Rossi Addresses Some Issues Regarding 1MW Plant Test

There have been some questions posted recently from myself and others on the Journal of Nuclear Physics in connection with accusations made about the 1MW E-Cat test to which Andrea Rossi has responded. Below is my comment with some of the accusation listed; Rossi’s repsonse follows.

Frank Acland
July 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi:

There are some accusations apparently coming from the IH group regarding the 1 MW plant test.

a) The flow meter used in the test was not fit for purpose
b) 1 MW plant did not have the required legal authorizations to work
c) JM Products did not have any employees
d) IH had proposed another customer to you, but you refused them
e) JM did not use the heat you produced in any manufacturing process, and the only heat supplied by your plant was 20kW, not 1MW

Can you respond to any of these points?

Andrea Rossi
July 3, 2016 at 2:03 PM
Frank Acland:
Independently from who is the imbecile that wrote such things, please find hereunder my answers, confined within the limits allowed not to touch issues that have to be discussed exclusively in Court, with due evidence.
a) The flowmeter used in the test is property of the ERV. The ERV has chosen that instrument based on his experience. It is, by the way, a very common flowmeter, that everybody can buy, even if it is quite expensive. The flowmeter has been certified and after the test the ERV has retrieved it and sent it to make a certification of its margin of error after the test of 1 year, specifically with a flow of water with the same temperature and the same flows of water that we had during the test, minimum, maximum, average. So the ERV told us he was going to do when he retrieved his flowmeter after the shut down of the plant at the end of the test.
PLEASE DO NOT FORGET THAT:
The ERV is a nuclear engineer, with experience of nuclear power plants and certification+validation of plants
b) Obviously it is false, otherwise the plant would have been closed after the inspections
c) False
d) Tragicomic: Leonardo Corporation delivered, as per contract, the plant on August 2013, and we were ready to start immediately the test, as a continuation of the preliminar test made in Ferrara two months before with IH. IH had 1 year of time to start the 1 year test, but they always delayed with the excuse that they did not have the authorization from the Healthcare Office of North Carolina, due to the fact that there was the “nuclear reactions” issue. I have been able to get such permission in Florida and therefore I proposed the Customer, that has been accepted by IH. Evidence of it is the contract that IH made with JM. Since the plant was property of IH and it was in the factory of IH, obviously they could choose the Customer they wanted, if they had one.
e) When you have not the burden to give evidence of what you say, you can say every stupidity. This is exactly the case. Anyway, what counts related to the contract is the energy produced by the 1 MW E-Cat, and such energy gets evidence from the report of the ERV.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

In another comment regarding the 1MW E-Cat plant’s customer, Rossi made this response:

Andrea Rossi
July 3, 2016 at 7:25 AM
Roberto Rampado:
The Customer has set up this plant in Doral, Florida, specifically on the purpose to test our technology for at least one year to see if it works, based on an agreement between him and Industrial Heat.
He knew from the beginning that, due to the experimental nature of the test, such test could have been stopped for any reason and the Agreement signed between him and IH says that the test could be stopped anytime without refunds of any kind could be vindicated by the Customer for the lack of production. He accepted, because for them too, as I said, this was a test.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

The last sentence of this response is rather confusing; but I read it to mean that the agreement between IH and the parent company of JM Products (the Customer) stated that if the testing did not work out, the customer would not be entitled to any refunds. This was apparently a risk that the Customer was willing to take, and according to Rossi, they were satisfied enough to order more plants at the conclusion of the test.

Rossi makes it clear that he is not going to present evidence on the JONP that is reserved for court, and I don’t think we’ll see the ERV report that he references for a long time, maybe never now. So I understand this is just his word, and readers must make their own judgments about how to take that word.

  • Engineer48

    1MWt reactor fluid pumps identified. And yes they have multiple inbuilt 1 way flow valves to stop backflow, so no metering errors from backflow as there is no backflow.

    As the only electrical connection is a power cord, these pumps operate stand alone and are programmed to deliver a set volume of water over a set period of time. Which means the measured flow rate would be very consistent, day in, day out as that is what they are designed to do.

    http://www.prominent.us/products/Pumps_Systems/Solenoid_Pumps/GammaL
    .
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/81ceb21e4ac41a4fc8987c94915cdf8a0c1010a41b7071dd6268bd699ebcf284.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d988ddf0c6b94961bb7cde70acb76d13970b794c0df8bf2eee712c583d71e4d9.png

  • Engineer48

    Hi Jed,

    How do I know there were 1 way valves? I searched the pumps used, which are diaphram solenoid pumps, which need at least 2 x 1 way valves to operate.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Jed,

    You suggested it when you threw in the Defkalion reactor test issue. If you knew backflow was not an issue why mention in via the Greek reactor?

  • Engineer48

    Hi Jed,

    I searched and found the pumps used on the 1MW reactor. They have multiple 1 way valves.
    http://www.prominent.us/products/Pumps_Systems/Solenoid_Pumps/GammaL

    If you knew blackflow was not a problem, why then mention the Greek reactor test where backflow did cause meter issues? I could suggest that was willful misinformation that you knew was not relevant but you mentioned it anyway.

    So far you have not shown any way, on the 1MW reactor, that 50x metering errors could be generated, yet claim that massive metering errors occurred.

  • JedRothwell

    “Putting this together with his previous statements I do believe that what Jed is saying is that he knows what flow meter is in place and that the type of flow meter and its placement were intentionally chosen to produce errors.”

    Correct.

    (I said that before, with some detail. My messages keep disappearing here.)

  • Engineer48

    Hi Jed,

    How does the ERV report reveal your claimed flow metering errors?

    Dewey claimed the outlet steam temp was 100.1 C. Is that correct?

    Dewey claimed the output steam pressure was 0.0 bar. Is that correct?

    Mats utility bill copy showed the averaged electrical energy usage was 22kWh/hr. Is that correct?

    If the 3 data above are collect and the COP = 1, as you claim, then the flow meter needed to report 50x the real flow.
    .

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Under the License Agreenent, each instrument used by the ERV, were and how he installed it and the method used to collect the data had to be approved by IH before the ERV started his work.

    Rossi had no hand in this as it was under the control of IH.

    As the pumps used on the IH reactor incorporate 3 x 1 way flow valves to stop back flow, Jeds claim, ie reference to the backflow errors in the Greek reactor test, are not vaild and may be intentional misinformation.

    Likewise making non direct statements about 90 deg bends introducing metering errors is not the case with my domestic water meter and I doubt is the case with the 1MWt reactors flow meter.

    So far Jed has failed to show even 1 vaild to the 1MW test way a flow meter can be fooled into recording a flow 50x or even 10x the reality.

    If Jed accepts the Dewey reported steam pressure at 0.0 barg and the reported steam temp at 100.1C, which is superheated steam, and accepts the utility electricity account that showed 22kWh/hr, then if the COP = 1, the flow must be 30kg/hr and the meter needs to report 50x that flow.

    You see Bruce the input fluid flow & electrical consumption & steam temperature & steam pressure are all locked together.

    So despite what Jed or anyboby else may say, if we accept what Dewey said about outlet steam temp & pressure (0.0 bar & 100.1 C) what Mats said about the averaged electrical consumption (22kWh/hr), either the COP = 1 and the flow meter reported a 30kg/hr flow as 1,500kg/hr (50x error) or the COP = 50 and the flow meter correctly reported the flow as 1,500kg/hr.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c3adb267ef1187e712d6a6bf7190399278d9237e683814f3995636a119166ace.png
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ee43f88fb529d86d4669d206d0be09f7165286d1c3930cb6d129c7316019f9eb.png

  • Engineer48

    Hi Jed,

    Now that you know there were 1 way valves involved and thus no back flow through the flow meter, how was the flow meter fooled to record even a 10x greater flow than reality?

    If not 10x, then what was the amount?

    BTW if the flow error was not 50x then there needs to be other measurement errors. As Weaver has quoted 0.0 bar (standard pressure) and 100.1C steam, which is superheated dry steam, there doesn’t appear to be any error there.

    Which only leaves the electrical energy consumed to be in error.

    As an utility account was produced, showing an averaged energy usage of 22kWh/hr, assuming superheated steam was produced per Weavers data, then the flow meter needs to be off 50x as to produce 100.1C superheated steam at standard pressure, the flow can only be 30kg/hr to produce superheated steam using 20kWh/hr.

    Jed there is a locked relationship between flow, energy usage, steam temp & pressure. Alter one and all the others must alter to maintain 100.1 superheated steam production at 0.0 bar.

    So far nothing you have shared makes sense, especially as you now know having 2 x 90 deg bends doesn’t necessarily affect flow metering accuracy and the lack of back flow eliminates the related metering error issues as found during the Greek reactor testing.

    Where is the error Jed?
    .

  • Engineer48

    Just to make it clear to all. The solenoid pumps used on the 1 MWt reactor have 2 x 1 way flow valves designed into the solenoid pump as otherwise the pump would not work. So the probably that there was significant back flow is very low to zero.

    Anyone suggesting the flow meter was fooled by back flow from the reactor, as apparently happened in the Greek reactor testing, doesn’t understand the pumps used on the 1MWt reactor and their inbuilt 2 x 1 way flow valves make that virtually impossible to occur.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1b5237068c0af814c038b257a5a1a873481c22a5aedd15987d1a9dbd3b124946.png

    • Engineer48

      The attached is, I believe, the pump head from the fluid pump used on the 1MWt reactor.

      http://www.prominent.us/products/Pumps_Systems/Solenoid_Pumps/GammaL

      There is a 1 way value on the left side outlet and 2 x 1 way valves on the lower inlet.

      With 3 x 1 way valves built into the pump, there is no significant back flow to fool a flow meter.

      • Gerald

        Engineer48, few years ago I saw a picture of Fabani with a laptop in the 1MW plant. I noticed there were 2 network switches, one left and one on the right. There were about 25 ethernet kabels plug in on both sides. (never seen a hires so I could be of some, to the left there were a few more).

        But what I was thinking why so many? Why not use standard a industry standard like Modbus 485, thats what you normaly use. Build a controle cabinet and controle your devices from there and use master slave. Use a few ethernet gateways to connect to a computer.

        So is it because te plant is so small, cabeling isn’t the cost or is it I wander because there is a lot of magnetic interference in the plant and shielded twisted pair cabeling does a better job in such a surrounding. It isn’t the cheapest solution Rossi choose I think.

        Do you have any thoughts about how such a plant could be controlled? From what I read from the spec of the fluid pumps, they almost controll them self.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Jed,

    So the suggested 1MWt reactor’s flow meter location with 2×90 bends could be as correctly installed as was my domestic water meter with 2×99 deg bends.

    Thanks for the paper which states the incorrect flow was about 2-3x and not 50x or even 10x. Plus looking at the system schematic it is clear why back pressure from the reactor could have caused the 2-3x incorrect flow reading.

    However in the case of the 1MW reactor, there are one way pumps between the reactor and the flow meter so the 2-3x back flow effect found in your linked report could not be occuring.

    Which means you have yet to show how the flow meter was fooled into reporting a flow 50x actual. Yes you did say it was not 50x but failed to account for other claimed measurement errors to make up the difference.

    Jed could you please indicate the scale of the individual measurements errors such that they all add and show how the real COP was less than 1, rather than the claimed COP > 50?

    BTW what is your opinion that Alan Smith has stated the isotropic changes in the ash of the 1MWt reactor I shared are correct?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/947599ba21a19e95559dec7c0e3fa876a564966681fe5ad43fb5619abbac8bf8.png

    • Engineer48

      Hi Jed,

      To further show you there was no back flow please note that solenoid pumps as used on the 1MWt reactor have 2 x 1 way flow values built into the solenoid pump as otherwise they would not work. Which means you should discount back flow and any reference to the Greek reactor testing in any future claims that it is causing flow meter errors because with solenoid pumps there is no back flow.

      So the question remains, how to force a high quality flow meter to record 10x to 50x more flow than is the reality, with no back flow present?

      And BTW Jed steam at 100C and 1 standard atmosphere is superheated / dry steam.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1b5237068c0af814c038b257a5a1a873481c22a5aedd15987d1a9dbd3b124946.png

  • Engineer48

    Hi Jed,

    If you can’t supply the supposed high resolution image for tampering analysis, please stop referring to it as having any value.

    What if your assumptions, your guesses, are eventually shown to be incorrect, the COP is correct, the ash analysis is correct and IH lose. How will LENR history view Jed?

    Jed several people I trust have told me my sources data is correct. Alan Smith has stated the data is correct.

    BTW how do you suggest the flow meter reported a flow of 1,500kg / hr when your claimed flow was only 30kg/hr? How is it possible to make a flow meter report a flow 50 times greater than what you claim?

    • JedRothwell

      “If you can’t supply the supposed high resolution image for tampering analysis, please stop referring to it as having any value.”

      I did not supply any of these images. Someone else did. I do not know who. Why do you trust the person who supplied the grainy, low-res image and not the person who supplied the hi-res image? How do you know it wasn’t the same person?

      It seems to me you cherry-pick evidence, believing what you want to believe, rejecting that which you do not want to believe.

      The only thing I know is that no one mounts a flow meter sideways next to an elbow, so that is obviously not the flow meter.

      “What if your assumptions, your guesses, are eventually shown to be incorrect, the COP is correct, the ash analysis is correct and IH lose. How will LENR history view Jed?”

      I do not make guesses. I have data. If my assumptions are wrong then calorimetry does not work, which would void most chemistry and physics going back to, oh, 1840 or so. I mean that if the COP is “right” and there is 1 MW of heat going into the pretend customer site, then Rossi has violated the conservation of energy, because there sure as heck is not 1 MW coming out. Rossi will win a dozen Nobel prizes for that miracle alone.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Jed,

        Just maybe Jed what you believe is correct, is not correct.

        Here is the utility water meter outside my house. Seems to meet code and work fine, even with 2 x 90 degree bends.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c3adb267ef1187e712d6a6bf7190399278d9237e683814f3995636a119166ace.png

        • JedRothwell

          Congratulations on finding there are different kinds of water meters! You could save yourself some time by reading the manuals, or this:

          http://www.omega.com/prodinfo/flowmeters.html

          • Engineer48

            Hi Jed,

            The photo was posted to show you flow meters do work correctly with 2 x 90 deg very close to the meter. Didn’t you say they needed long straight runs to be accurare? That photo suggests you may wish to review your understandings.

            I have engaged flow meters before and while I’m in no way a metering expert, I do have working knowledge of many types of metering technology.

            How do you believe a flow meter could be fooled to record a flow 50 times greater than the actual flow? That is a massive difference of say a flow of 30kg/hr to recording a flow of 1,500kg/hr. How is what possible?

  • Engineer48

    Hi Jed,

    May I see the original image? I have ImageJ plugins that can check for image alterations.

    As for Flordia regs, the 2 reactors were manufactured and then assembled inside the container by IH in Raleigh & then drop shipped to Doral.

    Any Flordia code violations inside the conainer were done by IH.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Jed,

    No secret information. I read the contract.

    IH had to approve every instrument selected by the ERV, where and how the ERV installed and sealed them and how the ERV collected the data.

    Doing that is IH’s legal obligation under the contract. The ERV, working as IH’s agent, and not Rossi, collected the data that formed the 4 ERV reports.

    Are you claiming you have secret information that Rossi broke the ERV’s seals and that he contaminated the data the ERV collected?

  • Engineer48

    My, My, My, Is that a flow meter I see between the condensate pipe on the right and the intake pipe to the reactor on the left?

    Can anyone identify the manufacturer and model?
    .

  • Engineer48

    Hi Carlen,

    Please read:
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/03/rossi-addresses-some-issues-regarding-1mw-plant-test/#comment-2771102463

    BTW, IH had total control of the ERV. They approved each instrument he selected, where & now he placed it and how he monitored and recorded the data. This is in the License Agreement

  • Engineer48

    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/jul-07-2016-mini-interview-with-andrea.html

    A mini-interview with Andrea Rossi

    QUESTION

    Dear Andrea Rossi, how could you characterize the effects, effectiveness, efficiency the efforts/results ratio, of the anti-Rossi, anti-1MW Test campaign?

    ANSWER

    “Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculous mus” this ancient saying of the Romans can be the paradigm of the small effect that the monumental attack to assassinate my character has been brought on by IH and their puppets, organized by the powerful APCO… It is an obvious paradigmatic analogy!”

    “From the mountains has been born a rat: I figure this as a big mass that cannot pass through the lattice of the truth, so that only a little mass can pass through: small stones, here and there, so that they seem rats rolling somewhere.

    The mountains of balls produced by IH didn’t pass the even few things that I have been allowed to disclose, for example:

    in April the ERV produced the first report, and IH accepted it, used it in world press conference, got millions thanks to it;

    in July the ERV produced a second report, Tom Darden visited repeatedly the plant with his investors, illustrated all the instrumentation of the erv, chanted its immaculate sealings, got millions;

    in October the ERV produced a third report, equal to the first and the second, Tom Darden made visits with his investors, got millions, chanting mirabilia about the test, the plant, whatever.

    Finally, arrived the last report, equal to the first, the second and the third reports, but…this time (it was time to pay )

    Darden said: ” I proclaim urbi et orbi that the plant did not work, the ERV was no good, the instrumentation of the ERV was no good, that the test was not a test and that I barely knew that we were making a test; I was sleeping like a baby”

    and JT Vaughn, standing at his right, with jointed hands, said: “Amen”,

    while from their overloaded pockets small bunches of dollars fall in the wind, then on the ground, promptly grasped by their puppets who repeated: “Amen”.
    .

  • Ged

    That is a very interesting and good question. I’d love to hear an answer, but fear somehow it would be “NDA”.

  • Engineer48

    More from chemical engineer Peter Gluck in reference to Jed’s flow meter comments:

    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/05-jul-2016-again-bit-of-lenr-info.html

    “Is it good for us to know that in the ancient times, over 99% of the population was absolutely immune to the virus of Honesty?

    This is Jed’s world too, probably he has first learned how to cheat with the Themometer showing he has fever so he cannot go to the school.

    Being a chemical engineer I like reliable and correct instruments and measurements; being a chemical engineer I have worked with flowmeters in labs, pilot plants and industrial but have never imagined methods to inflate the values. But I know which of the dozen is the best- and Jed applies it in his writings too;

    “Read 1, say and record it was 10”

    As already told, during my first working day, July 31, 1959 I had to adjust and control manually two flowmeters (at the Factory for Synthetic Fibers Savinesti). One flowmeter for air, the other for nitrogen and I was lucky to be at the second when the first has exploded.

    I have not thought about recording 10 times more liquid hydrogen cyanide HCN than the real flow in the pilot plant making acrylonitrile from HCN and acetylene- with a copper based catalyst. I wrote than an essay: “Death is a bluish fluid that boils at 27 C”

    I sincerely confess that I have no idea how to use a flowmeter to give such enhanced results. Chemical industry is a place where you do not have the privilege of the second great errormany times, you need precise data to be able to take the correct decisions. Especially in research here there are no standards and unknown parameters can make trouble.

    Jed if I do not know 12 methods to increase the readings of the flowmeter 10 times than I am not knowledgeable ?
    May I ask you to give my readers a list?

    As regarding the manuals, usually they give a list of errors and instructions how to avoid or minimize them, not how to manipulate the data in your favor. As far I know.

    As an side effect of our discussion a nice Chinese flowmeter manufacturer Kaifeng Kaide Flow Instrument, China has contacted me and sent basic information about their classes of products – an impressive lot of them. I think they can help you in case you stop at say, 8 methods, isn’t it?

    I was a bit contrariated that Andrea Rossi has found Jed’s statement regarding Flowmeters “comic” while I considered it a criminal offense to so many honest workers using the instrument(s).

    Rossi says the following about this subject:

    “I can just repeat what I said of the flowmeter on my blog. It is for sale since many years, hundred thousands of it are in operation in the world, it has been certified at the specific flow and temperature of our case. IH had under control the flowmeter for one year and never said anything about it until the end of the test, while Darden in person illustrated it to his investors visiting the plant, showing its seals put by the ERV and saying the test was stellar..

    Jed, I hope one day you will apologize for what you have said here about knowledgeable flowmeterists.

    Till then we are waiting for the list of the dozen methods usable to increase the reading on a flowmeter with 1 order of magnitude.

    And a small puzzle to you: if you know indeed so much about the flowmeter used in the 1MW plant, please tell how is it connected to the number 1934? It is elementary!”

    Well said Peter Gluck, retired chemical engineer.

    • sam

      Peter and Jed’s feud continues in
      comments from Peters blog.
      Jed RothwellJuly 5, 2016 at 11:13 AM
      Peter Gluck has excoriated me for saying:

      “Anyone knowledgeable about flowmeters can tell you a dozen ways to make the answer 10 times too large. It hardly matters which of these methods Rossi used. As I said, read the manual and you too will learn how to get the wrong answer.”

      Instead of carrying on like an opera prima donna, he should try doing what I suggested. Read the manual for a flowmeter. Or read about how the people at Defkalion made the flowmeter give the wrong result. See:

      http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

      Here you have an example of fraud committed with a flowmeter in the field of cold fusion, at kilowatt levels. Yet Gluck denies this is even possible!

      Peter GluckJuly 5, 2016 at 12:29 PM
      Jed,

      First I love opera have read about primadonnas but do not remember one of them interested in flowmeters.
      You are making quite strange associations, sorry.

      I agree with your idea there are many instruction manuals for flowmeters on the web. Feel free to choose which mnafacturer you wish and any type of its product – than we will read it in parallel and you indicate where are the methods you are adverting described. Or what you want to show because your idea is not clear.
      We can ak my new Chinese flowmeter manfacturers for being the judge.
      But my friendly advice is that you have gone really too far with these “2 methods to mke the flowmeeter show 10 times the real value” and let’s focus on some normal ideas.
      peter

      Jed RothwellJuly 5, 2016 at 8:19 PM
      This is not complicated. The manual for any instrument will list failure modes and warn you what you should not do. For example, the manual for the flowmeter Defkalion used must have said something like this: “be sure to install a backflow check valve downstream from the meter to prevent false readings or damage.” Manufacturers do not want angry customers, so they are careful to point out all of the failure modes they know of.

      If you are a nefarious person, you then induce backflow deliberately in order to inflate the flow rate.

      Manuals tell you how to use instruments correctly. In the course of doing so, they also tell you how to cheat.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    But we actually don’t know the UK Company.

    The lawyer who set this up (Rossi lawyer Henry W. Johnson) signed the document on behalf of the UK client. So the lawyer signed on behalf of that UK Company.

    I mean, if the company requested to remain anonymous, then it would be beyond stupid that we
    THEN sign a legal document that gives away their name! (how stupid is that!!!).
    If that was the case, then ZERO anonymity would exist! Are people that silly?

    As noted, this was done to protect the identity of that UK Company. The lawyer HWJ not only signed but ALSO stated that the UK Company has no ties (interest) to the lawyer, Rossi
    nor does any other kind of connection exist such as blood relatives.

    So the lawyers name representing the shell company has zero to do with the actual company that used the heat output of this test plant. And if this is not a UK company, then one
    has to “laughably” assume the lawyer has committed outright fraud – this is something
    that IH could and would clearly zero in on – they have not!

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Pweet

      Would HydroFusion fit the specification for the secret customer?
      They are a UK based company, they are a company which is not owned by Mr Rossi or any of his clan, they presumably have no common management.
      They were proposing to get a 1MW plant some time ago to operate as a demonstration plant and sell the energy produced to pay for it. They are referred to in glowing terms by Mr Rossi. “Marvelous Swedish team” etc, similar to what he used to say about IH.
      I think it will be either them or some entity recently set up by them.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        It is possible, but from what we “heard” the output heat was used by this customer for “one” step of an industrial process. Many are pointing to the heat being used in the process of cleaning catalytic (metal) sponges. It makes sense that “one” step such as heating out resins etc. out of a metal lattice would be a great process in which lots of heat is required.

        So from what we been told, there was a customer, they used the heat for some “step” of a industrial process and not their whole production line process. And they were a UK company.

        As noted, the screen cap is from a signed agreement and if no customer actually exists and they not from the UK, then the lawyer committed outright fraud by signing his name to that document – IH would be all over this in a flash.

        So Rossi stated this was a customer, and a industrial process – and so far there nothing suggests that this was not the case.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Albert D. Kallal

    But such a setup would make it difficult to determine the COP.

    And who has a good commercial grade sterling engine that you can purchase off the shelf? And such integration into the e-cat would be FAR MORE challenging then simply selling heat to
    someone for an industrial process. So no, I don’t think this is a practical setup at all. And measuring electricity would give you LITTLE idea as to the output energy. So with all the losses and a poor sterling engine, you might have little if any gains.

    Worse, having some power bill from something running in a garage is not going to convince
    investors much of anything.

    A yearlong test with a set of defined test parameters and measuring systems in place really is
    the only kind of test that makes sense. And that’s exactly what occurred.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Rene

      🙂 and the power company never writes a check to net metered customers. It doesn’t even roll the excess pasta year boundary. And if not net metered, they do pay you at wholesale, around 1-3 cents KWh, and too that is limited. Basically, it’s not a very good setup, Cam. But yes, I do agree that it sure would have been good to have had the power readings placed on the ecat.com WEB site on a daily basis. That would have been a nice bit of transparency. Oh well, didn’t happen.

  • Engineer48

    Long time LENR observer Peter Gluck posed Jed a interesting question:
    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/05-jul-2016-again-bit-of-lenr-info.html

    Jed, I hope one day you will apologize for what you have said here about knowledgeable flowmeterists.

    Till then we are waiting for the list of the dozen methods usable to increase the reading on a flowmeter with 1 order of magnitude.

    And a small puzzle to you: if you know indeed so much about the flowmeter used in the 1MW plant, please tell how is it connected to the number 1934? It is elementary!

    So OK guys, Sherlock time and what does 1934 have to do with the flow meter the ERV used in the 1MW test? Model number?

    • Steve Savage

      pulses per minute?

    • wpj

      Watson-Marlow (from “elementary”)?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Wpj,

        They only show pumps on their web site:
        http://www.watson-marlow.com/gb-en/

        • DrD

          Their metering pumps link here for water:-

          http://www.qdospumps.com/technical.html
          Accuracy 1%, repeatability 0.5%.
          It’s no surpise that flow rate was always exactly 36 if he used the like of these.

          • Engineer48

            Hi DrD,

            Here is the pump used on the 1MW plant:
            http://www.prominent.us/products/Pumps_Systems/Solenoid_Pumps/GammaL

            • wpj

              The argument above seems to be about the flow meter that the ERV (or Rossi as JR says) used (presumably for total flow in the system) and if there was anything to prevent flow back.

              I really don’t understand how there could be flow back if the individual pumps that were used were still pumping at the correct rate rather than at one tenth as JR implies. As pointed out in a very nice analysis, one would have to be blind and have the alarms switched off for that to happen.

            • Fedir Mykhaylov

              I wonder why Rossi likes to use membrane pumps? Typically, such pumps are used in the chemical industry.

        • wpj

          Yes, just wondering if there was a “1934” type pump!

          • Engineer48

            Hi Wpj,

            Have emailed Peter for another clue. 😉

  • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

    So Alain. What do you think is really happening?

    Third party trying to block the technology?
    The technology doesnt work?
    IH is trying to get gold for penauts?

    I would be glad to hear your oppinion.

    Thanks

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

      I try to guess what happened, using heuristics when there is no certainty.

      The theory of blocking technology revolution does not hold as it is expressed here.
      There is a well known propblem that incumbent companies prefer to enjoy comfortable margin, exploiting long time successful coprporate culture and experienced workforce, to gain money easily as usual.

      However frontal opposition to technology revolution is no more productuve, no more fashion… Innovation theiry today are well established even if like smoking it is hard to stop enjoying an economic rent.

      Darden is enjoying an economic rent with environmental remediation, and LENR is just a new idea in his portfolio.

      Meanwhile oil companies like Shell and exxon know they are toasted by renewable or by nuke, if not by shales…
      Like shell and Amocco (and exxon) some even are aware of LENR, and some will enjoy the las drop of oil like a 1st class passenger will enjor the last drop of champing on Titanic. Some like shell will try to move their bottom to avoid being the next Kodak, trying to be the next Fujifilm, who adapted to digital photo by embracing it and by exploiting differently their comperences and culture.

      anyway about this story, I have seen Rossi and jed talk regularly. we all know their different interests (basically Jed is an activist pro-LENR, optimistic).
      I’ve seen Dewey at RNBE2016, and if he is not perfect, part for his imperfections exclude what people accuse him of here.

      Initially I thought Darden was a standard corporate shark, and i was surprised to learn by some scientits how comitted he is in green and christian churches. Anyway not too much to doubt.
      Because yes for me I trust more the sharks than the biggots, to follow blood and eat fishes.

      I feel that Darden was probably a little too tolerant, too much hopeful, accepting what should raise red flags. anyway the money at stakes, many billions (not trillions, because it will be shared between many innovators, as nobody today can lock a technology), deserved some unresponsible investment and acceptance, about 10Mn$.

      Anyway he is also investing in separate researshers, mostly basic research, ans is appreciated for that by some.
      I was reaklly suprised by the nice description some depicted of Darden, for whom I would have treated like a predictable shark.

      so if you want a conspiracy theory to escape from the evident hypothesis, I would rather support tha darden, Vaughn, helped by Claudio Pace try to save the humanity and the planet from a morality dysruption that could be induced by cheap LENr energy.

      I don’t buy it, as anybody aware of that reality, COP50, would leak data, sell it to russian mafia, or to Chinese triades, and you will see LENr drones busting ISIS and AlNosra jihadists in syria.

      if you want to do conspiracy theories, do it correctly 8)

      time to check UFO forums for evidence of LENR flying saucers on Russian and Chinese battlefields.

  • Michael W Wolf

    AlainCo, I have no problem with your criticisms. You may even be right. I am talking about Libel. I have never seen you Libel anyone. There is a big difference in your skepticism. As you are not a skeptopath, so I listen to what you say. I don’t agree with you a lot, but a lot of your points are valid and I respect that.

  • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

    Alain, you are assuming (in the IT WORKS scenario) that Industrial Heat was in a position to choose between staying committed to Rossi and reaping the benefits or walking away (and so why would they be so stupid as to walk away)

    This ignores some apparent developments of significance: Rossi became disillusioned by IH’s use of E-Cat IP and their disinterest in conducting the final test that would net him his final large payment. In his own words, Rossi started to keep a careful recorded trail of everything that went down, clearly preparing for a divorce. He also continued to work on the technology and did not share that technology with IH… PLUS if we put some pieces together it seems that Rossi’s ongoing relationship with a happy customer (we’re told) and ABB provided him with some alternative futures that did not involve IH.

    So it wasn’t necessarily IH who walked away from a working technology, it was IH was frozen out by a spurned and miffed Rossi. So why the heck would they pay him the $89M when he’s just leaving anyway. At least if they went to court they could try to force transfer of the latest generation E-Cat IP. If they just paid Rossi and tried to sell 1 MW plants they would quickly be eclipsed by the X and QX technology. So you say they walked away from billions, but they weren’t going to get billions; they were going to get squat.

    Arguments along this line of thought resolve a lot of contradictions. Maintaining instead that Rossi never had anything and IH only discovered that late into the process is riddled with contradictions and seemingly inexplicable behavior, not the least of which is Rossi going immediately to court to get his money ,risking exposure of any fraudulent behavior, when he could have walked away with $11.5M much earlier — not to mention measurement errors reaching 50x and an ever growing criminal conspiracy involving scientists with no apparent risk/reward ratio that makes any kind of sense.

    • timycelyn

      LENR G.
      Clearly and convincingly argued. The logic, and the glaring inconsistencies in the opposite proposals, make perfect sense to me. It also fits everything we know of how Rossi behaves in this kind of situation.

      All others of the woolly thinking persuasion, I suggest you read the above, and re-read, until the penny finally drops…..

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

      this is a possible scenario, assuming Rossi is above irrationality.
      He can be billionaire with half of the planet and manage to break with IH in US, ruining his reputation…

      my best bet is that it does not work yet in an usable way, and like a desperate gambler, rossi need more money, more time, before the execution.

      this is the position with the less irrationality assumed. after all, maybe DGT have the same problems…

      Total absence of result is not coherent, as is successuful test.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        We don’t know the results of the tests.
        And it is Rossi that walked and stated IH does not want to pay the 90 million. Either IH has good reason for not wanting to pay, or they don’t.

        So how is Rossi walking away from a whole pile of money when that partner does not want to pay him? If IH not willing to pay Rossi then Rossi not walking away from anything, is he?

        I fail to see how Rossi is ruing his reputation by walking away from someone who’s not wanting to pay him? And asking for a trial by jury certainly seems Rossi not afraid of this playing out in public is he?

        Of course the real issue is we don’t know reasons and details as to IH’s position. We don’t know why IH does not want to pay Rossi. Perhaps IH thinks (or knows) the ecat does not work – but we don’t know that’s their position. Perhaps they think they don’t have to pay Rossi and have all they need to go their own way.

        As a result we can only speculate and support such speculation on reason and logic.

        We need more information here. For every + reason against Rossi one can make reasonable coherent reasons in Rossi’s favor.

        At the end of the day, working products in the public hands will be the final judge on Rossi. Everything else that occurs along the way is just entertainment.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

        I don’t find that the ‘works but does not work yet in a usable way’ scenario explains much of anything. I think it is more a product of your uncertainty than a dispassionate analysis of the facts that we know and that we think we know.

        This is a business story as well as a technological and scientific one. Industrial Heat perhaps got a little too cute with their use of Rossi’s IP and contractual gamesmanship regarding the $89M test and as a result now they are adversaries.

        Or there’s a once-in-a-millennium scam in progress.

        But even a genuine inventor doesn’t ship out his ‘only works sometimes’ device for 6 months of testing by a team of scientists or subject a whole bunch of them to one year of testing.

        Sitting on the fence may be comfortable, but it’s not where the action is.

  • lkelemen

    BTW Frank could you try to get a “softer version” (no oath required) about the plant working from HWJ pretty please 🙂 ?

    • wpj

      HWJ had nothing to do with the testing; he was just a front man for the company that did not want to go public. You need that statement from the ERV.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    In my opinion the main issue is the efficiency of the plant, its thermal performance, rather than the identity of the heat consumer

    • Pweet

      I agree. But we are not being told what that is are we. It’s all, you know, restricted by NDA’s, court process, customer confidentiality etc, as it always is. How is it that almost everything Mr Rossi does is always tied up in circumstances which prevent anything being made public, or if it is, having proof that it is genuine? It must be so frustrating for the poor man.

      • wpj

        Clearly not frustrating for him as he seems to be getting on with the job; others maybe

        • Pweet

          That’s good then, because he has three plants to due for delivery in three months. They were ordered back in March and he is still quoting delivery in three to six months. I think he also mentioned they would not all be delivered at once so probably the first one must be almost ready to deliver.
          This must surely deserve posting a few pictures. The start of a new era in cheap energy production etc. Surely it warrants a few pictures for posterity.

      • Ged

        IH has done you no favors and released nothing.

  • LuFong

    I have to say these questions do not accurately reflect the criticisms of the Andrea Rossi’s 1 year test. (The criticisms are much more serious but quite unofficial.) For example the issue is not whether there were “employees”, the issue is whether they were doing real work. You can go down to Home Depot and hire a bunch of guys to baby sit a radiator and technically they are employees of the customer.

    There have been many, many things said about what we know about the 1MW test and all the positive answers we have are what Rossi has stated. To try to verify what Rossi has stated by asking Rossi more questions is ridiculous. At best is we can look for errors or contradictions in what Rossi says (or what Rossi’s critics say).

    For example just now Rossi says, “The Customer has set up this plant in Doral, Florida, specifically on the purpose to test our technology for at least one year to see if it works, based on an agreement between him and Industrial Heat.”

    This is an example of one of Rossi’s contradictory statements. He was specifically asked earlier during the test whether the 1MW reactor would continue operations after the test and his response was, why not if it is making money? He also characterized the customer as an ongoing concern using his E-Cat to make money and not someone willing to set up a pilot test for Rossi. He also always referred to the customer as a customer of IH and that VIP visits will be scheduled. What we found out, with what little we know, is something quite different. Rossi outright lied about this customer.

    Until the customer comes forth and identifies themselves and is willing to answer questions about the use of the 1MW plant, Rossi’s statements about the customer does not mean anything. I hope the trial brings this information out but I doubt it will get that far.

    *”The plant, if the positive results will be obtained, will continue to make Her job in the factory of the Customer: if the E-Cat makes money, there is no reason to decommission Her!”

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Rossi most certainly stated to the customer that this is a pilot test that could be terminated at any time. How does the fact of a pilot test change the fact that this test allowed the
      customer to make money?

      How is this a logical contradiction?

      The fact that I give you a pilot test car to deliver pizza that I state may be recalled at any time in ZERO way effects the fact that the pizza delivery company is making money by using that
      test car? I fail to grasp your logic here?

      Until the customer comes forth

      They have been identified. JM CHEMICAL products.

      http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3885/7420/original.jpg

      So the company is outlined in above screen shot is outlined. Note HOW careful all parties signed that this company and their employees HAVE ZERO and NOTHING to do with Rossi or IH or Leonardo corp.

      So the company is JM chemicals and they are outlined in this document. That company is not AR, Leonardo, nor IH’s and they all signed off on that the employees of this company are independent of Rossi, IH and Leonardo corp.

      He was specifically asked earlier during the
      test whether the 1MW reactor would continue operations after the test and his
      response was, why not if it is making money?

      That is correct, but with the lawsuit IH (and AR) agreed to have the 1MW plant padlocked up for evidence and to prevent any tampering.

      So there was no intention to stop the plant, but the lawsuit caused this to occur.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • LuFong

        You’ve got to be joking. Even the customer shown is first ‘JM Chemicals, Inc’ replaced by JM Chemical Products, INC. Next name would be JM Fly By Night Chemical Products, Inc. Just because some entity has a name does not mean they have been identified. Based on my understanding, IH does not even know who the customer is. Amazing.

        EVERYBODY here thought the customer was a legitimate American concern, perhaps a brick company or some other existent independent concern. Instead we have some anonymous UK company head who happened to meet Rossi through his Miami lawyer and created a shell company with the lawyer as its head, run some mysterious operation that NOBODY knows for sure what it does but Rossi who called them a ‘Customer of IH’, which technically is correct because they bought heat from IH but it’s not what everybody understood it to mean.

        This is not even Grade A scam material Albert. I can’t say 100% for sure one way or another, nobody but Rossi can, but that is why it makes no sense to ask Rossi. I would love for someone other than Rossi or an associate to come forth and give positive testimony that the E-Cat works. I thought IH would be the one but they are calling it a scam.

        In the meantime Rossi sure boasted about how his E-Cat is now being used in an industrial setting making the customer money. Rossi talked about how important this test was because of this. Now we find out that it was important because Rossi stood to gain $89M. Rossi could have and should have run 10 such tests in his and IH’s labs. There was NO benefit to having a customer (it’s not in the contract) other than to use this to sell licenses.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Just because some
          entity has a name does not mean they have been identified.

          Well, you not looking at or reading that screen cap close. The signature on this document is Rossi lawyer and NOT Rossi! And from what we know, IH was fine with Rossi’s lawyer setting this up.

          MOST significant here is the signature on the above agreement is NOT Rossi, but his lawyer. The document CLEARY spells out the company is from the UK. MORE important is the lawyer states that ZERO conflict of interests in terms of employees, blood relative or any kind of previous association never existed to the lawyer! (and also Rossi).

          You actually think a lawyer would sign a document as fraud and claim that the company is from the UK? You mean the lawyer would risk his law license and law practice and commit fraud because of one client like Rossi?

          You are kidding, right?

          EVERYBODY here thought the customer was a legitimate American concern

          Really? I never limited that or gave it a second thought. The fact that you thought so is not my problem but your own shortcomings. And this point changes nothing in the way of this issue.

          But then again you think that because a pizza company or this company uses a test device that fact prevents them from using such things to make money – who exactly here is failing logical thinking? (and I noticed how you deflected and dodged my logic here).

          Can you give me one
          plausible reason there was even a customer in this scenario?

          Yes, the above screen cap and signed by Rossi’s lawyer. Of course you seem to think that Rossi’s lawyer would sign such a document that amounts to CLEAR outright fraud and that such a lawyer would make up a story about the company being from the UK and risk his law practice and career?

          The lawyer would have made Rossi sign the document if he doubted that the claims contained such as the entity being a UK company was in doubt or ONLY a claim by Rossi.

          Hint: lawyers are EXPERTS at covering their butts. They NEVER 100% rely on what their client tells them WHEN they as a lawyer have to sign such documents – they make their client sign them.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Pweet

            Quote from above;-
            “The signature on this document is Rossi lawyer and NOT Rossi!”
            For the purposes of the argument I really don’t think you can make any distinction between an entity set up with Henry Johnson as president and an entity set up with Mr Rossi as president. I would very much doubt Henry J. set this up on any basis other than he was acting on behalf of Mr Rossi.
            Since there is a record of a history of association between the two it would be ludicrous to now claim Rossi was not the instigator of the J M Chemicals company formation.

            • Albert D. Kallal

              Since
              there is a record of a history of association between the two it would be ludicrous to now claim Rossi was not the instigator of the J M Chemicals company formation.

              No, not at all. You have to define what you mean by “between the two” ? Exactly which two parties are you talking about?

              I mean, of course Rossi and his lawyer have association (surely you not meaning that context, are you?). And it is would seem that a company was setup to hide or at least obfuscate the UK company.

              However, the lawyer who signed this document stats that the customer is a UK customer. (are you now saying the company Rossi lawyer setup is a UK company? – not!!!). You seem to have no problem with a lawyer to lie and commit fraud to make this claim? Furthermore the lawyer also states that He or Rossi or relatives or close associates HAVE ZERO previous relationships with this UK Company.

              The lawyer is signing a legal document and doing so on his credibility and due diligence as a lawyer.

              And over time speculation and comments by Rossi also pointed towards a UK entity and this document confirms that.

              I mean it is DEAD plain and simply to EVERYONE that the us company was setup by Rossi and his lawyer – but the context of the above is about a UK company as a customer. You confusing things and we talking about a UK customer.

              So context is everything here, when you say “record of association” can you please clear up and state what association between which two parties you are talking about? Because the associations you speak of are Rossi and his lawyer – not the UK customer.

              Regards,
              Albert D. Kallal
              Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • sam

          You said I would love for someone other than Rossi or an associate to come forth and give positive testimony that the E-Cat works
          I would like A.R to say something
          like I am so confident that the Ecat works you can get any EVR
          expert you want to test it.

        • Pweet

          LuFong, at last, someone else who sees what looks to me to be glaringly obvious, and has been since the mysterious ‘customer of IH’ was revealed to be a construction of Mr Rossi and his cronies.
          Thanks for that, and for going to the trouble of posting it here.

          In the same way that I find it incredible that the ERV turns out to be from the very same university and background as Mr Rossi, it is equally incredible that the only ‘customer’ who could be found in the whole of the USA to conduct the one year performance test just happens to be a construct of Mr Rossi and his associate, Henry W. Johnson, specifically for the purpose of conducting the test.
          Now I appreciate some people are not finding any problems with all these unlikely events stacking up one after another to make an even less likely event, but they would have to at least accept the high probability that most people would not find these events likely to culminate in a believable outcome. Thus, completely in accordance with logical expectation, IH have spat the dummy and bailed out, or are trying to.
          On the point on JM chemicals, has there ever been any confirmation or indication that the so called parent company of JM Chemicals is in fact the well established ‘Johnson Matthey chemical Products’ who actually does make chemicals in the UK? It’s just that they always seem to use the name ‘Johnson Matthey’ rather than the abreviation of JM Chemical Products inc.
          Is there anything to stop someone else registering a business name JM Chemical Products Inc with no connection at all to the real JM Chemicals?
          It’s just that I find it a bit strange that a well established company like Johnson Matthey Chemical Products, which already have operations in the USA, would allow a relatively unknown entity like Mr Rossi to start up a company in their name in the USA over which they would have little or no control.