JM Chemical Products, Inc. is the Key Witness in the Rossi vs. Industrial Heat Case

The Penon ERV report apparently states that the 1MW E-Cat plant ran with an average COP of around 50 for the duration of the 1-year test. From what we have heard from people who say they have connections with Industrial Heat, IH does not dispute that the report states this — however they apparently do dispute the accuracy of this report. They apparently hold that it was not possible that 1MW of heat could have been provided by the plant. This must mean that they think that Penon was incompetent or fraudulent.

How can we get to the truth of this matter?

I think the key witness in this whole affair has to be JM Chemical Products, the customer who used the heat provided by the 1MW E-Cat Plant. So far, this customer is a very mysterious entity. Andrea Rossi has said that the company was set up specifically for this test, with the assistance of Henry Johnson, a Miami area attorney who is also a business associate of Rossi’s. According to documents filed with the court (see p. 25), the parent company of JM Chemical Products, Inc. is an unnamed UK company; Rossi has said that they did not want to be identified publicly.

If someone from JM Chemical Products gets on the witness stand and testifies that they did indeed receive an average of 1MW of heat for the duration of the test, it would certainly bolster Penon’s conclusions in the report. It would be important to be able to see as evidence this customer’s power bills, and also to see their production data, showing how much of their product was produced over the course of the test, and whether that product could have been produced with a lesser amount of energy input.

However we would still need to know whether this customer was a legitimate business, and not just some actor hired by Rossi and Johnson to tell lies to visitors and tell lies to the court. So in my mind, it would be very important to know who exactly is the parent company that had the JM Chemical Products Inc. set up, and also to know details about the product they were making, and how it was made.

From all accounts, this customer did not want any scrutiny. Industrial Heat personnel were not permitted to enter the customer’s facilities that were located in the same warehouse as the 1MW plant, but in a separate location behind a dividing wall. If called to testify in court, the customer might not want to disclose details about a production process which they seem to consider some kind of top secret proprietary process. Whether they can be compelled by a court to disclose trade secrets, I don’t know.

I can imagine that the web of secrecy surrounding this whole affair and all the intricacies involved could become very frustrating to the judge and jury alike. I hope that Judge Altonaga is a woman of common sense, and that she can make sure that the plain facts concerning the important aspects of the case come to light.

To my mind, if the facts are still elusive after all the discovery and testimony has taken place, perhaps the most effective thing she could do would be to order a new E-Cat test to take place, with a court-appointed independent expert or experts in place as a new ERV. It would not have to be a year-long test — maybe a week would suffice.
If Andrea Rossi can (or cannot), under order from the court, show that an E-Cat can produce a COP of around 50, as claimed in the ERV report, it would make things much simpler for the jury to come to a decision.

  • GiveADogABone

    Fabiani, USQL and Penon also played critical roles in the scheme to hide the fact that the Plant does not perform up to the standards set forth in the License Agreement… … Despite have full knowledge of the flaws, Penon nevertheless issued his false final report on March 28, 2016, claiming that guaranteed performance was achieved

    Methinks we are going to get to the numbers (or in IH speak flaws) somewhere along the line.

  • Hank Mills

    I hope we get some answers.

    Dear Andrea,

    You previously told me in response to a question:

    “Andrea Rossi
    April 24, 2016 at 4:22 PM

    Hank Mills:
    Your comment contains a big mistake: Johnson Matthey has nothing to do with us. We bought from them some materials but that is all. Please do not diffuse false information.
    No further comments.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.”

    Now, Industrial Heat claims that the customer sent them an invoice with the letter head identifying their company as,

    “J.M. Products, Inc. “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthew Platinum Sponges.”

    Here are my questions:

    1) Does J.M. Products have anything to do with Johnson Matthew? (Note, I mean Johnson Matthew with the name Matthew ending in a “w.”)

    2) Does Johnson Matthew, ending with a “w” have anything to do with the large well known UK based company Johnson Matthey ending with a “y”?

    3) Do you confirm that J.M. Products has a verifiable connection of some sort — as a subsidiary or affiliate — with Johnson Matthey, related to the production of a chemical product manufactured or processed at the Doral, Florida location?

    4)If the answer to all the above questions is that JM Products never had anything to do with Johnson Matthew (with a “w”) or Johnson Matthey (with “y”), will you identify the company based in the UK that is connected to JM Chemical Products — which you described had facilities across Europe?

    I think the answers to these questions are important as the overall situation becomes more bizarre and incomprehensible by the day.

    Sincerely,
    Hank

  • Hank Mills

    Andrea Rossi

    April 24, 2016 at 4:22 PM

    Hank Mills:

    Your comment contains a big mistake: Johnson Matthey has nothing to do
    with us. We bought from them some materials but that is all. Please do
    not diffuse false information.

    No further comments.

    Warm Regards

    A.R.

  • Hank Mills

    Very odd.

    Andrea Rossi told me specifically on the JONP that Johnson “Matthey” was not the customer and that they had only purchased a few things from them. But it seems he claimed to I.H. that Johnson “Matthew” was the parent company of JM.

    This needs to clarified by Rossi, immediately.

  • LuFong

    Another interesting tid bit. We’ve previously determined that during the test the 1MW plant was down a total of 10 days based on the calendar and start and end dates.

    Part of the IH filings include reports from J.M. Products (Henry Johnson) indicating amount of heat received. These reports are from June through December and do not include the early months nor the later months. The report indicates days full 1MWh/h were received and partial days.

    The interesting this is that over that time span 50 days were only 75% of the energy received. I would think that this would mean that 1MW plant was not operational for at least 50/4=12.5 days and this does not include the early months. Of course it depends on how this was counted but this is a reasonable way of accounting up time I would imagine so somehow the test terminated early.

    • GiveADogABone

      Now you really have got me interested.
      Six months =180 days
      75% = 50 days

      75% is one reactor slab being taken off line. That is exactly right the right reduction. Rossi was really working hard on repairs if a slab was out of action for 50 days in 180. The key thing to realize is that taking a slab off line does not reduce the CoP. I think IH do not realize that.

      Some 1MW Plant test results I made up :
      Power(kw) CoP
      1000 ……. 50
      1000 ……. 50

      1000 ……. 50
      1000 ……. 50
      750 …….. 50
      750 …….. 50
      750 …….. 50
      750 …….. 50
      750 …….. 50
      That is what happens when you take a slab off line.

      • LuFong

        Here are the month’s days at 1MWh/h and 750KWh/h

        June 26/4
        July 26/4
        August 15/16
        Sept 15/15
        Nov —–
        Dec 20/11

        • GiveADogABone

          Really helpful data, even if incomplete.

      • LuFong

        It may or may not reduce the COP especially as Rossi claimed that the COP was partially the result of synergisms. Cop only becomes a factor below 6 with regard to the GPT (I think). The other requirement is for 1MWh/h (I think).

        By the way IH defense for Count 1 is that 1MW plant in Florida was not the GPT.

        • GiveADogABone

          It is difficult to see synergisms between separate reactor slabs; inside each one then yes. If the overall CoP of the test was 50, then the reactors did not operate anywhere near 7 for any length of time.

          ‘The other requirement is for 1MWh/H.’
          We are going to have to disagree about that. The Licence Agreement clauses 4 & 5 need careful reading. The requirement was for Rossi to use his ‘best efforts’ to achieve Guaranteed Performance but reductions in performance were allowable.

          • LuFong

            Rossi claimed improvements derived from sysnergisms and fuel improvement gleaned from the Lugano test.

            I am only going on memory and I make mistakes. The contract specified performance consistent with the Validation test and things changed etc and I’m too lazy to look it up and wordsmith all the nuances and amendments and partial information.

            The bottom line is that Rossi said the customer required 1MWh/h from his 1MW plant.

            • GiveADogABone

              This is what the Licence Agreement states :-

              ‘Each of Leonardo and Rossi will use their commercially reasonably best efforts

              to cause Guaranteed Performance to be achieved,

              including making repairs, adjustments and alterations to the Plant as needed

              to achieve Guaranteed Performance.’

              This
              is not just a permission to repair, adjust and alter; it is a duty to
              do it. Running backup reactors for as short a time as possible to
              remain at full power is not only allowable, it is REQUIRED to the
              standard of ‘best efforts’. Having to run part-loaded is a failure of
              this standard to some degree but that does not make part-load running a total no-no and a breach …

              • LuFong

                As I said it had to perform at the level of the Validation test whatever that was. But this is all moot as IH is claiming that it wasn’t the GPT.

        • Chapman

          Thanks for the document dump. You are now officially My Hero! 🙂

      • LuFong

        I’m not sure what a slab is and I’m not sure what reactor was used in the 1MW plant but this is the picture of a reactor from Exhibit 3.

        • GiveADogABone

          The test plant had 4x250kw reactors that I call slabs and Rossi called Tigers and also a backup plant of old 100x10kw reactors. The backups were run for the first four days and then never restarted. The 4x250kw Tigers then carried the whole duty. The reduction to 750kw output is one of the 250kw reactors coming off line.

          • LuFong

            It’s more complicated then that I think. There is non one-to-one relationship between E-Cats and reactors. There is some information about that as well in the Exhibits which I will include below for information purposes.

            This comes from Exhibit 5 which is a list of questions from a IH technical lead about Penon’s test. You would probably enjoy reading it and I will look into making it available. In the mean time here is one part:

            • GiveADogABone

              Thanks again for that. I struggle to interpret it at present but all this data needs assembling to get a better picture.

          • LuFong

            OK. I put everything on Google Drive. Not sure how this will work but the link for the directory is

            https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5ZV0oKQafY4bHhOZHlBZFZ4MG8

            You want to see Exhibit 5

            • Frank Acland

              Thanks very much for that link, LuFong. I’ve put it in the post above.

            • GiveADogABone

              I have added a link to a 1MW plant photo just above.

              I can read the google drive, so that is a big thanks for that.

  • GiveADogABone

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3560-The-Industrial-Heat-Answer/?postID=31156#post31156
    Likewise no real surprises for the counterclaims — except for the “actor” James Bass/John Doe.

    It seems possible that James Bass works for Johnson Matthey in Cambridge, England and plays football for the Johnson Matthey team on Sundays. Otherwise he may be a John Doe as claimed by IH. I have seen an IH statement that a James Bass handed over a business card with the title of Director of Engineering. Now I cannot find that statement, hopefully it will turn up again.

    http://football.mitoo.co/PlayersHistory2.cfm?PI=95623&LeagueCode=hoc2006
    ALL COMPETITIONS : Player’s Appearances – Bass James
    Division 2B Johnson Matthey XPO 1 1 Sawston Keys Reserves Sun 10 Sep
    Cambridge & District Sunday Football League

    http://www.matthey.com/contactus/whereweoperate
    Cambridge
    28 Cambridge Science Park
    Milton Road
    Cambridge
    CB4 0FP

    Tel: 44 (0) 1223 226160
    Fax: 44 (0) 1223 438037
    Divisions: Fine Chemicals

    • LuFong

      That’s pretty good. I did a quick search earlier and couldn’t find a hit. The record you point to is from 2006 I think.

      Given that that Johnson Matthey has a division in Tennessee I would expect him to be from there. The business card displayed in Exhibit 20 shows J.M Products with an address of Doral, Florida.

      • GiveADogABone

        I think we can be confident that the Johnson Matthey connection was being disguised. This could easily be a headquarters research project, rather than production site based and they are a global company. IH do not tell us if James spoke with an American or an English accent.

        • LuFong

          What bothers me about this is that they named it J.M. Products. If they were *trying* to disguise their customer, you would think they would pick a different name?

          The business card looks very unprofessional to me as well, like someone made it at home and printed it out.

          • GiveADogABone

            I take your point but the connection to sponge manufacture and Johnson Matthey was after a lot of research based from this blogsite. It seems IH never did discover the true identity and continued to think it was all a hoax. IH may well find Rossi has told nothing but the truth.

            • LuFong

              Rossi denied it was Johnson Matthey. Of course he didn’t lie because it was Johnson Matthew 🙂

            • LuFong

              I think some of the information came from Matt Lewan’s web site.

              If they saw an early energy report and weren’t too careful they would conclude it was indeed Johnson Matthey.

  • LuFong

    IH Answer is out. Don’t see the ERV in it.

    Here’s a tid bit from a letter head from Henry Johnson:

    J.M. Products, Inc
    Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthew Platinum Sponges

    Intentional or mistake? Coming from a lawyer I have to wonder.

    • GiveADogABone

      I do not want to seem pickky but the Johnson Matthey I know ends in ‘y’. I would have expected a letterhead to be able to get that right.

      http://www.matthey.com/about_us/products-technologies

      • LuFong

        Exactly.

        • GiveADogABone

          Do we have a number of conspiracy theories yet?

          • LuFong

            We’ll hear some doozies over the next few months!

  • Mats002

    Darden et al claim a conspiracy from many people; Rossi, Penon, the customer, the lawyer, IH people too:

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3560-The-Industrial-Heat-Answer/?postID=30974#post30974

    No details yet…

  • GiveADogABone

    You need sound technical advice :-
    http://www.instructables.com/id/edible-party-hat/

    Much more reliable than resurrection.

  • Omega Z

    Thr ERV provided quarterly reports to both Industrial heat/Darden and Andrea Rossi. It is these reports that Rossi compared his own observations.

    As to F&P thinking they would have a breakthrough within a year.
    There were several issue’s they were not fully aware of.
    They didn’t know whether impurities or purity was of importance
    In addition, the technology just wasn’t advanced enough for the task at the time.

    As to Hot Fusion. Even should they eventually accomplish the task, it will never be cheap, plentiful or safe for use. There are a lot of issues with this technology they do not tell you. But hey, it’s a job with prestige and it pays the bills.

    • Steve D

      So the source was from quarterly reports. Thanks Omega Z

  • GiveADogABone

    That last point was made in the national news last night. Families who do not talk at all, even when in the same room; they just text.

  • GiveADogABone

    1: ‘I pulled the 320 number out of my butt.’
    Worry not; I knew that you did not have a copy of the test data.

    2: ‘Finally, the “best efforts” clause is a provision against Rossi “taking a dive”‘
    I agree and as I stated, ‘This is not just a permission to repair, adjust and alter; it is a duty to do it.’ I think we are saying the same thing in slightly different ways.

    3: ‘but that when [the backups] had to be used it would be understood that such periods must be considered “inactive” times for the primary system being tested.’
    So were the four days of running on the backups[Ref 1:] at the beginning of the test part of the valid test days or not?

    Did this understanding get put into written form and included in the Licence Agreement? Do you evidence on the point?

    4: Some 1MW Plant test results I made up :
    Power(kw) CoP
    1000 ……. 50
    1000 ……. 50

    1000 ……. 50
    1000 ……. 50
    750 …….. 50
    750 …….. 50
    750 …….. 50
    750 …….. 50
    750 …….. 50

    750 …….. 50
    750 …….. 50
    750 …….. 50
    1000 ……. 50
    1000 ……. 50
    1000 ……. 50
    1000 ……. 50
    What is going on here? [Ref 2:]
    Is that possible?
    IH thinks it is unsubstantiated.
    Rossi knows the answer and so do I.

    [1:] http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/08/06/a-clearer-picture-of-the-1-mw-e-cat-plant-emerges/
    We have in the same container two sections, one with the small E-Cats and one with the 4 Tigers, each section with a power of 1 MW. The strategy consists in using the 4 tigers, maintaining as a reserve the small E-Cats.

    Then, as backup there are 100 or so small reactors. I asked Rossi why they did not automatically kick in when one of the Tigers was taken offline for repair recently.

    He replied:
    I try not to consume the reserves, to maintain them intact in case of serious failure of one or more “Tigers”. For short reparations it is not necessary to turn on the reserve. That is my safety boat if the ship sinks. This is the strategy. As a consequence of this strategy, we do not use the reserve together with the fighting “division”. We turned it on for several days at the beginning of the test, just to check it working, then turned it off and used only the 4 x 250.

    [2:] http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=885&cpage=6#comment-1107034
    Andrea Rossi
    August 4, 2015 at 5:24 PM

    This morning at 2 a.m. we had again a problem to one of the four 250 kW reactors. We lost the 25% of the production until 4 p.m. ( a couple of hours ago), when the reactor has been put again at work.
    Normal behavior regarding the rest of the plant. The “M.Me Curie” Hot Cat is not yet ready. In few words: a battle day. Now we are looking at the computers to check that all is set. The Murphy Law is enforced by the fact that problems happens always between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., when I am in the plant alone, apart the officers of the security. I spend the nights with the fatigue clothes to be ready to dive in the plant. Therefore for me is a sadistic solace to phone at 3 a.m. to my teamsters, saying ” We have a problem, please come here asap” ( he,he,he).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • GiveADogABone

    Another day, another insight.
    I accept in full your thesis that the attack comes through #3 (valid test days>350). We now know more about :-

    ‘Each of Leonardo and Rossi will use their commercially reasonably best efforts

    to cause Guaranteed Performance to be achieved,

    including making repairs, adjustments and alterations to the Plant as needed

    to achieve Guaranteed Performance.’

    This is not just a permission to repair, adjust and alter; it is a duty to do it. Running backup reactors for as short a time as possible to remain at full power is not only allowable, it is REQUIRED to the standard of ‘best efforts’. Having to run part-loaded is a failure of this standard to some degree but that does not make part-load running a total no-no and a breach …

    … but it does give IH a window, however small, to claim that ‘best efforts’ were not made, if the Plant did run for a while on perhaps thirty (your number) occasions at reduced output.

    It is nit-picking but the hole is there. That is why Rossi spent eighteen hours a day in the containers – to demonstrate ‘best efforts’ that IH could not possibly criticize.

    What these clowns in IH do not understand is that when the enthalpy transfer drops, the CoP does NOT drop because the electrical power ALSO drops. They have found the places in the records where the enthalpy transfer drops and they think that the CoP is ‘unsubstantiated’, which is of course total garbage.

  • wpj

    You will see it was changed again…………….Trying to get further away from the identity of the client…………… Maybe you can have the same name if the company is in different states in the US

  • GiveADogABone

    You are a gentleman Sir and I mean with the greatest respect.
    Most fun I have had for quite a while.
    We, at our age, now need to conserve our energy for the big day tomorrow.
    PS
    I might just do a screen dump and frame it.
    Even better, put it on my CV.
    Actually, I threw my CV away years ago.

  • Engineer48

    Hi EEStor.

    The name change is as per the Flordia company registration site. It seems the change on the linked court document was prior to that.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I don’t think you know the facts surrounding the Rossi testing with NASA. If you know the facts please give them to us, with your sources. You said, “Give it to NASA” right, how naive! I cannot help it if you are ignorant of what multi-national corporations and billionaires are doing to our Democracy by undermining our economy, buying elections, writing, lobbying for and passing legislation favorable to them They have the power and money to control LENR and they will unless a lot of light is put on the subject and individual intellectual property rights are protected. You did not respond to my accusation you do not believe in LENR?

  • GiveADogABone

    In a previous answer you stated :-
    ‘you are trying to interpret that some things, such as the use of backups, or partial operation, were allowable …’

    Depending on whether or not you allow a spare reactor to start, I ask:-
    Not allowed :
    If not allowed to start a spare reactor the total power level of the E-cat drops. Does that not force a breach of ‘Leonardo and Rossi will use their commercially reasonably best efforts to cause Guaranteed Performance(GP) to be achieved, including making repairs, adjustments and alterations to the Plant as needed to achieve [GP]?

    Are you not forcing ‘partial operation’ by refusing to allow a spare reactor to start? You stated above that partial operation was not allowable?

    Allowed :
    If I am permitted to start one reactor why would I not be allowed to start two? etc, etc

    If I am permitted to start one spare reactor in the 1MW plant, why am I not permitted to start two[its 2x10kW] in the backup plant to restore [GP]? I am after all required to us use my best efforts to cause [GP] to be achieved.

    ===============================================

    You stated in a previous answer :-
    ‘They already DID the validation test and demonstrated the ability to produce the reported energy at the designated COP.’

    Was there any requirement for the purposes of Validation to report the energy and if so where is that requirement stated?