that I like it. But there is no bigger Rossi fan than I. So keep your emotions in check and stay on topic is your best bet.

  • Michael W Wolf

    Yep, no one has proven Rossi a liar. IH on the other hand has been feeding their investors nothing but lies. Sure they may be legal lies, but still, lies. Unless of course they didn’t lie to their investors, which means they are deceiving and hampering this tech from reaching starving people.

  • Michael W Wolf

    As far as I know, Lugano results show anomalous heat. The only counter I’ve heard is that there could be measurement errors, not there is. And with the potentially greatest discovery in history, we should be positive before we chuck it in the trash can. Don’t you think? We had positive results at Lugano until proven otherwise, not assumed. Now if Darden and company want to say there was no anomalous heat, Good, then get out of the way and let professionals figure it out. Because in the very least IH is completely incompetent and is doing more harm than good in bringing this tech to market.

    • DFarwell

      I have seen no substantiation of the Lugano test and while it MAY have shown anomalous heat, it does not prove the “Rossi Effect” in the context of any significant COP number. I definitely believe there were errors and possibly fraud with the Lugano test. Any significant COP numbers are yet completely elusive to any scientist or reseacher on this planet..

      • Ged

        IH made the Lugano reactor and fuel, so take it up with them. It is their obligation to verify their work.

        You intentionally dodge and miss the point and ignore common knowledge and fact. Willful ignorance. There’s no more point in talking to you until you actually use fact instead of whatever you pull out from your head.

  • Michael W Wolf

    That is all assumption on your part. You admit you are using your imagination. And if what you say is true, they would have sued Rossi for criminal fraud. Or do they normally let thieves take their investors’ money without them even attempting to recover it? And what of Fabiani? he works for IH. Is he lying for Rossi? Or is he a moron that Rossi tricked into building control systems for a fake reactor? If you were really concerned about facts, the few that there are, impeach IH not Rossi. IH believed? Oh you know that?. IH says is all you have. And IH is a walking contradiction of the few facts we have. The only thing IH said under federal oath is that they built a reactor with a COP of 11. Let’s go by that until they make other statements under oath.

    • DFarwell

      Of course it is assumption as we don’t have the facts yet…I was posing my assumption in rebuttal to Engineers. While he discounts “Weaver says”….I discount “Rossi says”. FYI…If you ask 6 questions in one post, you will probably find most people unwilling to answer…

      • Michael W Wolf

        They were rhetorical.

  • Michael W Wolf

    IH filed a patent outside their license agreement area. Breach of contract. IH did not find a test facility in the specified time frame. Breach of contract. IH did not pay with the final positive ERV report, who they agreed to use. breach of contract. IH’s own engineer says ecat works more than claimed. IH make public statements contradicting claims they made in a patent filed. Where has IH been honest brokers? At all, in any of this?

    • DFarwell

      Everything you just said is heresay and “Rossi says” until we see evidence…as well as off course from the point of the COP in conjunction with the patent as we have been discussing.

      • Michael W Wolf

        What? Not one thing there is hearsay. And I don’t count the interview with Fabiani hearsay.

  • psi2u2

    It is unwise in my estimation, in our present circumstance, to reject any piece of evidence as inconsequential by this sort of classification. This is an element in the circumstantial evidence for the reality of LENR, of its being taken seriously by big players in industry and government.

    • DFarwell

      Point taken Psi, I suppose I summed this up a bit too simplistically and hastily out of frustration as my actual post was ‘removed’.

      • psi2u2

        Sorry. I often find your posts to be educational even when I don’t agree with them.

        • Niaga Dennab

          I have to agree with you here Psi, I try take knowledge from both sides of the fence whether it be this situation or even something as outlandish as UFOs or the mysterious carvings of Pumapunku! This whole saga is getting really interesting!!!!

  • Ged

    Wow, that is really going to be your claim? They cannot legally use a defense of “not substantiated” while having a patent for a COP of 11 from their own (not Rossi says) device. Go read the actual patent before you proceed further on this as you clearly have no knowledge at the moment of that which you speak.

    No court will accept such a logical contradiction, and the fact IH is stalling for time should wave a red flag to you. There needs be no conspiracies here, just plain use your head.

    • Chapman

      Ged, I enjoy every thoughtful comment you post, and you have a wonderful grasp of the science, as well as a clear understanding of the legal issues. But WHY do you even bother engaging with Farwell? Any review of previous discussions show you are wasting your breath. He is leading you on. No one could be as dense and obstinate as he portrays. He has something else going on – don’t buy into it.

      The sign at Jellystone Park reads, “Don’t feed the bears…”

      • Ged

        Ah, yeah, you are right. Too bad I didn’t see your post till after dumping some more energy into this farce. Thanks for helping me stay away from the bears :).

      • Engineer48

        Plus “Don’t feed the Trolls…”

  • Bob Greenyer

    So we have less than 3 weeks before IH have to present their evidence. It may be interesting to play the judge before the claims / evidence is available for scrutiny – but we are all likely to jump to the wrong conclusion.

  • Ged

    3 to 20 is not 0 to 20; they are making a straight up product claim for money. This isn’t speculative language. Your position is untenable.

  • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

    Rossi could be exaggerating I guess. Have no idea about Dardens abilities in the ballet discipline … But a little dance and some sort of tune … yes of course. That goes for any VC sales dude …

  • doug marker

    I believe that there are circumstances where sworn testimony is accepted by USPTO.
    .
    I have in my possession copies of a ‘sworn affidavit” that was requested by the USPTO of an inventor who had a device he wished to patent. The USPTO told the inventor they would not approve his patent application unless he came to Washington and demonstrated his invention to the satisfaction of the USPTO.
    .
    He did not want to do that (for several reasons) so asked the USPTO what would be required to have his invention evaluated in-situ at his workshop. The USPTO told the inventor they would accept a sworn affidavit from acknowledged experts in the field. Two experts were found (One a PhD professor of chemistry and the other an accredited power output tester).
    .
    The two experts conducted their test at the inventor’s workshop, had the testing equipment assessed after the test, filed their sworn affidavit in their home state, the inventor sent in the details of the filed affidavit, then the USPTO granted that patent.

    I think this covers the situation being discussed.

    Cheers – Doug Marker

  • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

    Apparently the Chinese translation do not include the “believe” word … It says: “The nickel reaction has the following advantages: …”

    It is of course NOT a non-issue, since it is sales material used by Darden/IH that shows clearly what they were selling to the Chinese.