Industrial Heat Responds to Rossi's Complaints

As expected, Industrial Heat has responded to the complaints Andrea Rossi has made in the lawsuit.

Here’s a link to the main document, there are other files for various exhibits which will be added later.

[pdf-embedder url=””] document.

There is lots of reading to do and I am sure there will be lots to analyze and discuss. More to follow.

Thanks to LuFong for putting all the Exhibits mentioned in the IH answer in a Google Drive folder here:

Here is a key allegation made in the counterclaim by Industrial Heat:

“7.Beyond the fact that Guaranteed Performance could not be achieved in the required time period, Leonardo and Rossi knew that the Plant could not produce a COP of 10.0 or greater (or even a COP or 4.0 or greater) for 350 out of 400 days. As a result, Leonardo and Rossi manipulated the testing process by, among other things, 1) insisting that the Plant be relocated to Miami, far away from Industrial Heat’s offices, to provide steam to a purported manufacturing “customer” that did not actually exist; 2) manipulating, along with Fabiani, the operation of the Plant and the reports of the Plant’s purported operations, to make it appear that the Plant was producing a COP far greater than 10.0; and 3) enlisting Penon to produce a false report stating that Guaranteed Performance was achieved.

8. “Eventually Counter-Plaintiffs discovered that the test that Leonardo and Rossi
were conducting, in conjunction with the supposed “customer” in Miami, was not a real test at all,
but a carefully scripted effort to deceive Counter-Plaintiffs into 1) providing Leonardo and Rossi
with credibility in their efforts to license and promote the E-Cat IP to others and/or obtain
investments from others in their business ventures, 2) making the third payment under the
License Agreement to Leonardo, 3) paying a multitude of expenses of Leonardo and Rossi
including in connection with their operations in Florida, and 4) paying Penon and Fabiani for
services not rendered and reimbursing them for unnecessary expenses. ” (p. 25-26)

“77. Notwithstanding that Leonardo and Rossi allowed visitors to the facility in Doral
where the Plant was located on a fairly regular basis, in July 2015, Rossi denied Murray access
to the Plant without any reasonable justification. See Ex. 19. Had Murray – given his
established engineering background – been allowed to access the Plant in July 2015, he would
have immediately recognized the deficiencies in the operations that were being conducted by
Leonardo and Rossi.

“78. Indeed, when Murray eventually gained access to the Plant in February 2016 and
examined the Plant, the methodology being used to operate the Plant, and the methodology being
used to measure those operations, he immediately recognized that those methodologies were
fatally flawed. Some of the flaws that he was quickly able to identify are explained in Exhibit 5.

“79. Leonardo, Rossi, JMP, and Johnson also restricted access to the JMP area at the
Doral location, claiming that there was a secretive manufacturing process being conducted there,
when in fact it was simply recycling steam from the Plant and sending it back to the Plant as

“80. Leonardo, Rossi, JMP, Johnson and Fabiani even went so far as to create a
fictional JMP employee – James A. Bass, Director of Engineering for JMP. Despite diligent
search, Counter-Plaintiffs have not been able to identify or locate this individual, for the simple reason that he does not exist. Rather, Leonardo, Rossi, JMP, Johnson and Fabiani created this fictional person as a means of making JMP appear to be a real manufacturing company that
would need a Director of Engineering and to create a person with whom they would allegedly
interact on technical issues involving JMP’s non-existent operations and operational needs.
They even had an individual pose as James Bass in a meeting with Industrial Heat and express
JMP’s satisfaction with the steam power JMP was receiving from the Plant and using to run its
manufacturing operations. Attached as Exhibit 20 is a copy of the business card provided by this
JOHN DOE representing himself as JMP’s “Director of Engineering.” (p. 45-46)

1,156 Replies to “Industrial Heat Responds to Rossi's Complaints”

  1. Really looking forward to the Exhibitions. Only so much we can get from the document itself, though still plenty to look over. Mostly exactly as some commentators here, like Gerard, expected to see.

    I am assuming when they admit and deny a “paragraph”, they mean the exact paragraph in the relevant subsection of the original Complaint.

  2. Everyone has to be honest with themselves and accept that if even one of the multiple allegations against Rossi is proven true in a court of law, there is little doubt Rossi is a fraud.

    1. Which allegations, though? For instance, the IH counter makes the point that it could be Rossi didn’t transfer all of the IP to them, and if that is true in some technical way, that wouldn’t be fraud though it would very much be a break of the LA. “Even one” is a little too broad, unfortunately. The converse is true for the claims against IH as well, which they admit to quite a number of. Some aren’t all that important in magnitude or context compared to others.

      1. There are plenty of disturbing allegations revolving around a common theme of deception, lies, underhandedness, scheming, conspiracy, and fraud. I highly doubt ALL of them will be disproved.

        1. Guess we’ll have to see :)! The same is true for IH. That’s the great part about this being in court, as the Court will force all the facts into the open and actually evaluate them all.

        2. Try to disprove god – or prove him.

          It will be down to those given the task of weighing the evidence to decide.

          1. The court’s task is much easier in this case. Either Rossi can back up his claims or he cannot. Bob, you of all people should see that the mounting evidence of fraud against Rossi is disheartening and if proven true, will be yet another setback for LENR.

          2. You seem to be assuming some of these IH counter-claims are sound. We do not know that yet, at all.

            The fact that there are 20, or 50, or 100 dodgy counter-claims in no way demonstrates fraud by Rossi, just a lot of imagination and creativity by IH’s lawyers.

            As Observer commented, let’s wait for the proof of the pudding.

            Personally, this is starting to smell to me more and more like an attempt to buy time for ?? [something] by slowing Rossi down.

          3. They better be sound and vetted by Jones Day or someone is going to jail for perjury. You don’t just introduce fraud claims for the fun of it.

          4. What will be will be, for me, it makes little difference – we have observed in live experiments data that points to an anomaly – including that which shows a source of nuclear origin.

            People say the damnedest things in a divorce – sometimes quite cringe-worthy.

          5. You fail to see the power in the sworn allegations alone. In the American courts, a large corporation and top law firm don’t decide on a whim or in “anger” to voluntarily bring fraud claims before the court unless you are damn sure you aren’t going to ruin your reputation and get thrown in jail for perjury.

          6. Works both ways. All lawyers have to verify the Complaints they make on behalf of their clients, otherwise they get Rule 11’d, and terrible things happen to them. And any materially false evidence is perjury, so it’ll be interesting to see the response by Rossi’s lawyer.

          7. Yes, but alleging fraud and eluding/renouncing fraud are two different things. The alleging of fraud introduces a higher risk of perjury if you lying. It’s much easier to “elude” and dance around fraud claims made against you. Don’t you think Jones Day looked into each allegation with the knowledge that their reputation is hanging on each one which might be false?

          8. And same for Rossi’s lawyer. That’s the thing. You can’t apply such a rule of logic to one without doing it to the other. It is the weight of evidence that’ll matter in the end, as always. Someone is right and someone is wrong; but both sides could be presenting the facts as true from their point of view, yet incomplete to the actual story (so neither is lying materially, yet either could be wrong about the actual story and the way the law will rule).

          9. As I understand the matter, making fraud claims and being unable to substantiate them before a jury can affect the jury’s opinion about your other claims.

          10. Perjury is for evidence, but Rule 11 covers any false statements made in a Complaint or as part of any other claim. As I have previously linked it, it is a very serious matter to make a false statement in a Complaint or any other document submitted to the Court, and one will suffer consequences.

          11. Here’s the link again, if it’ll help you and others

            Note, that if the Defendant makes factual lies in the Answer, they are also subject to Rule 11 (like any false statement made to the Court)–answer–to-a-complaint-was-full-of–493362.html , but the best counter is to do Discovery. Lying in Discovery (that is, lying in evidence submitted to the Court) is perjury. Once Rossi’s lawyer makes the counter to IH’s Answer, they will probably both begin demanding Discovery against each other’s factual claims.

          1. Guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty? Some folks seem to like applying the former to Rossi and then the latter to IH, instead of the latter to both.

          2. I want everyone in LENR to succeed, but I also want Rossi punished and neutered if he is found to be a fraudster. From my desire to see the potential of LENR fully realized, I believe he is hurting the industry and more likely than not deceiving those around him.

          3. So you have already passed judgement.

            On the basis of the number of accusations?

            Let’s wait and see the pudding (were the proof is).

          4. I too eagerly await the truth, but don’t see the logic in accepting where IH would commit fraud to prove fraud against Rossi. For example, Rossi needs to come clean about the supposed customer (JM) and the existence or not of one James A. Bass and their affiliation or not with Johnson Matthey.

          5. And the fraudulent scheme is squarely involving the purported performance of the plant, so the customer is still irrelevant other than as character evidence really.

          6. To add to what Observer asked, what relevance does the customer have at all? If the plant worked or not makes no difference who the customer is or isn’t, and there is nothing in the LA or amendments that stipulate who the customer must be (other than to be somewhere to house the plant for a test), so what is the point? And IH certainly doesn’t seem to deny that they were paid for the heat by the customer, so far as I have yet seen.

          7. What matters is that the plant was moved to Florida to sell power to this customer, not for the Guaranteed Performance Test, which if IH were still willing to allow, they would presumably want to take place where they could supervise it. Take a look at the notifications from Johnson of power delivered. This was an unbelievably clumsy fraud. They don’t bother to come up with believable numbers based on actual measurement, someone pulled these numbers out of their butt.

          8. ROTFLMAO.

            The customer doesn’t say how much power they got in the real world.

            Thank goodness the Customer steam-o-matic power meter worked so well.
            IH would otherwise wonder if they made enough steam… Good thing the Customer measures steam power in nice, giant increments….And asks so nicely to send a bill to them. With a grade 5 level invoice.

          9. I dunno, I’ve seen invoices similar, but I am by no means an expert in invoices. Large increments would be expected with large amounts of energy like what was supposedly being produced, so I don’t have a problem with that. Averaging and rounding may be expected since this isn’t a utility situation, but a pure win for IH. We definitely need more info about that arrangement.

          10. Heh. “Johnson Matthew.” Did I say “Matthey”? Obviously, a slip of the tongue. Tis purely a coincidence the similarity of these names.

            It’s looking to me like Johnson is screwed, blued, and tattooed unless he gets smart really fast and deals with IH. Still, we will see how he Answers.

          11. I agree that if he is shown to be committing fraud, he would need to be punished to the full extent of the law, and the same goes for IH. But for now, I have to view them both as innocent until the there is sufficient evidence.

          12. So it’s better to be in an abusive relationship than no relationship? CF/LENR already has a black eye in the public and any proof of fraud by Rossi will not help.

          13. WOW, you just like to argue. From the perspective of people wanting to be famous, even bad publicity is better than no publicity. Now you are trying to correct Oscar Wilde by comparing apples to oranges, instead of seeing the humor in it.

          14. I’m sorry, but I fail to see the humour in pretty serious accusations of fraud against Rossi. LENR/Cold Fusion already has such a sad history of bias, disappointment, tarnished careers, and false hope. I don’t think it needs a new chapter with the same old story.

          15. Rossi and his group now have the burden to prove they weren’t committing fraud among the other accusations. It’s important to note with Jones Day representing IH, this law firm has the resources to make sure they aren’t helping assist in perpetuating a fraud upon the court by bringing false or fictitious accusations.

          16. Really?

            I always thought that the party making the accusation had the burden of proof. Rossi has to prove his accusations against IH and IH has to prove their accusations against Rossi

            But I am not a lawyer (see, still have my soul ;o) ).

          17. The American justice system. If I sue you and said you wronged me, I have to bring the action, but you better defend yourself and prove you did not wrong me or I win by default.

        3. Sure there is a common theme of deception, it’s I.H.s filing of a counter suit against Rossi. Did you think they were going to file a ‘Love Letter’ to Rossi. Get a grip. Now it will be Rossi’s turn to respond. Let’s see how hot this e-cat can get.

          1. No love letter indeed. You have to think deeper though, this an official pleading with the court, so on some of these allegations either IH is perpetuating a fraud on the court or Rossi actually committed fraud. Either James A. Bass exists or IH lied to the court. JM exists and has products, billing, etc. or not. Someone is going down for fraud.

          2. Too early to determine any relevance to what you just wrote, and too much binary thinking. Complex court cases have a habit of uncovering totally unexpected results from the plebiscite pundit speculations. There is much private material to be discovered.

      1. What does it matter? I’ve posted here as a guest for years as Publius and will not be posting my true name. What many of you don’t realize here is that IH is going for the throat and it wouldn’t make sense for them to do so unless Rossi actually defrauded them and they had proof. Jones Day and IH are not going to commit perjury and introduce fraud claims before the court in what essentially began as a contract dispute. Introducing fraud raises the bar and also raises the bar for what proof IH will have to show in order to avoid perjury charges. Some of these allegations leave little room for discussion; fraud will be shown to have been committed by one or more of the parties.

        1. I’ve pointed this out in the other direction. If the charges against Rossi et al are not proven, Jones Day and IH are not exposed to “perjury charges.” The statements in pleadings are not attested, under oath. There is a general immunity. It is not absolute, there can be exceptions, but nothing here rises to that level, on either side.

          1. As long as what they say is materially true, they are fine, but not if it is materially false–but they can just be telling a part of the story and the interpretation is wrong once all the facts are known. That’s how works in almost all cases. Also, a Complaint has no immunity after 21 days; so if false statements are not corrected by then, they are in deep trouble with the Court. I already linked you some of the legal stuff about that previously.

          2. Ged, what you linked before did not show what you claimed. You were claiming vulnerability to perjury charges, which is impossible for pleadings that are not attested. 21 days is the time to amend a pleading as a matter of course. “No immunity” to what? Source or citation?

          3. The overall point being that under Rule 11(b),”[b]y presenting to the court a pleading,
            written motion, or other paper–whether by signing, filing, submitting,
            or later advocating it–an attorney or unrepresented party certifies
            that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief,
            formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” that the
            material presented is not filed for an improper purpose and has the
            requisite degree of evidentiary and legal support. It’s seems highly improbable Jones Day would allow so many fraud allegations and open themselves up to possible sanctions without having a solid factual foundation for them.

          4. Hi Publius,

            If IH’s claims are found to be false, Jones Day would say, they acted in good faith, based on the information supplied to them by their clients.

          5. My point, as an outsider to the true facts, is what are the odds that IH is making up a dozen or more false allegations of fraud and deception? Again, Jones Day has the DUTY to make sure these accusations are factual in basis and law.

          6. Hi Publius,

            Jones Day bills their clients for following their instructions. That is now they make a living.

            They are not engineers or LENR scientists. They have no ability to know about LENR reactors. They have no ability “to make sure these accusations are factual in basis”.

            The only technical report, item 5, is very weak and easy to defend against.

            As an engineer, who understand the involved engineering, all I see is lawyer smoke and no solid technical claim that can refute the COP > 50 claim.

          7. Thank you. What you say “lawyer smoke and no solid technical claim that can refute the COP > 50 claim.” This all it, the court case, is from my thesis about the IH side of the court saga. Accordingly this upholds the thesis that IH is just using the court case not as a serious attempt to discredit Rossi or the E-CAT’ workings. It is all about the final bit of due diligence to see if there might be anything to make investors wary about putting their money into LENR from the side of Industrial Heat and Rossi’s version. When, not if, the E-Cat operation as a dependable source of high COP energy is confirmed by the court then everyone will get their money’s worth, including Rossi’s $89 million, IH/Cherokee their investors

      2. Publius:

        The pseudonym used by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay as authors of the Federalist papers.

        The Roman poet known as Virgil was actually named Publius Vergilius Maro.

        A username that EMI Records used when posting hints about a puzzle associated with the Pink Floyd album, The Division Bell. The “Publius Enigma” was supposedly never solved and the prize remains unclaimed.

        Personally, I would go with this username being a paid PR hack. 😉

    1. August 6, 2016 at 12:32 PM
      Dr Andrea Rossi:
      What do you think of the counterclaims made by IH deposited today ? It seems to me that they shoot at their feet, because they collected millions of dollars based on the reports made by the ERV during the first nine months of the test ! I think they made heavy slanders, you should not have difficulty to defend your position.
      How do you comment ?

      Andrea Rossi
      August 6, 2016 at 1:13 PM
      I do not comment on issues that have to be treated in Court.
      My Attorney and I are already working to prepare our due response.
      Warm Regards

      1. IH does admit in their response to raising large amounts of money (including from Woodford) involving all this.

        Still, have to see how Rossi’s attorney responds. With the MTD, we saw a dramatic difference in quality between IH and Rossi’s attorneys in the responses, so it’ll be interesting to see if the same occurs again or if IH’s lawyers have finally stepped up.

  3. On JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi August 6, 2016 at 3:51 PM
    Peter Gluck:
    Thank you for your link.
    Within several days our Attorney will assess the slanders in due mode. I
    cannot comment anything that has to be issued in Court, but I can say
    we are in possess of all the evidence necessary to dismantle the
    slanders of our foe.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

  4. 9. p26
    Essentially it seams, unless I am mistaken, that they are saying that since they could not get the IP to work as claimed in their own private testing, they conclude that the device must not work.

    They are potentially missing one obvious conclusion, that their testers are incapable of following instructions, perhaps there is some aspect that they have overlooked that was technically in the disclosure of IP that they are inadvertently not adhering to – Piantelli says that in his experiments, there are more than a dozen parameters that if any one of them is not fully conformed to – no excess heat will be seen.

    If there are just 13 parameters, then there are 13! or 6.23 billion ways to get the experiment wrong.

    You need to have understanding and insight into what is going on to get this right – that is to say – just trying to blindly follow instructions is not going to cut it.

    1. They also admit to the patent filed in Europe, which said the COP was 11, and was by all accounts their test not involving Rossi (and to which they make no counter against that, or at least none I have noticed yet). But then also say they deny that the European office duly and legally published that patent. A big “huh?”

      Have to see what the evidence drags up to untangle all this.

      There are some other weird bits in the Counter, such as saying they can’t confirm or deny that the E-cat is the IP of Rossi, but then admitting Rossi has made numerous patents and other IP related applications. A lot of it is extreme technicalities of language, like allegation that the COP was not more than 10 and that Rossi and Fabiani worked to make it look more than 10; but that still puts it above 2.7 (and 6). Lots of weird stuff; and a great amount of their defense is focused on arguing the difference between the License Agreement and the Second Amendment and which was valid or not. I really can’t wait to see the Exhibitions.

      1. Ged, you don’t understand law and legal process. One may make alternate defenses and charges that appear contradictory. With certain facts claimed by Rossi, they state they can neither affirm nor deny them.

        1. Lomax… If the E-cat is Rossi’s IP is not something they should say they can’t confirm or deny. It is apropos to their own actions and the statements in the very next paragraph. Come on now.

          1. Perhaps they can’t confirm or deny in that they have relied upon LC/Rossi’s attestations.

          2. But next paragraph acknowledge all the IP related filings by Rossi. Also, how could Rossi sell them what isn’t his IP? They also acknowledge the patents. It is just irrational posturing as they decide what defense to take in regards to the IP challenges.

      2. Just IH’s way of seeing what will stick. Non or any of it may or may not have merit in actuality. As long as the court case clears up everything that matters for business/investment purposes in favor of their particular E-Cat system ( the one used in the one year test) is all that matters. This is required to convince IH and its investors that this unusual tech is worth investing in. A complex bit of due diligence. Due diligence requires thorough examination. The court case as it is unfolding should be the last and most thorough bit of due diligence examination that can be made. This from a non legal little mind, mine. But it would make sense out of the whole without having to sift through too much. Some times simple answers are the most probable.

    2. They don’t deny producing excess / anomalous heat using their own “modified” version of the e-Cat. The denial language is all directed to the e-Cat IP *directly* received from Leonardo / Rossi.

      1. Only after realizing that the screws had to be screwed in clockwise and not counter clockwise (which was not specified in the SOP) were we able to get the device working.

    3. Uh, Bob, this is not an “experiment,” it is a commercial device supposedly ready to go. If the device is not described adequately in the IP and patents, Rossi defraued IH from the get-go.

      1. Uh, Abd, I am talking of IHs efforts.

        We don’t know what was disclosed and how much attention was paid by the listeners to the detail. We do know that in our own work, with full cooperation from Celani, we discovered gotchas after well over a year of experiments that Celani took for granted we would know – actually, there was no deliberate deception – it was just a case of it was so obvious to him that someone should know that he didn’t think to mention some things. That is the point about “those skilled in the art” in relationship to patents. We were not skilled in the art – but we are more skilled now – but there are surely many ways to get this to not work.

    4. Bob, another possibility makes all the events and arguments make sense.
      The possibility is that Rossi has withheld some key parameter(s) from IH, as a way to balance the power dynamic between him and a 2 billion dollar fund, Cherokee. If he did not do so, he is in a weak position, reliant on only a contract and a few million dollars to go up against a 2 billion dollar fund that would become a 2 trillion dollar fund once they disclose they have the holy grail, “the new fire”. If this possibility is true, one could speculate that Rossi expected IH not to pay, given he knew they couldn’t get the reactor to work, and wants the court case as a way to make the contract much more bullet proof, perhaps renegotiate it, before he hands over that final key parameter.
      Let’s face it, Rossi with a few million, against a 2 trillion fund, is unlikely to prevail, no matter how “right” he is.

      It could be the wise strategic move of an inventor who has been cheated several times in his life. Rossi sued the day after the payment was due, looks like he was prepared and ready and, perhaps, wanted this court case.
      If this scenario is correct, all the arguments and statements so far, make sense, when you look at it from each side.

      From IH’s perspective, there is no excess heat despite them trying for months / years to use Rossi’s instructions. Rossi is either refusing to give the correct instructions or the whole thing is a fraud. Attempts to check the one year test site were unsatisfactory as Rossi blocked their full inquiry.

      From Rossi’s perspective, he is still not comfortable giving the correct instructions to IH because the power dynamic is strongly weighted against him, he knows he has passed the one year test and knows that IH can’t get a reactor to work and likely won’t pay the $89 million. He won’t let them fully evaluate the one year test setup because he wants IH to either accept the terms as they are, or go to court. In this scenario, Rossi has planned to run this through a US federal court “before” IH and Cherokee are worth 2 trillion as a way to remain a player in this technology. Once the case is settled in US federal court, the only way to challenge it is to an appeal to the federal appeals court. If that fails, there is the US supreme court and no further appeals are possible. An appeal does not give many options, basically it has to argue that the lower court made a mistake, hard to do.

      Basically, once this decision is made by this court, it’s quite bullet proof as far as the US is concerned. That might be the whole point of the exercise, a bullet proof agreement.

  5. At least some fog has cleared, next stage will be Rossi’s attorney answer to the counterclaims. I can’t wait to see the next chapters. I am always amazed by people that take a very strong position when there is so much to explain for every possible scenario. A new thing here is that Hydrofusion may not like Rossi’s past attitude, but we already knew that he can be a very ruthless businessman from how
    he revoked the licenses to Prometeon and others when he believed to have found a better

    Regarding the fraud scenario I have some general observations:
    1. Either the Ecat works or it is a very very large fraud involving many accomplices in the span of years. Rossi could never have pulled it alone. For example I can believe that Fabiani has told the truth or I can believe that he is an accomplice but I can’t believe that he’s an utter idiot.
    2. The lawsuit has been initiated by Rossi himself and I can’t explain why a fraudster would do that, and much less why the accomplices would go along with him.
    3. If it is fraud, why Rossi has always choose the most unlikely targets like Enel, Defkalion, Nasa, IH while spending huge amount of money without return for years? He could have easily made millions by selling licenses, pre-orders and shares to less savy people but always refused to do so.
    4. How do we explain the positive tests made when Rossi wasn’t present or the fact that he offered the Ecat to independent tests? Never heard a scammer doing so or being so incredibly lucky.

    I don’t have any answer, I just want to remind people that whatever way this story will end it must answer all the open questions and not just a part of them.

    1. As to your #1, there is more wiggle room:
      1b. The e-cat does work but not well. It has problems maintaining high output under certain to be discovered conditions.
      But wow, IH is going full bore on this one, and there are snippets of truth: fake/shell company is the big one. Anyway, the process of discovery will dig out the truth wherever it lies.

      1. And we already know from when the Judge dismissed the Conspiracy count from Rossi’s Complaint that IH and IPH are just shells for Cherokee, though they attempt to pretend otherwise (and then still admit it). Perhaps business is all just one big shell game ;).

        1. No, we don’t know that about Cherokee. Rather, the judge simply took Rossi’s crazy claim that Cherokee wholly owned IH. In fact, it appears that no Cherokee money went into IH at all. IH was formed because Darden et al wanted to jump into LENR, and they did their research and they knew what they were doing. They could not have ethically invested Cherokee money in this kind of venture. So could the conspiracy claim come back? I noticed the problem back then. It could, but it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of making it past Summary Judgment, my opinion.

          1. Hm, I’ve been going through the Exhibitions, but I haven’t yet come across evidence that IH was not owned by Cherokee. Did they provide an exhibition on that, and if so, do you have the number handy, as it takes awhile to read through each one properly.

            I have noticed the e-mail addresses of Darden and Vaughn change from to Seems to perhaps belie when they deny Vaughn was a manager at Cherokee (he had his own e-mail address there before IH, so what was he if still high enough up to more or less lead IH?). Just little details, as these companies being shells isn’t really important to the main Complaints.

      2. Shell companies are par for the course in business circles. JM might be “fake” who knows. It is wonderfully orchestrated if so, including a multi-person conspiracy and even a possible hired actor. And IH has made it a central theme. In fact, they have bet nearly all of it on this. Time and some discovery will tell.

        1. Shell companies and deception are two different things. If you purposely organize a shell company and purport it to be a third-party customer and it is not, you have committed fraud.

          1. Have you payed attention to how many shell companies Industrial heat has created to deal with Rossi and the E-cat technology in multiple jurisdictions.

            It’s as if to minimize financial liabilities in case of legal issues.

    2. >The lawsuit has been initiated by Rossi himself and I can’t explain why a fraudster would do that, and much less why the accomplices would go along with him.

      If Rossi didn’t respond then it would be a tacit admission of guilt. It would be known that IH is no longer in a business relationship with Rossi and the reasons would make themselves apparent to any investor thinking of Rossi. What would people think?

      When a liar is caught his frequent reaction is to restate that lie even more loudly. (We’ve seen this doubling down by certain of our politicians lately). Rossi’s best defense was offense hoping that IH would settle out of court because to me this is as embarrassing to IH as Rossi. I mean would you invest money with IH given what has transpired? If Rossi was going down so would IH.

      And as to accomplices, it appears that one is in Canada somewhere unwilling to exchange his final month’s pay for an owed report and some raw data and the other is in Italy, both totally incommunicado.

      1. Hypothetically speaking of course, a fraudster emboldened by a career built on deception and deluded by his own sense of grandeur and backed by unquestioning followers might just initiate such a lawsuit.

      2. Hi LuFong,

        We have no idea what legal advise he and the others have been given and are following.

        Which means this forum is not where you nor anybody else should be making personal allegations.

        Debate the opinions & statements all you wish, but do not engage on a personal level as you have no knowledge of their situation nor legal advise they may be following.

      3. LuFong,

        If the test was negative, Rossi could just walk away and keep the $11.5 million he already received. Rossi is 65 years old. He would be set for life.

        Note, I haven’t read all of their claims yet, but as of yet, they didn’t say there is no Rossi effect. Only that it doesn’t meet their requirements.

        1. IH Answer Page 1 :
          Defendents deny that the energy catalyzer(E-cat) technology generates a low energy nuclear reaction resulting in an exothermic release of energy

  6. IH’s Answer is only a set of partially substantiated allegations countering Rossi’s claims. I see a number of inconsistencies or missing answers and not enough to completely condemn Rossi. Should these allegations stand up in court with additional data and lack of a defense then it will be over for Rossi but that is going to be quite a while from now, should we ever get there.

    IMO Rossi can shut this entire thing down now by a) producing a credible customer, or b) producing a credible E-Cat. I don’t think this will happen anytime soon.

    1. LuFong,
      Thanks for making the exhibits available. I immediately checked Exhibit 5. It looks like it contains some valid concerns. What do you think? I can see why Rossi is withholding the report if the questions in Exhibit 5 can not be answered.
      Dr. Mike

      1. But why is IH not publishing the report, particularly if it would support them? So many unknowns about why no one will release the ERV report. At the very least, Discovery will bring it out.

        1. Rossi is withholding the report for the same Reason Industrial heat are. Their legal counsel told them to. It wont be disclosed until they go to court.

      2. Yes, Exhibit 5 is one of the more interesting ones. I don’t follow all the technical details and until we see the ERV report which presumably has more detail everything is speculation but I think it’s some of the strongest evidence against Rossi’s suit.

        But, for example, I don’t buy 100% into an out of spec flow meter. The daily flow was just under the flow meter’s minimum, but not evidently always. Would it be off by that much? How would the amount of water in the pipes be modulated? It would be the pumps and the pressure they provide I would think. And the rust stain indicating a partially filled pipe–that could be remnant from a previous time. Why would there be rust unless it was in the water? From the Iron pipes? What is needed would be someone just clanging on the pipe while in operation to determine if full or some other indicator.

        The points raised are good but we’ll have to see more data and Rossi’s response. And then there are the points he didn’t raise but alluded to that could be even more damning.

        I’m not sure why Penon didn’t respond since IH was paying for his salary (or at least 1/2 of it). And also why did IH engage Penon as an ERV if IH is claiming that the 1MW Plant was not the GPT? At what point did IH realize it was the GPT?

        As I said earlier, IH’s Answer is just partially substantiated allegations and needs to be fully vetted in court. Having the ERV report would be nice–not sure why we didn’t get it. So many questions!

        1. Lots of good questions.
          I bet that Rossi’s response will be full of shocking details.
          Does he get a response to this? Or do we now wait for the trial proper to hear anything else?

        2. Hi LuFong,

          I too doubt the ERV would have used the wrong flow meter range. Need to see a photo of it installed to confirm the claimed model number.

          Please note the reactor container is mounted about 1.5ft above the slab. Would assume any flow meter was installed on the outlet of the condensate tank, which would be sitting on the slab and thus installed at least 2ft below the lowest reactor.

          Hard to see how the meter was not continually full of fluid.

          Should also point out this was a recycling fluid system, where highly accurate self metering pumps assured a constant flow of fluid.

          Would also suggest that just maybe the reactors can operate at a much higher COP than 50, such that the loss of a few reactors or even a whole slab, could be made up by the other reactors increasing their thermal gain to ensure steady superheated steam production from a fixed input flow rate.

          I find several statements in item 5 to be almost intentionally misleading and the lack of a date to be somewhat concerning.

        3. One of the weird things about Exhibit 5 that I immediately noticed was that there is no name or data ascribed to it. It is also written and formatted like a legal document, not a letter, in contrast to the photocopied or copy-pasted other exhibits. From the image of the flow meter we have seen, it doesn’t seem to match the one they claim either in connection style or head style, but we don’t have the best photo–it’ll be easy to confirm or disprove the model number at least .

          The flow is still above the minimal start flow for the meter however, but I too don’t know exactly what a flow so very close to the qi would do, if the model number is correct. Generally, it means one is no longer in the linear range of a measuring device, so it begins to deviate, but not by a huge amount unless you are far away from the linear range. Be interesting to see the data on this and then we’ll know for sure.

          1. Hi Ged,

            Rossi did say the ERV had all his instruments pre calibrated. Also said the flow meter was calibrated at the expected flow rate and fluid temperature.

            Plus after the trial, the ERV had all the instruments re calibrated.

            Very hard to see how the flow meter could report 50x more flow than recorded.

          2. It couldn’t, even if the model number claimed is what was used, it is not nearly far enough out of range to make that remotely possible. It would only be a small percentage off of the calibration line. But if it was pre-calibrated to put the dynamic range lower, that would fix the issue too.

            Now that Penon has been dragged in, all he has to do is show the pre and post calibrations.

          3. I believe the flowmeter at worst would be reporting a lower flow than reality, a higher flow rate coupled with the same temperatures recorded would indicate an even higher COP.

      3. Rossi is withholding the report for the same Reason Industrial heat are. There legal counsel told them to until it’s revealed in court.

  7. The one strong argument is the sum of multiple fraud claims and she will ask herself why Jones Day and IH would risk perjuring themselves if they didn’t have proof of these allegations. Rossi and his group will have some explaining to do.

    1. The same goes the other way, Publius. The Judge kept the claim of Fraud against IH in the case, so Rossi and his lawyer are risking the same if they made up material for that, just as IH and Jones Day would be in hot water if they made up evidence for their side.

  8. thanks for acknowledging that. Jed, however, probably did not get his information from IH. He has claimed it came from Rossi himself, distributed before the lawsuit, if I’m correct. He has said he saw the same data from multiple sources and it matched what Rossi disclosed to Lewan in that interview in Sweden. We still have not seen this data as to what Jed was talking about there, only some snippets.

  9. Try reading the exhibits. All the case files are available in the newvortex filespace. It’s easy to join and get them all. Basically, the Answer simply outlines a defense and counterclaims. It does not attempt to be conclusive proof. That comes later. There are many nifty details, such as the Terms agreed to for the rental of the 1 MW Unit by Johnson for JM Chemicals. Which does not prohibit IH from entering the “customer area,” it appears Rossi lied about that.

    When there was denial of access, it was Rossi who denied it.

    The first report of power used, from Johnson, has letterhead for J.M Products, Inc. — “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthew Palladium Sponges.” Anyone who knows the history of cold fusion would know Johnson Matthey, which does make Platinum Sponges. But it’s Matthey, not Matthew.

    The email from Rossi urging IH to allow the plant to go to Florida is priceless. Supposedly the Customer is itching to go so they better agree quick or they will lose the opportunity. Money, you can make money! How Rossi thinks is … very primitive. He is also obviously thinking about the “demonstration value.” That’s his concern for a long time. It will look better if it is an independent customer. Yeah, right, an “independent customer” with the President of Leonardo as President.

    1. Rule #1 in a fake or misleading letterhead is to spell the company name correctly. Notice how this is left off subsequent letterhead?

      1. Probably a bad idea to have “someone not connected to the company” fill in the request for billing also.
        Not to mention, shouldn’t IH/Leonardo/the Plant manager be telling the Customer how much steam power they sent, not the Customer saying how much they received…

        1. Since it’s a test, it looks like they set it up so IH received payment for what the customer said they received. Since IH isn’t actually acting a utility. It does mean the customer could receive less than they did and give IH less money than they should, but for this sort of situation it doesn’t seem like it mattered to anyone.

  10. Do you think they had this fake business card printed up? Exhibit 20.
    James A. Bass, Director of Engineering, J.M. Products, Inc. … with a photo of some massive chemical plant.

  11. I haven’t digested all of it yet but the most interesting thing to me so far is Rossi boasting to Cherokee people how he intentionally tanked a test for the Hydrofusion folks so that they would go away and he could commit completely to (what would become) Industrial Heat instead. This is direct evidence of Rossi intentionally appearing inept or fraudulent when it suits his purpose. Perhaps he did the same with NASA when they started to get on his nerves by asking for too much. Perhaps he’s doing the same now with IH?

    It’s going to take awhile to unpack all of this, plus whatever is in Rossi’s pending response.

    I hope James Bass, or the actor who played him, enjoys his weekend. He’s now a man hunted by a thousand Internet sleuths.

    Release the videos to the public and we’ll wrap all this up in a few days. Crowd source this puppy and let’s be done with it.

        1. Sobering at least. Everything here is minuscule compared to some of the other fundamental societal battles going on right now.

    1. It seems possible/probable 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.
      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
      28 Cambridge Science Park
      Milton Road

      1. Interesting, as that is their research division rather than the production site; this is where my ex colleague used to work. Most of the work done there is contracted research.

        I happen to be very good friends with one of their consultants and will ask him if he knows the chap.

          1. Pity that my ex-colleague parted on bad terms, otherwise I could have contacted him.

            My other contact can also contact the person that headed up the unit who retired a few months ago.

          2. Actually, he may be based at the production site at Royston, which is still in the Cambridge area.

          3. Looking at the football listings, that is for 2005-2006. The JM Technology Centre (based in the Cambridge Science Park) did not move there until about 2006; they were previously in the North East of the country and actually owned by (I think) ICI.

          1. My consultant contact says that he is not in the Technology Services side of things- to be expected as these are research rather than production people; I will get him to check with the retired boss of the TS side who had a lot of dealings with the Royston production facility

          1. I would think they have already called him.
            If the “actor” (if there was one), was not merely using an alias, but actually impersonating someone, that would be far more serious.

        1. Also played for the “A”s in 2010 and scored an important goal for them to win a trophy (I searched the local newspaper).

  12. I don’t know man. After looking at the Answer and all the exhibits, to be honest it doesn’t look good for Rossi. What I see is a good faith effort by IH which is eroded by deceptive dealing on Rossi’s side. Three examples:

    1. The probable fake steam customer (Henry W. Johnson, CEO of the company, is actually a Miami real estate lawyer),
    2. Rossi initially blocked IH’s technical representative (Joe Murray) from inspecting the plant, which was absolutely contrary to the agreement. When Murray finally got a chance to look at it and asked Fabiani about the problems he found, Fabiani didn’t respond (despite being IH’s consultant and getting $10,500 a month from IH during the test).
    3. IH didn’t pay Fabiani the last month’s consulting payment because they hadn’t received the raw data from the test. IH offered to hand Fabiani a check upon receiving the final data, but Fabiani never gave IH the data.

    1. We’ll see if Rossi and co. can offer up any counter Answers or not, and then it’s on to Discovery to actually bring out all the evidence. Still half a year away for that unfortunately.

    2. Johnson is not only Rossi’s real estate lawyer, he is President of Leonardo Corporation, Rossi’s company. This thing sucked from the beginning, it sucked in the middle and it still sucks. Read Exhibit 16, Rossi’s email to IH, trying to convince them to rent the 1 MW unit to JMC. Compare that with his story in the Complaint. It’s very, very different.

      IH wanted to do the test in North Carolina, at their own facility. Dewey said that Rossi refused. This mail from Rossi is consistent with the Dewey story, not with the Rossi story. And this shows that the move to Doral was not for a “Guaranteed Performance Test,” and IH’s acceptance of the move was not accepting it as such a test, which is crucial to the Rossi argument that their behavior accepted the test even though there was no agreement as explicitly required.

  13. If IH’s allegations are true, then we are witnessing a good example of “the big con,” where a smooth-talking, unscrupulous pseudo-scientist teams up with a collection of co-conspirators to defraud a rich investor.

    This would certainly explain why nobody has been able to replicate Andrea Rossi’s magic recipe for achieving nuclear levels of power gain. It would also explain why people that claim to have replicated the phenomenon never seem to get their process into the public domain.

    Months ago I commented that either way this story pans out, it would be fascinating. Now it appears that Andrea Rossi’s freedom will depend on his ability to prove that his claimed invention actually works, in a court of law. Will it work, fail, or will Rossi mysteriously disappear before the trial?

    Fellow fanboys, it’s getting close to betting time.

    1. Hi Jimbo,

      And if IH’s allegations are not true, well the one doing the “the big con” is not Rossi.

      So far IH have not presented a technical defense to counter the COP 50 claim. The water flow meter claim is very weak at best.

      Nothing about faulty steam pressure nor faulty steam temperature measurements.

      The only technical claim they have made is the model of the flow meter’s min range was just above the measured flow. So what? Not a biggie if the ERV had the unit certified at the 1, 500kg/hr flow rate before & after the test as Rossi has claimed the ERV did. If so that certification destroys item 5.

      Why was the flow rate constant? Because the pumps used have in built period based flow rate monitoring & control. If you want 1, 500kg/hr, you dial in 1, 500kg/hr and that is what you get. Maybe the IH “expert” doesn’t understand what modern pumps can do?

      1. The crucial phrase in all of this is, “if so.”

        My $100 dollars is now on Rossi being a fraud.

        If you are sure that Rossi did not know the ERV, and that Rossi’s metal boxes actually contain nuclear processes, rather than useless junk, let us wager.

        I assume that con man Rossi will continue to find reasons to delay his fateful court date, culminating in either his flight from justice or his complete humiliation in court. For that reason I believe we should stipulate that if he runs away, I win. If he shows up in court and fails, I win. If he shows up in court and succeeds, you win.

        Please understand that it would make me very happy to lose this wager, for it would mean boundless, dirt cheap energy for mankind. All I get if I win is a measly hundred bucks, and the knowledge that another unscrupulous con man got exposed. Go solar.

        1. Hi Jimbo,

          Might I suggest you take you “con man” accusations to another forum, that is unless you can prove your claim.

          Here on ECW we debate the data we have and try to not get personal nor to make statements we can’t back up.

          1. Hi Jimbo,

            There you go again. Trying to make it personal.

            Would suggest you review a few of my posts.

  14. Hi Jed,

    The flow meter has a pulsed flow rate output. Do you know what was the flow per pulse? I read it was 1, 000kg per pulse. If so the real flow rate could vary between 35,000kg/day to 37,000kg/day?

    Also the container floor was elevated approx 1.5ft above the slab. Assuming the return condensate tank sat on the floor, would that not suggest the flow meter was installed below the fluid level inside the condensate tank and below the bottom of the lowest reactor in the elevated container? If so it is difficult to see how the flow meter was not always full, during the time the reactor’s fluid circulation system was active?

    BTW what happened to the various example attachments from item 5?

  15. Bringing frivolous and baseless fraud claims against Rossi is not in the style of a prestigious firm like Jones Day. They have a lot to lose if they haven’t confirmed the voracity of these claims. You don’t get the privilege of wasting a federal court’s time with “nothing to lose” claims.

  16. Jones Day and IH hit Rossi with a whole new level of fraud and deception allegations; ones you don’t casually plead before the court unless you believe them to have a firm basis in fact and law.

    1. Nope.
      The main question is “was this a real attempt with experimental technology that works sometimes with some flaws, or was it scam complete with coverups on every level”

      1. If the ERV report is completely accurate to reality, then where is the scam?
        How do you decide if the ERV is completely accurate to reality?
        IH claim a CoP of 1. The ERV report seems to claim a CoP of 50.
        The answer is numbers and the derivation thereof.

          1. ‘The data that shows otherwise should easily demonstrate that.’
            Absolutely right.

            And you do not need any interfering lawyers to help get that decision right. Start with the instruments and the accuracy thereof. Also find all the duplicate instruments and data and cross-compare. That gives you a start.

            If the CoP=1 and the electrical supply trips at, say, 250kw then it is a bit awkward to explain how the plant produces 1MW of steam, let alone doing with only 20kw of electricity. How many meters were there on the electrical supply? More than one for sure.

            I do appreciate that the lawyers will come along later and start trying to find holes. Fixing all this is the job of the ERV report.

          1. Well, that tells you where to hammer IH hardest. In their numbers …

            … and when people start proving your numbers wrong things can rapidly slide to total collapse. Bring on the numbers, I say.

  17. Where is West in all of this?

    Is he the “good guy” in IH’s books (DW did say that he was a nice guy and was off fishing somewhere, so that sort of damns him)?

    1. I wonder too. When Fabiani posted on Facebook his photo inside the Ecat, West wrote positive comments to his buddy. They seem to get along very well and they had the same assignment from IH.

        1. I wonder who else was part of A.R. Team as he called it
          and could be called as a witness by either side.
          Or a security guard with his in and out person book might no something about
          the activity of the customer.

  18. Most often truth is found in middle ground. Rossi is truthful about his LENR effect which also is replicated at COP 1.1 – 1.3 over long time (weeks) but in his quest for commersialization he decieve in hope and believe to find the last piece of the puzzle for high COP in time. He is running out of time.

    My two cents at the moment.

  19. These fraud claims are very damaging…
    – If they stick, it’s of course end of story for Rossi
    – But even if they don’t stick, and Rossi can fight all these claims, for the next 20 years all the stories on the internet will still be there and sceptics (like Krivit, MaryYugo) will use them to make Rossi look bad, just like they do now with the Petrol Dragon issue.
    These claims will be enough to bury Rossi and the eCat, unless Rossi manages to get production going.
    There is nothing positive about this, and if the purpose of IH is to delay Rossi, then these claims do a good job, even if they are unprovable or even disproved in a later stage… the sceptics will make sure the mud sticks

  20. If I read think right, IH claim to have an email where Rossi says to make a fake customer for the plant and that is better for Rossi and IH. (my own interpertation). And afterwards they claim that it was a fake customer and fraud? So they didn’t have problems with it, but know when things starting to get ungly they start bringing it up? Please tell me I didn’t read it well.. it from 67. and further.

  21. Time to get those spreadsheets out and see what IH are really saying about the E-cat performance. The spreadsheet formulae are at the bottom. Now that IH have stated no anomalous heat(CoP=1) here is the numerical data of IH’s case.
    e.g. A steaming reactor with Elec In of 250kw produces a feed flow rate of 9.57m^3/day with an Enthalpy Transfer of 250kw.

    Mass Flow Rate = CoP * Elec In / Enthalpy Diff

    Enthalpy Diff 144.6 kJ/kg
    CoP Elec In Mass Flow Rate Mass Flow Rate Enthalpy Xfer
    …..kJ/s or kW…..M (g/s)……….. M^3/day…………kJ/ s
    1 1…. 6.92……….. 0.60.. 1
    1 20.. 138.31. ….11.95. 20
    1 40.. 276.63….. 23.90. 40
    1 60.. 414.94….. 35.85. 60
    1 80.. 553.25….. 47.80. 80 …….Feed flow getting excessive
    1 200 1383.13 119.50 200 …….Normal max Elec In
    1 250 1728.91 149.38 250
    1 300 2074.69 179.25 300 …….Elec In = Elec Out in all cases

    Lt Ht Vap 2257 kJ/kg
    CoP..Elec In..Mass Flow Rate Mass Flow Rate Enthalpy Xfer
    ..kJ/s or kW……. M(g/s)……….. M^3/day…………… kJ/ s
    1 1… 0.44……… 0.04.. 1
    1 50. 22.15……. 1.91. 50
    1 100 44.31….. 3.83 100
    1 150 66.46….. 5.74 150
    1 200 88.61…. 7.66 200 …….Normal max Elec In. Feed flow 20% of normal max.
    1 250 110.77.. 9.57 250
    1 300 132.92 11.48 300 …….Elec In = Elec Out in all cases

    Normal max Mass Flow Rate is about 38M^3/day
    Normal max Enthalpy Transfer is 1000kJ/s

    A: CoP – Input Data Range 1-50
    B: Elec In – Input Data Range 1-300
    C: =A7*B7*1000/$B$3 : $B$3 is Enthalpy Diff. 1000 converts to g/s.
    D: =C7*60^2*24/10^6 : 10^6 converts to M^3 from g
    E: =A7*B7

    1. If the customer was fake, payments is not evidence for steam or energy, it’s only paper work.

      So: the secret customer must be dragged out in the light or Rossi loose this case.

      1. I think the dichotomy is building now that IH have nailed themselves to CoP=1. No normal electricity supply to the plant can deliver 1MW of heat.

        If the ERV was measuring 1MW, Rossi was measuring 1MW on his own instruments and the ‘Customer’ was measuring 1MW for the purposes of billing, then that is three sets of data. There is the possibility of a fourth on the secondary side of the customer process but that would be down to the customer again.

        What potentially defeats this data is the allegation of conspiracy and faking. However, IH was accepting payments for 1MW of steam delivery, so it would seem. That could be awkward to explain.

        1. If they were being conned, then the payments from JM Products to Industrial Heat were just part of the con.

          What better way to keep Industrial Heat complacent than throw a little money their way?

          You’re absolutely correct; the assertion of 1 MW heat and high COP is strong and redundant. The only way around it is a fraudulent conspiracy by Rossi, Penon, Fabiani and Johnson (maybe more, Levi, Fioravanti, Focardi?). That’s exactly what they are asserting in their filing.

          Extrapolating, it would mean that this conspiracy has been going on since 2012 and has passed several acceptance gates, independent testing on another continent, makes zero sense in terms of risk reward and has included hundreds of prototypes and a believable engineering evolution.

          1. …which make a 100% fraud scheme improbible. Too much luck on the way.

            More plausible is that part of the COP is real but on top of that we find fraud – “I did not mean to… but the circumstances…”

            On the other side we have “yes we exaggerated the allegations but now we know the truth…”

          2. Explain Rossi’s, Penon’s and Fabiani’s behavior after they supposedly divvied up $11.5M.

            Rossi: “Hey let’s channel some money back to IH, set up a fake customer, run the test for a year, and continue to pretend to advance the technology through R&D! Get us another $89M!!

            Fabiani: I could even give an interview to Mats that backs the whole thing up.

            Penon: Shouldn’t we just find a nice beach somewhere with our millions and tell stories of our conquests to incredulous natives while sipping Champagne?

            Rossi: Where’s your sense of adventure? I’ll even spend every waking hour in the shipping crate just to sell it better.

            Penon: I don’t know Andrea, seems awfully risky. We could wind up in jail; they’re bound to figure it out at some point and we’ll wind up in court.

            Rossi: Court? Screw court. I’ll sue them first when they refuse to pay.

            Penon: But wouldn’t that mean a bunch of lawyers will get a bunch of our money?

            Johnson: I resemble that remark.

            Rossi: Henry, can you make it look like Johnson Matthey is the customer?

            Johnson: Sure I’ll just set up a shell company and call it JM Chemicals or something like that. The blogosphere will run with it.

            Fabiani: I love those useful idiots.

            Penon: I don’t know guys. Shouldn’t we just cash in? I mean we’ve been pretty lucky to get this far.

            Rossi: You owe me this, Alfonse. You’d still be living in that dump if it weren’t for me. I’m having too much fun to stop now.

            Penon (pausing); Alright, Andrea, but after this I’m out.

          3. Make a multimedia production, it can hold many different scenarios in parallell, different endings too 🙂

          4. Fairy tales, i could make up a fraudulent story, with i/h as the star conspirator, how many votes will that get,,.,,, .

          5. Can you give us your take on
            what I.H. said if they did receive the millions from
            the Chinese and British
            Maybe they said we can’t
            believe they fell for the B.S.
            story we told them.

          6. What is your conjecture as to how Rossi planned to win the court case when it was quite obvious from the start that the fraudulent nature of the JMP customer would be revealed to IH sooner or later?

          7. The only outcome that matters is to have the court overcome any and all false points in order to get to the key point, that being that the E-Cat works and works as per the EVR report. That works for IH since IH and Cherokee need a positive outcome of the court case to convince investors that the E-Cat despite being unusual has been proven in court. Its all about being a successful investment firm and a clean energy product promoter.

          8. Gah. I evaluate this as wishful thinking and very unlikely, but would love to be wrong.

            There’s so much that doesn’t make sense when you take the view of one side or the other… and when you take the perspective of them working in concert for a larger purpose then a few more things make sense… so I don’t rule it out, but still a lot remains inexplicable.

            If they are just acting, they’re doing a pretty convincing job of it.

          9. That is why I am posting this version of what I see. I want it to all be positive and so far it all makes sense to me under the scenario I am building up. If only I were I a fly on the wall in Darden’s office(cell phone?) then I could be sure .

          10. For those of whom English is not their first language or whose sarcasm meter is busted, this fictional dialog is meant to point out elements of the absurdity, in my opinion, of the conspiracy to commit fraud that Industrial Heat is alleging.

            It would be flat out bizarre for Rossi to file suit against Industrial Heat if all they say is true. But, ok maybe he’s dealing with some kind of mental issue.

            However, it is incomprehensible to me that his lawyers and his posse of co-conspirators would allow him to act in such a reckless way. His lawyers would have never gone forward with such a weak case, and his co-conspirators would have clocked him over the head before he put pen to paper.

            I dub this explanation as F7.

          11. If Rossi, in fact, is a fraud, I would cite mental issues. Perhaps it is not money that he’s after–after all, he could’ve walked away with millions–but keeping the freak show rolling for as long as possible. Rossi knew that getting sued first by IH would’ve been catastrophic to his person and erased all goodwill and benefit of the doubt. Knowing Rossi as the shrewd and cunning man that he is, we must assume nothing less than this outcome being the optimal path for prolonging the fraud and feeding his narcissistic ego.

          12. If Rossi, in fact, is a fraud, I would cite mental issues. Perhaps it is not money that he’s after–after all, he could’ve walked away with millions–but keeping the freak show rolling for as long as possible. Rossi knew that getting sued first by IH would’ve been catastrophic to his person and erased all the remaining goodwill and the benefit of the doubt. Knowing Rossi as the shrewd and cunning man that he is, we must assume nothing less than this outcome being the optimal path for prolonging the fraud and feeding his narcissistic ego.

          13. Penon, seeing the counterclaim: “I’m outa here.”
            Fabiani “Me too!”
            Johnson:”Shit! Andrea, you told me this would be fine”
            Rossi:”I never said that. You lie.”

  22. No court case necessary, no 1MW plant necessary, no arguments necessary, just Mr. Rossi after five and a half wasted years for the World allowing the testing of any of his most basic devices, showing a COP above 1 for a few days, this testing being done openly and repeatably by, for example the experts of MFMP.
    The waste of time on who wins this legal bullshit does not confirm anything to the people on page whose only concern is Cold Fusion
    Everything else is irrelevant to the needed Evidence that Rossi has made an important discovery.

  23. Having re-read the document today (rather than very late last night) it appears about half of the assertions are based on the fact that IH believes that it OWNS the technology rather than licensing it for commercial use; the fact that AR spoke with Cook and posted updates on his blog apparently are in breach of the licence agreement according to them.

    Reading some of the exhibits, AR was firmly of the belief (in 2012) that he was dealing with Cherokee.

    From the payments made, it also seems that only 750MW was being supplied for a large amount of the time (in only one instance does it say that this was at JMC’s request).

    1. Here is a copy of LuFong’s earlier post with some numbers. The data is not complete but you can see that Rossi had a lot of work to do. The 1MW Plant had four Tigers (sometimes called slabs). The drop from 1MW to 750kw is one of the Tigers coming off line.

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

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

      So 50 days over 5 months (no data for Oct/Nov and other months of test).

        1. When a Tiger(slab) comes off line two main things have to happen. The feed flow to that Tiger stops and the electrical supply to the heaters is tripped. There may well be isolator valves on the inlet and outlet pipes. So both feed (and steam) flow and electricity drop 25% as one Tiger comes off line.

          1. Yes, but everyone (Jed, etc) is saying that the flow was constant and did not vary from the 36,000 litres.

            I accept what you say and would expect to to be the case.

          2. 36,000 litres/day is 1MW of heat
            With CoP=1 1MW of heat is impossible.
            That means IH’s case fails.
            Why would Jed say that IH’s case is a failure?

          3. Neither IH nor Jed have actually produced the data showing that actually occurred (we have no idea of the accuracy what is said in the unusual Exhibit 5), so we have no basis to say if they are mistaken or not. Hopefully when Rossi response he’ll publish some of the actual data, otherwise it’s off to DIscovery for us.

          4. Hi GiveADogABone,

            These pumps are computer controlled, with internal flow monitoring and constant flow output.

            I suspect there is a diverter value at the other end of the slab that allows flow through the reactor to continue but dumps the non heated water into the condensate tank.

            Doubt the slabs are field repairable.

            Also suspect the slabs are do well over COP 50. More like over COP 100. So 3 Tigers could possibly carry a down tiger with no change in flow. Might reduce fuel life though.

            August 4, 2015 (Day 165)

            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.

            + other log entries showing a drop from 1MW to 750kw as a reactor comes off line. In the log Rossi mentions the thought of starting the reserve reactors if he cannot fix a problem.

            There is a separate but related issue. If individual reactors (16 I think) in a slab fail, how many are needed to maintain 250kW?

        2. I am looking at a post from Abd immediately above where he thinks LuFong’s data is nominal. My view is that it is actual and actual in the production plant. Can you see Abd’s post?

      1. That’s interesting. But it indicates nominal performance, then, not actual. The whole point of the situation was as one where a customer would pay for actual power, not for what was obviously based on what Rossi told Johnson.

        If there was actual commercial activity there, chemical processing, this will come out.

          August 4, 2015 (Day 165)
          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.

          + other entries in the log. It seems it is always a drop from 1MW to 750kw as a reactor (1 of the 4) comes off line.

          The letter with the ‘w’ in ‘Matthew’ states :-
          the amount of energy of 1MWh/h for a total of 624MWh for 26 days and 4 days we received750kwh/h for a total of 72MWh.

          On this evidence 1MW was being received on most days but when one reactor slab was off line the energy received dropped to 750kw. That letter was from Johnson to Vaughn. I see no Rossi involvement.

    2. AR believed he was dealing with Cherokee. However, it also appears that Darden and Vaughn disabused him of that idea, and the Agreement signed contains a standard Whole Agreement provision, and it does not mention Cherokee. Those are there to avoid the kinds of arguments Rossi brought up, which sometimes come up years later. There is also the Statute of Frauds, which applies.

      Those power statements from Johnson are, ah, odd. Power is at only one of two different numbers for each day. Only 1 MW or 0.75 MW. These are obviously not measurement results. The difference, by the way, is $250, because the payment was to be $1000 per megawatt-day. This was a radically clumsy fraud. Hardly even trying.

  24. Yes, I hear you, Chapman. An illuminating data point that forces a fresh look at all demos for re-binning: didn’t work, didn’t work on purpose, worked…

    …and reveals Rossi as cunning and unscrupulous businessman.

    1. Yes, but he also says things about Hydrofusion, but it appears that they are still bosom buddies with the Swedish plant. Maybe the Rossi words were just for effect with IH?

      1. Well, there really was a falling out between Rossi and Hydrofusion for a period of time, and now we know why. It’s unclear how the fence was mended.

  25. The paragraph below is very important. Either Rossi and Johnson decided to invoke the name of Johnson Matthey to make their fake customer seem real to IH, or Johnson Matthey is really involved.

    That and the issue of independent ownership of JM Products that Rossi/Johnson asserted in documents submitted to the court is directly contradicted.

    The truth in both these matters should came out rather easily in discovery and one side will be blown to bits.

    Also in furtherance of this scheme, Rossi, both in his individual capacity and as

    the representative of Leonardo, and Johnson, both in his individual capacity and as the

    representative of JMP, traveled to North Carolina in August 2014 to meet with individuals from

    Industrial Heat. During this meeting, Rossi and Johnson made a number of false representations

    to Industrial Heat, most notably that JMP (at the time called J.M. Chemical Products, Inc.) was a

    confidential subsidiary of Johnson Matthey p.l.c. (“Johnson Matthey”), and that Johnson

    Matthey was interested in using the E-Cat technology in connection with a confidential

    manufacturing process it wanted to operate in Florida. In fact, in August 2014 Johnson on behalf

    of JMP even warranted in writing that JMP “[was] owned by an entity formed in the United

    Kingdom, and none of Leonardo, Dr. Andrea Rossi, Henry W. Johnson nor any of their

    respective subsidiaries, directors, officers, agents, employees, affiliates, significant others, or

    relatives by blood or marriage [had] any ownership interest” in JMP. See Compl. Ex. B. (last

    page of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit). JMP, however, has never been a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey,

    was not operating or planning to operate any manufacturing process in Florida, and was in fact

    owned by persons whom Johnson represented in writing did not have any ownership interest in


  26. Whew. Industrial Heat really are claiming a years-long conspiracy by Rossi, Penon, and Fabiani (etc).

    The only alternative is that Industrial Heat is conspiring with various parties to halt or slow introduction of the E-Cat to society.

    Conspiracy Wins!

    Now we just have to figure out whose conspiracy theory is less ridiculous!

  27. Looks like this is not heading for settlement.
    Six months till Discovery then more time to the trial.
    In the meantime if Rossi thinks he can progress with his plans then it is going to be harder to get funding or sign sales deals with such a big question mark over his credibility.
    Rossi needs to demonstrate, for real, that he has something, and soon.

    1. Maybe but with huge Johnson Matthey involved, ordering three more plants, partnering with Leonardo and privy to the amazing QuarkX developments, I would say Rossi is in a great position to move forward. In the it works scenario, of course.

      If this is the case we might see some tangible signs of progress, like standing up a factory in Sweden or manual construction and eventual delivery of three 1 MW plants.

      Johnson Matthey may be content to let the lawsuit play out as it preserves their strategic advantage, but they can squash it like a bug whenever they want.

      Unless, it’s all BS and a lawyer over at Johnson Matthey this morning is reading these court documents and saying “WUT?”

      1. Is it not likely that IH already approached head of Johnson Matthey to know if they are involved? Is it not likely that the top secret part of their US business already answered back about this? Is it not likely that their lawyers are already on this case, on one side or the other?

        1. Yes that is likely, IMO.

          But they also say they couldn’t find a James Bass and people here found a reasonable candidate in hours.

          Remember the two viable scenarios here are Rossi conspiracy and Industrial Heat conspiracy. Measurement error and miscommunication are not viable for a thousand reasons.

          In the IH conspiracy scenario, where their purpose is obstruction by any means necessary, nothing they allege can be taken at face value (just the same as Team Rossi).

          1. We the followers are the only ones that care for the truth in this story. Darden et al and Rossi et al both stride for their own gain. We are only readers of this book.

          2. No, IH didn’t state that they couldn’t find *a* James Bass, they alleged that they couldn’t find James A. Bass, Director of Engineering of J.M. Products Inc. in keeping with the business card Exhibit. Perhaps they characterized trying the telephone number and doing a LinkedIn search for that name and title as “diligent search”.

          3. Then why did you write “But they also say they couldn’t find a James Bass” when you know that they didn’t assert that?

          4. You’re an English teacher, aren’t you?

            The point remains that a reasonable candidate was found in hours. I have no idea if the defendants found him too and eliminated him.

          1. Or go after those libeling their company by false allegations. If it could hurt their business then JM could get into the fray as a side issue in this saga.

  28. Quick comment on all of the beefs that IH has after about mid-2015, when they hired Murray, that they weren’t getting access, information, etc. That’s around the time when Rossi got very suspicious of IH’s activities and began exploring alternatives.

    Rossi stiff-arming Murray’s engineering team, Fabiani’s refusing to provide results and data, and Penon sticking to contractual obligations and ignoring Murray’s/IH’s requests for explanations and more data all point to an evolving adversarial relationship between Leonardo and Industrial Heat.

    Rossi began collecting evidence, suspecting he was going to wind up in court, and gave nothing to IH that he didn’t have to. Just pointing out that the lack of cooperation once Murray was hired has a mundane explanation and does not necessarily indicate fraud.

  29. One thing we can take solace in: we were right about Johnson Matthey being behind JM Products (either in reality or fictionally).

    At least we can put that one to bed.

    1. If Rossi et al is a company of fraud they wanted IH and any one watching (we did) to make that assumption. If this is fraud they succeeded longer than I would ever expect but maybe because they are partly correct in the COP claims, I want to know the truth.

      I am still open for the scenario that the US elite is taking control of a viable technology and if so I will be terrified!

      1. A government-led campaign to stall or kill E-Cat technology is becoming plausible.

        White House visits… APCO involvement… Murray engineering team from government contractors. Murray’s associate activated on forums (as pointed out by Sifferkoll).

        It’s starting to smell like an operation.

        Reminder: Saudi Arabia is scheduled to complete its divestment from oil in 2017.

        1. That and Exhibit 5 is not a letter (real or an electronic e-mail), has no name or date, and is formatted exactly like the rest of the legal document. Thankfully, its claims are easy to prove or disprove with actual data, which Discovery will draw out.

          1. Interesting point about Exhibit 5 formatting. Either it was fabricated, was prepared initially by Jones Day on behalf of Murray, or for some reason they decided to reformat the original document…

            Perhaps to hide something on the original document. Identities? Unfavorable info omitted?

            The court should demand the original communication.

          2. Yes, it is definitely not the original, and has no intrinsic proof Murry made it (or when), so it’ll be interesting to see how the Court views it. Rossi could challenge it pretty easily on that basis too, particularly if he can produce data that directly contradicts what it says. Fun stuff!

          3. Will E-Cat world be used as a paper trail for all original documentation. What is Frank Acland’s position on this point? Could you or your site be subpoenaed for the court proceedings? If so it could put this site on the map big time.

          4. Only if Frank had inside documents, but everything is published to the public here on the site, so no reason for a subpoena for hidden stuff. IH already cited, but it’s just a news and databank.

          5. Basically, no. They used the Rossi dialogue here for convenience, that’s all. In court, someone would present a transcript and attest how they obtained it (under oath), And in discovery, Rossi may be asked if he wrote this or that. Under oath.

          6. Total unclarity on process here. This is an Answer. They can basically allege anything. (as could Rossi in the Complaint). At this point, for legal purposes, all the Exhibits will be considered true. However, for trial, they will need to be attested. What they gave may be the original communication, except that it is missing attachments. It may have been a Letter, formal, possibly delivered with delivery confirmation. By this time they were looking at legal problems with Rossi. Now, Annesser can request any document from IH, that is part of the discovery process. The court isn’t going to do it, period. The court — i.e., the judge — is not sitting judging these documents and may not be reading them at this time. The judge basically has nothing to do right now, because no motions are pending.

            I am looking foward to seeing the Reply of Rossi and the Answers, if they show, of Penon, Fabiani, and Johnson. Johnson is the big fish. If Penon doesn’t show, there goes Rossi’s case.

    2. We can also be proud of our conclusion that Industrial Heat would have to assert a large conspiracy to commit fraud — involving at a minimum Rossi, Penon and Fabiani — in order to discredit the results and avoid payment.

      That’s exactly what’s happened.

  30. The following paragraph about Lugano is interesting:

    “66. In late 2013 and early 2014, Leonardo and Rossi made arrangements with the
    team of scientists who had published the Ferrara Report to conduct another test of a single E-Cat
    reactor (not an entire Plant or an entire Six Cylinder Unit) over a roughly one month time period
    in February and March 2014 in Lugano, Switzerland. At the conclusion of the experiment, the
    scientists concluded in their report (the “Lugano Report”) that the E-Cat reactor produced a COP
    of 3.2 and 3.6 across two different “runs” of the reactor (which is still less than the lowest COP
    number reflected in the License Agreement). See Ex. 14. This conclusion was subsequently
    criticized in a series of publications identifying flaws in the methodology the scientists employed
    which led to overstatement of their COP calculations. These publications, however, did not
    surface until 2015.”

    First they state that the performance of Lugano isn’t enough to validate the agreement. Then
    they try to dismiss the Lugano Report without adding an exhibit with the specific critiques. Which speaks volumes about the credibility of those critiques.

    1. Critiques came out immediately, of course, and we can show that by simply linking the relevant thread (as they themselves reference, so it is not true for them to state critiques didn’t come out till 2015.

  31. I’m happy I’m watching for free season 6 of the Ecat series, after a slow 5th season the show is now more compelling than ever and it has already been renewed for another year!

  32. Since I started to follow the story in 2011, Rossi hasn’t shown any credible proof (to me, member of the public). The only partner giving credence to the whole story has now turned his back on Rossi for not showing credible proof to them.

    My tiny brain can only come to the logical conclusion that Rossi cannot provide credible proof.

    All other possible explanation might be true, but my tiny brain cannot handle those.

    1. then you are both blind and ignorant, and cherry picking what you want to believe. There is no possible way that you can dismiss the findings over the past 5 years if you have been following this story since 2011. I dont mean to be rude but you are exhibiting all the signs of close minded individual who wants someone to tell him the truth rather than look at the evidence themselves.

      1. Don’t you know that is how “tiny brains” work? It’s not Gerritt’s fault his brain is that way. Most of the public has that kind of physiology, which is why LENR is hard to break into the public mind. The way that the experts during the court trial explain LENR and/or the E-Cat could be mined to use for public explanations. A sort of LENR for dummies. Can I copyright that?

        1. While LENR may be important to us, it is not important for the ttrial. There are issues of law, behavior with respect to a contract, and possible fraud. If it is considered important, the question will be how much heat was delivered, and the COP, not the energy source. Given that IH is heavily committed to investment in LENR, it is extremely unlikely that IH will pull out the “LENR impossible” card.

    2. He offered the Ecat for independent tests in Ferrara and Lugano, if those results are still debated the fault is only with the professors and not with Rossi.

  33. I believe that it is impossible for a (non technical) jury to judge who is right. IH has a point that the steam flow was not measured and that they were unable to check the amount of heat production. (It is possible that a water flow runs to the customer side through a (maybe insulated) pipe in the steam or water return pipe. They were not allowed to check that and they would have to trust Pepon that he checked that.
    Obviously it is quite unlikely that this happend, but not impossible.

    So how would the court continue? Would they demand a second test? I believe the plant is still mothballed, therefore it can be easily checked if the assumed pipe is there. If not than all claims of IH regarding COP are bullshit. So who owns the plant, AR or IH? CHECK IT!

    1. There are many black and white issues here that should be easily discernible to the court once discovery begins. It’s going to flow one way or another pretty quickly.

      Meanwhile in the real world either Johnson Matthey is helping Leonardo get to market or they are not. We might be able to discern the truth there before the court.

      1. I think a check in presence of the judge should be allowed: The technical peep show ;), I mean pipe show…, hm, whatever.

          1. No. Mediators help the parties to negotiate agreements but have no “authority.”

        1. Rossi et al never delivered the last months of data. Maybe the special piping was reset in november 2015 and that will show in the data IH never got?

      2. But IH admits they brought in their own expert to examine the reactor after the test was over. The evidence has now been corrupted.

      3. You should note that the IH/JMC contract was for TWO years which may explain why the warehouse is still “occupied” by them (and a padlocked plant).

        1. This is all a clear sign that the Customer was fake. It appears as IH has laid it out: Rossi engineered the move to Florida so he could create a phony GPT to collect $89 million. If the reactor had been real and if the Customer had been real, why was this all shut down when the “test” was completed? This is such a clumsy fraud it is amazing, “Johnson Matthew” and all. But Rossi was accustomed to getting away with much.

    2. Its very simple.. the customer provides the specifications on how much energy it takes to run the plant (which they said they know) .. they then compare the energy required to run the plant under rossi’s ecat.. its basic math all the proof is in the power meter outside the building the electric company knows exactly how many watts were used.. now its just a simple comparison..

      1. I think we all agree that the customer is a key figure in this. Let us hope he is available as a witness. But according IH he belongs also to AR’s fraudulent group (probably we all belong to that group). How would the jury assess the fact that everyone who says: ‘the plant had a COP well over 10’ is framed by IH as ‘belonging to the fraudulent group of AR’?

        1. It is up to the legal system to be impartial via its expert witnesses. How impartial a witness is is also based partly on currently accepted state of the art in science. By accepted means the mainstream and how closely that witness toes the line for of the mainstream. This is where the proverbial “mud hits the wall”. Hot times are ahead in this court proceeding on this point and other points of doubt.

    3. “I believe that it is impossible for a (non technical) jury to judge who is right.”

      That is why Courts bring in expert witnesses :). Happens in pretty much every single case.

    4. Juries decide on technical matters well beyond their expertise hundreds of times a day. This is why litigants are allowed to call qualified expert witnesses to explain matters to laymen. It is then up to the jury to decide who has the most credibility.

      1. So they ask a professor in nuclear science how he thinks about the Ecat plant….. I do not understand why AR has so much confidence in the US juristic system.

        1. Rossi has stated several times that the USA is a great country. I suppose it is a comparison to what Italy had done to Rossi via the Italian mafia corrupted business and some of its legal system. Based on what happened to Rossi in that history some who are contra LENR used it as cherry picked items to imply that it was Rossi that was corrupt.

        2. They would not have an engineer testify on LENR or nuclear reactions. The engineer would testify on the basic measuring process and is it reasonable to accept the 1 MW output based on the plant input and output.

          So in lots of cases a doctor etc. will be brought on as an expert witness to explain how “reasonable” such positions are to laypeople or in this case the jury.

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    5. IH owns the plant. That’s not in dispute, except that Rossi apparently wants it padlocked, so there it sits. There was no squawk from the “customer,” who supposedly need this power badly for the process. I very much doubt that the “court” will require another test. I hate to break it to you, but the court is probably not going to care if the plant “actually worked” or not. Remember, Rossi asked for a jury trial. The jury will decide matters of fact, based on what the plaintiffs and defendants present. The judge will advise on points of law. There are very specific claims in the Complant and Answer and Counter-Complaint. Those are what will be adjudicated..

  34. IH alleges that there was no such person as James A. Bass, Director of Engineering for J.M. Products, Inc. (per Exhibit 20). That’s different from alleging that there’s no James A. Bass.

    1. If he exist, and apparently he does, JM Products can bestow on him whatever title they wish. In this instance they gave him the title ‘Director of Engineering’. They could have called him ‘President of Engineering’. So what?

      1. You’re conflating the existence of James Bass of Johnson Matthey with the existence of James A. Bass, Director of Engineering for J.M. Products, Inc.

        IH could stipulate the existence of the first and still allege the non-existence of the second – that wouldn’t be logically inconsistent. We’ll see how the legal process proceeds.

  35. IIn one of the comments they said this was stated in the counter claim.

    “Rossi further manipulated the Validation process by ensuring that his friend and colleague, Penon, served as the ERV for the Validation testing. Industrial Heat requested that “one of the big testing companies” work alongside Penon in the measurement and validation of the test. Rossi vehemently objected, insisting that having one of the big testing companies involved would “create big problems” for him.”
    Does anyone have an opinion on what
    might have happened if I.H. had vehemently objected to Penon and
    not agreed to proceed with Ecat test.

    1. History says that Rossi did not know the guy in Italy and IH brought them in. Maybe we need to change history to suit our needs.

    2. They had to agree on him to allow the test to move forward, per the agreements. All they had to do was Veto him and that would have been that.

      1. Right. Rossi had a long history of walking away when challenged. IH knew the situation. If they wanted to find out if the Rossi IP was real, they had to play his game his way, or there was no game. They took this to almost ridiculous extremes, but, eventually, they could not raise the $89 million ethically without having independent confirmation. It appears that they carefully avoided accepting the Doral application as the GPT, Rossi’s complaint was misleading. If no GPT, then it would be status quo until Rossi actually taught them to make devices that worked, and if he did, they could then have waived the test and paid him the money. But what if Rossi didn’t have any real working devices from the beginning?

        There is no way to distinguish this from his having something real but not trusting IH with it. Not until and unless there is full-on independent verification, which is unlikely any time soon.

  36. Hard to digest how Murray was denied access to the plant in July 2015 and it took until Feb 2016 for IH to enable admittance.

    Wouldn’t one very angry phone call from IH do the trick? How did they give Rossi so much power over their $89 million validation test and their facility?

    1. In the July 13 e-mail (Exhibit 19) regarding Murray, Rossi first refers to the factory of JM (stating that Murray cannot enter the factory of JM) and then later in the sentence talks about the “plant”. This is confusing, and it’s not clear if this is a deliberate confusion on Rossi’s part or if when he says “plant” he is again referring to “the factory of JM”. Of course other IH employees such as Barry West, Fulvio, and Penon were in the 1 MW plant. I must admit that I haven’t read the 66 page Reply document yet. Does this state that Murray was unable to gain admittance to the 1 MW powerplant until February 2016 even though he was planning to visit in July 2015?

      1. If they were dealing with very expensive materials it would be understandable with security, and secrecy. If production was real and bulk, it could bascially have been a vault.

      2. Yes. It says that. Rossi said in July that people who were not already approved would not be admitted until the “test” was over. Basically, Rossi took it upon himself to define the 1 MW application with JM Products as the Guaranteed Performance Test, which he also considered himself and Penon as in charge of. I recommend reading the Answer a few times! There is a lot there and in the attachments. It can be difficult to change gears when feed a steady diet of “Rossi says” for some years!

  37. For all I know IH telephoned James Bass of Johnson Matthey and he denied having been Director of Engineering for JMP. We’ll see how the legal process plays out.

  38. In the scenario of fraud by Rossi it wouldn’t add for me much more implausibility for the actor playing Director of Engineering to be assigned a name of one of Johnson Matthey’s suitable employees.

  39. On this webpage, one of many webpages for the Johnson Matthey group, there is a bit more insight in what they kind of processes they would be working on.

    Understanding thay they deal with Gold, Silver, Platinum ….. in great quantities it actually makes quite a lot of sense with restricted access and secrecy. Taking a non authorised person into the production area might be similar as to one of the employees in the bank letting someone into the vault, non authorised.

    Siffer found some employee of that group with the same name as the “supposed actor” IH speaks about. I guess well find out eventually if there is some connection between the companies.

    1. If someone could propose a process such a group might do, that is endothermic, it would be interesting to read about.

        1. That there are no known endothermic reactions that might absorb the required amount of heat under the conditions in the factory seems to be borne out by the linked discussion. Assuming that the ‘test’ was real, a twin heat exchanger ‘simulated load’ still seems to be the most likely scenario. Such a load could be easily be programmed to simulate a wide variety of heat requiring continuous processes, and to log calorimetrics in order to demonstrate to a potential user that the 1MW plant would meet their needs.

  40. To my mind that’s not a refutation of that scenario – under that scenario IH did not find “James A. Bass, Director of Engineering of J.M. Products, Inc.”, they found James Bass of Johnson Matthey.

    I note that James Bass of Johnson Matthey denying that he held the position of Director of Engineering of J.M. Products, Inc. wouldn’t rule out some other individual being James A. Bass, Director of Engineering of J.M. Products, Inc.

  41. IH does not claim that James Bass of Johnson Matthey does not exist. They claim that “James A. Bass, Director of Engineering of J.M. Products, Inc.” does not exist.

  42. You ask whether I “really think Rossi is that stupid?”

    I’m open to the possibility that he has a personality disorder.

  43. Nobody is paying me Clovis. I just want the truth and an unimpeded path to LENR and if Rossi turns out to be a fraud, I want him and his sort out of the way.

  44. This is a comment from Lenr forum.
    User Avatar
    8 hours ago+2
    OK, so I’ve just read through a few pages of comment on the other thread.

    I also read through the entire IH answer (though I’ve not yet checked most of the exhibits).

    Putting the two together, I’m unwilling to re-argue points here – the answer is almost precisely as would have been expected and IH’s story of how and why they were defrauded by Rossi is entirely consistent. That there are some here who don’t see it that way is predictable – but it does them no credit. Paras 79-86 of the counterclaim are well worth reading carefully.There are just a few points that I’d like to bring out:

    (1) The GPT errors. IH are giving, in their example, some exemplary ways in which the test clearly contravened good practice to an extent that is negligent, in several ways. The fan being just one of those, another being the existence of “cooked” data. Given such provable errors, they do not have to precisely account for how the fudges results are what they are. The point is that once you leave specs – running flowmeters wrong, substituting estimates for real data, it is very difficult afterwards to know how large is the error. You just know “dragons go here” and rightly don’t trust it. Also, given provable errors of this kind it can be reasonably supposed that there are other similar, but undetected, issues. Hence the arguments from some that because COP=50 is so large, and accounting for all of that is difficult, the device must have worked, would fail even if the exemplary errors were indeed provably limited.

    (2) The exemplary errors are not provably limited. For one reason: if some data is proven fudged no limit can be put on how much more fudge. For context please read Exhibit 5, in detail.

    (3) Flowmeter specifics.The (claimed) average flowrate is just below the minimum flowmeter spec. That is unprofessional and means the results cannot be reliable, but I’d not expect large errors just from this. Other things make the matter worse.

    (a)You remember the ill-fated DGT demo where they were able to generate arbitrary high apparent flow rates with near zero real flow rate by reducing the rate below meter spec and allowing turbulence to make the impellor run backwards? This flowmeter has the same issue, and being mounted with vapour in the tube as well as water makes this infinite error mechanism possible as well as the obvious large over-reading due to a partially filled pipe.

    (b) The evidence in exhibit 5 that the reported data on flowrate is just wrong is unmistakable (how could it remain so constant over large working reactor number changes etc?). Given this, the actual flow rate could be much lower than that reported.

    (4) IH behaviour. The arguments here from some, specifically Shane, are just scientifically and logically wrong. I know Shane does not claim to be a technical guy – but then he should not argue technical arguments with such confidence. It is actually very difficult to prove COP = 1 to any good accuracy. Much easier to prove COP is higher than some limit (if it is really greater than 1) then to prove there is no excess heat. In fact it is logically impossible to prove there is no excess heat. All you can do is say that you have not been able to measure anything convincingly above errors. IH’s care on this issue will be especially strong because until they got high power tech help in (Murray) they were influenced by Fabiani and others and relying on test methods that were just wrong. Look at their believing the Lugano results until rather late in the day when they seem to have located TC’s report. I guess Jed told them, because it is published on lenr-canr?

    (5) Armchair critics here think that IH would be certain there was no excess heat early on. That cannot be true. They would have doubts, which got larger with more experimentation. They can never say there was no excess heat, only that they have no evidence of this and certainly any actual excess is provably below some value given by their total setup errors. Correct estimation of those errors is not simple for any setup.

    Regards, THH

    1. Excellent detail and analysis. And if the court proceedings can overcome such on purpose wrong data then Industrial Heat will have won their purpose in presenting such data. Industrial Heat will have confirmed that, even in the face of severe FUD, that the E-CAT has been shown to work as the ERV shows. This is the exact reason why the ERV is not published as yet. So that only the inner circle of those in the know can put in roadblocks that will test the system and not just anybody outside that circle so as not to muddy the waters in a manner that is uncontrolled. And in so doing IH will have accomplished due diligence of the highest order. All will be friends, Rossi will receive the balance of what is due him by IH and everyone will be vindicated.

    2. It’s interesting I haven’t seen anyone else pointing out how Exhibit 5
      has no name or date, is not an original document (obviously, with
      references to Exhibits and all), and is formatted the same as the rest of
      the legal Answer with the same language as well. It’s a surprising contrast to the other Exhibits. Be
      interesting to see the original engineer-to-engineer letter.

      1. Is a copy of an email an “original document”? On the face, this is a Letter. The Answer formally attributes this to Joe Murray. The document is not complete. It had attachments, it appears, called “Exhibits.” This request to Penon was obviously after the “test” was complete, it contains references to events of February 17, and there is reference to the obvious issue of whether or not this work was the GPT. At this point, the relationship with Rossi was already badly broken,see the demand letter from Jones Day to Annesser, Rossi’s attorney, February 17 (Exhibit 23), so I expect that Rossi was already preparing to sue. Not much later, IH issued a statement to Mats Lewan and some others, and Rossi was asked if there was a problem. He claimed everything was fine with IH. He was lying.

        We can see the breakdown much earlier, with Exhibit 19, where Rossi refused access to Joe Murray “until the tests have been completed.” But the whole move of the reactor to Florida had been presented to IH as an opportunity to sell power, not as a “test,” per se, and certainly not as the Guaranteed Performance Test, and the Term Sheet (Exhibit 17) represented that IH representatives would have full access — and did not prohibit entry to the “customer area,” as Rossi has claimed.

        Rossi behaved as if it was his reactor.

        This is all not difficult to show to a jury, it’s not complicated, assuming that the appropriate evidence and testimony can be presented.

  45. Ah, don’t you see the danger in frauds? They manipulate you at the human level, get you to overlook suspicions and good business sense in order to make a few bucks. We have all done the same thing when it appears something is too good to be true and we take a high-risk gamble anyway.

  46. This is from Sifferkoll.
    Is Joseph Murray the Establishment/DoD/Apco Operative Assigned to Slow LENR Down and Trash Rossi?
    Posted on 2016/08/07
    With Joseph Murray (long DoD consultancy background) entering the scene shortly after the first quarterly ERV report showing COP~50, the likelyhood of establishment involvement increased exponentially.


    It also seems very probable that Mr. Murray has been the FUD boss in charge of leaking selected parts to Fred Zoepfl, Dewey Weaver and Jed Rothwell; like the Penon involvement, flow meter FUD, distorted ERV data, etc.

    It is interesting that as long as Rossi only produced E-Cats with limited reliability on an experimental level, IH did not feel the urge to speed anything up. They were happy with very slow progress and managed to delay the test from august 2013 untill feb 2015. In october 2013 they made Rossi believe he could still get the GPT if he made a one year test, but already at that point IH knew they would never pay due to legal technicalities. They never considered the 2nd amendment valid but had Rossi believe it was.

    I find this quote in the counterFUD describing it. Ignoring that IH themselves signed the amendment … Why?

    Leonardo and Rossi were fully aware that, per the clear and express terms of the License Agreement, they were required to commence any “Guaranteed performance” in 2013. Nevertheless, Leonardo and Rossi made no efforts to commence such a test during 2013.

    So, for good reasons Rossi did not allow Murray to visit. He probably became suspicious when Apco operative Brian McLaughlin visited together with Darden. Maybe this was the time when Rossi realized IH did not plan to pay him any money. Probably Mr. Murray was also assigned by Apco to play their agenda, who most likely are billing both IH and the DC establishment crowd.

    I suspect this was also the time when Rossi was offered a couple of millions to stop the test and Rossi offered to buy the license back for $11M, but IH refused …

    About the meeting of Tuesday, you obviously can come when you want, while Joe Murray cannot enter in the factory of JM because, as I have explained to Tom during the visit with Brian Mc Laughlin, I do not allow anybody, except for the personnel already reciprocally authorized, to approach the plant before the tests on course will have been completed.

    In the end Murray was assigned to write a letter to Penon containing flow meter FUD used and manage the FUD campaign using Jed, Zoepfl, Abdul and Weaver. Note also that this letter does not refer to the actual ERV report, not even the quarterly reports, but only other data and charts.

    A bit strange i would say, that the real ERV report is totally ignored, or … actually not. It is refered to as “speaking for itself”. Loudly it says COP~50 …

    1. The ERV remains the invisible black hole around which all else orbits. For some reason, both sides think releasing it at a later date is in their best interest. Or perhaps there’s a legal restriction on its release.

  47. I’m also open to the possibility a fraudster has a lot of lies to keep straight, including making sure their letterhead correctly spells the name of the company they are trying to misrepresent.

    1. Rossi has repeatedly said that Johnson Matthey is not the customer so forget about the misspelling of Matthey as Matthew. They are not directly related although possibly fourth cousins.

  48. “IH has another agenda.” **Due diligence** to make sure they have the actual goods. When proven out, by court no less, then what better due diligence? And if it takes a few more years, extraordinary tech requires such diligence. Everything else is just weird talk. and gets nowhere.

  49. ” It seems he not only exists but works for Johnson Matthey. This appears to be a false allegation by IH. I don’t care why they made this allegation, but it does seem false.”

    How do you figure that? Where is the proof that Bass, in his capacity as director of engineering for JMP, exists?

  50. Time to look for some other name?

    Andrea Rossi
    August 7, 2016 at 2:17 PM
    Luis Navarro:
    Thank you for the link, anyway, as I always said, Johnson Matthey is NOT the Customer.
    Warm regards,

    1. Rossi is a liar. He did not “always say” that. He tried to convince I.H. that Johnson Matthey was the customer, as described in the I.H. Answer, p. 43:

      “. . . Rossi and Johnson made a number of false representations to Industrial Heat, most notably that JMP (at the time called J.M. Chemical Products, Inc.) was a confidential subsidiary of Johnson Matthey p.l.c. (“Johnson Matthey”), and that Johnson Matthey was interested in using the E-Cat technology in connection with a confidential manufacturing process it wanted to operate in Florida. In fact, in August 2014 Johnson on behalf of JMP even warranted in writing that JMP “[was] owned by an entity formed in the United Kingdom, and none of Leonardo, Dr. Andrea Rossi, Henry W. Johnson nor any of their respective subsidiaries, directors, officers, agents, employees, affiliates, significant others, or relatives by blood or marriage [had] any ownership interest” in JMP. See Compl. Ex. B. (last page of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit). JMP, however, has never been a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey, was not operating or planning to operate any manufacturing process in Florida, and was in fact owned by persons whom Johnson represented in writing did not have any ownership interest in JMP.”

      1. Is this not the same as IH not being Cherokee?

        What he says is correct, though Johnson Matthey may be behind JM Products.

  51. The minimum flow argument may be flawed. Exhibit 5 says that the MWN130-80-NC flow meter has a minimum flow rate of 1.6 m3/hr and that leads them to a minimum flow rate of 37,548 kg/day.

    But I found a spec sheet that clearly shows the minimum flow rate of this model as 1.4 m3/hr

    That would be under 33,000 kg/day and well under the 36,000 kg/day that is apparently in the ERV report and has been offered by Rossi directly.

    So they misread the label or are lying about it? Or the label is overly conservative and the true specs can handle the lower flow rate? I dunno, but seems like one of the key legs of the BAD FLOW METER, OH NOOOOOOOO!!!!! argument may have just been eaten by termites.

      1. Also, what about that claim that the steam pipe is a DN40 pipe? That would make it a 1.57 inch pipe. Clearly not what we can visually see.

        The Exhibit also makes other claims about data, but no actual data from the plant is published with which to evaluate the claims. Good thing is, since Penon and Fabiani have been summoned, they will need to defend themselves and offer up the goods.

        1. I don’t know what to make of the pipe info. Until the ERV report comes out and we can actually see schematics/pictures I think it’s too easy to make bad assumptions.

  52. I asked Rossi about this part:

    80. “Leonardo, Rossi, JMP, Johnson and Fabiani even went so far as to create a
    fictional JMP employee – James A. Bass, Director of Engineering for JMP. Despite diligent
    search, Counter-Plaintiffs have not been able to identify or locate this individual, for the simple
    reason that he does not exist. ”

    Rossi replied: “Obviously it is false, as all the things IH said. In Court this issue will be duly developed. “

  53. Wow. I’m lost for words. But maybe that’s just as well as I fear they would be ugly.

    But I will ask… What ever happened to IH? One year ago I had so much hope for them. How did they ever reduce themselves to this?

    I won’t say more the rest is for the court. I hope there is genuine justice.

  54. At the very least these revelations show incompetence all round. Why didn’t IH monitor the test properly? Why did they allow AR to bully them into doing what he wanted? Why was the ERV allowed to make stupid mistakes? It would have been quite east to set up automatic data logging where the information was sent back to IH’s head office on a daily basis, any fraud would then have shown up within days, if not hours. If what IH claim is true then it’s also true that they gave their money away far too easily to a fraudster and wasted everyone’s time for over a year. Perhaps they were fooled by JM sending them $30K every month but really that’s no excuse.
    In the meantime IH have destroyed their reputation in terms of prudence, and misleading their own investors. I still find IH’s version of events a bit smelly but only a trial will decide.

    1. The parties agreed to the measuring and the ERV. And with a high trust at the start, then all
      these “extra” steps would not be deemed necessary.

      Clearly over time IH started to suspect something.

      If reading correctly, IH wanted another party to do some testing and measurements and
      Rossi objecting is a huge red flag here.

      Given that the ERV was already independent, then for what reason would Rossi or anyone care if
      someone wanted to make additional measurements? There should and would be near
      zero reasons for such objections. I cannot fathom why any such objections would
      occur from Rossi.

      Clearly IH does not feel the ERV was independent. At this point not a big deal, but allowing additional people to measure the heat production should not result in any objections from
      Rossi – even if relationships were strained.

      With such a high COP, additional measurements would be in the relative same ball park and would only serve to support Rossi.

      So why objections to other parties measuring heat does not bode well for Rossi at all. Such
      measurements would NOT put IP rights at risk. Refusal to allow different measuring does not pass the smell test here.
      IH objections and issues make sense if they are on the level here.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      1. Come on you’re not that dumb, i will answer you, because i like you, you know darn well you can’t have people falling all over you when you are doing real work, people you have no idea who they are or who they might be working for or to do savitage to either device Dr.R , or JMC.
        That to me is very reasonable request, I/H was up to no good already, and you also know that the ERV was well known by I/H They had hired him before, and had no objections to his earlier work, he is a very good and well known and trusted power plant technician , if more folks were accepted they would have to put their own equipment in line ,and how would that screw up the test, no you know better than that now don’t you, i began to wonder about your judgement.

        1. Well, we not talking about hordes of people messing around the plant. And with the ERV and Rossi present, then I fail to see how one additional person doing some measurements when Rossi and the ERV is present is much of an issue?

          And how would such additional measuring screw up the test? I mean with the existing measuring equipment in place, any such “change” in outputs or change in plant’s operation would show up immediate and thus be noted as such.

          So the too many cooks spoiling the dinner so to speak makes sense, but an additional measuring and inspecting of the existing methods should not be much of an issue and subject to little objections.

          After all, Rossi even stated he placed some instruments beside the ERV and obtained the same results. So clearly Rossi was able to do some additional heat measuring of the plant without effecting operation – I fail to see why having someone else do the same thing would thus be an issue in regards to effecting plant performance.

          We not talking about handing the plant operation to some third party here or some kind of interruption of the plant’s operation.

          However, I can accept that some “spin” exists on this issue, since the issue may well have been more in regards to who and when outside access is allowed – this was clearly always well controlled and I gladly accept that objections to additional measuring was not in regards to additional measuring, but that of issues of access to the plant. The simple issue is with such a high COP, then additional measuring would only server to shore up the results.
          IH may well have good reasons for doubts, or they may well be poor reasons – we simply have to wait and see.

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      2. Maybe Rossi did deny access to Murray maybe he didn’t. There doesn’t seem to be any documentation to support the IH claim that he did. IH says “{in July 2015, Rossi denied Murray access to the Plant without any reasonable justification. See Ex. 19.”

        But Ex 19 clearly states ” About the meeting of Tuesday, you obviously can come when you want, while Joe Murray cannot enter in the factory of JM because …”

        The factory of JM is the factory of the secret customer not the Ecat plant. Maybe there are other communications we are not privy to that told Rossi Murray wanted to visit the customer’s plant and that is what Rossi is referring to.

        IMO it is to early to have an opinion as to who is lying at this point and the only certainty we have is that somebody is.

        1. Agree.

          Sure the context of objections to someone else visiting the plant is certainly an issue. The objections may be a simple issue of when/who can visit the plant and what kinds of access to the plant location are to be granted – not that of simply measuring outputs.

          As noted the objections to ERV’s measurements will pan out in due time.

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  55. Jed, over and over again I see how you manipulate the dialog by jumping on any thing that you feel can “gain points” for IH. At the same time you are avoiding very simple questions.
    You yourself have been full of critique about the flow meters for the last 3 months, and now that LENR G comes up with some technical details about the minimum flow rate being compatible with the reported flow rate, you completely ignore that. Instead you respond to the pipe issue.I strongly question your intellectual honesty; it is clear to me that you have an agenda and use your discussion skills and your LENR prestige to further that agenda. You have fallen to the level of MaryYugo… anything goes as long as it is damaging to the “enemy”. Fairness is for sports, not for war, seems to be your motto. In my eyes you have fallen very deep, no matter who turns out to be right in the end.

  56. You forget. With what they did, and I assume with full disclosure, they raised $50 million from Woodford for LENR research, and may have raised much more. They did not lose, they gained. Rossi can’t touch that money, because it went into IHHI, which owns IH. However, if Rossi were to deliver on working IP, as he promised, it could all turn around. It would then be worthwhile for IHHI to put money into IH to pay Rossi, together with other money they could easily raise.

    I find it funny that it seems to be common that people think that IH managers are “dumb.” They know what they are doing and they have been quite successful at it. Rossi fans feed Rossi “questions” that point to Cherokee “frauds,” but Cherokee has never been found responsible for a fraud. What happens is that Cherokee invests in risky projects, and these not uncommonly lose money and go bankrupt. If they do, Cherokee loses their investment (typically $25 million), but if the project is successful, they make a lot of money. These projects, individual limited partnerships — which means qualified investors, not the general public — raise a lot of money from other investors, often local to projects, and from environmental funds, state money, the like. And if the market turns and/or the project turns out to be much more expensive than thought, the investors lose some or all of their investments, and also there can be state government losses. And then some investigative reporter claims fraud. But it’s never been actually shown And it’s unlikely. They have a very good business going without fraud, and committing fraud would be truly stupid.

  57. I tend to agree with your assessment. It was all inevitably going to come down to this one issue. Those who say it is irrelevant to the broader dispute are kidding themselves. My concern is that the MSM will latch on to this apparent ruse and run with just that, potentially bringing to pass the much-feared (by LENR+ skeptic / LENR supporter crowd) setback.

    For the love of all things good, me356 should release a set of directions for replicating a high-COP experiment to the MFMP, and soon. Without near-term replications, I fear the whole LENR field is going to be slaughtered in the public’s eye by nefarious forces wanting to set the whole field back by another couple of decades.

  58. People misrepresent things all the time. Politicians can promise you anything but don’t have to deliver. In America the police can lie to you and that’s OK. Like that guy on TV that says his product is 50% better- better than what? What Rossi may have said in an email doesn’t seem to bother Hydrofusion. Whether he screwed the pooch is another matter.

    I agree if there is no customer Rossi is toast. If Rossi conspired with the customer Rossi is toast. If Rossi conspired with the ERV Rossi is toast. But if Rossi isn’t toast IH may still win on a technicality that the test was not done within the agreed upon time limit. Are these allegations against Rossi if unproven going to be used against him later on as others have suggested? Is this trial also being used for PR management? Stay tuned for the ongoing story Rossi vs the world or the World vs Rossi.

  59. Rossi’s comment about the IH claims is very clear:

    JP Renoir
    August 7, 2016 at 6:24 PM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I have just finished to read the 66 pages of the countercomplaints of IH, but they are just making assumption on the base of which make slanders. They did not bring on a single proof of what they say, just shoot accusations. Anyway: is there at least one accusation you consider dangerous or sustainable ?

    Andrea Rossi
    August 7, 2016 at 6:41 PM
    JP Renoir:
    Honestly, there is not a single and I repeat a single point in all the 66 pages that we will not be able to cancel with due evidence in Court. I repeat: these 66 pages are a gold mine, because in all their points they give evidence of the vicious falsity of our foe; sometimes such falsity assumes comic aspects, as we’ll see in due time, in due place. They are not ashamed to slander persons with the goal to avoid to have to pay.
    By the way, to understand the way to do things of these guys, go to read on this blog the links in the comment of
    Jill posted on 2016/08/06 at 5:31 PM
    Warm Regards,

    Patrick Ellul
    August 7, 2016 at 5:20 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    In a world of science and law, without proof or witness, no one will believe that the customer plant was making real use of the heat.
    If this becomes an issue in court, will you be able to exhibit proof or witness of what the customer was using the heat for?
    Best regards

    Andrea Rossi
    August 7, 2016 at 5:31 PM
    Patrick Ellul:
    Talking of proof and witness: in all the 66 pages of the countercomplaints there is not a single countercomplaint of which we will not be able to give evidence of its total falsity.
    The slanders that compound the substance of all the 66 pages will be duly processed by our Attorney.
    Obviously, I cannot enter in particulars and answer to issues to be discussed in Court.
    Warm Regards,

  60. Chapman, you changed your position 180 degrees. Before you said customer irrelevant, now you said it is relevant. Before you said, steam out from plant is important factor not customer, based on Agreement. You said, court will look what was in Agreement not to customer.

    1. Don’t think that they would be making platinum oxide there as it needs a lot of containment. People have develop sensitivity very rapidly.

  61. Maybe someone can explain why John T Vaughn made the company name alterations and initialed the document as originally created by Johnson the lawyer? Note the same writing style.

    This clearly shows JM Products Inc (JMP) was not at arms length to IH and possibly that IH knows who the UK parent of JMP is.

    I mean surely IH would have conducted due diligence on the UK parent of the US startup to ensure they would be paid and that their plant would be safe.

    These 2 documents would suggest IH did know of and approved the UK parent as IH did the name change to the document and initialed the change.

    Which just may blow apart part of the IH counterclaims or worse.

    1. “These 2 documents would suggest IH did know of and approved the UK parent as IH did the name change to the document and initialed the change.”

      No, they don’t. It. What they show is that the name ‘JM Chemicals, Inc.’ was changed to ‘JM Chemical Products, Inc.’, both referring to the same subsidiary of the unknown UK parent.

      1. Hi Teemu,

        If so how do explain IH’s vice president Vaughn made the name changes and initialed them?

        If IH was arms length from JMP, he would have no right nor business to initial that document.

        1. I’m not sure I follow. It was probably Johnson who made the correction, and JT agreed.

          As to the bigger picture, this does in no way implicate IH’s knowledge of the identity of the parent.

          1. I don’t care who made the alterations, it is of no relevance. All we know is that both JT and Johnson signed off on it.

            I keep coming back to the point that nowhere in this document is it alluded to that Johnson Matthey is the parent, nor that IH knows who the parent is.

          2. Hi Teemu,

            So it is of NO relevance that Vaughn made the changes and initialed the document? I suggest the court may see it differently and ask him why he made the changes if that company had nothing to do with him.

            Rossi told IH JM was involved.Would have taken IH one or 2 phone calls to verify that.

            So here we have IH stating Rossi told them JM was involved and now implying they NEVER called JM to verify that statement?

            Is IH totally naive yet people trust them to do the proper due diligence to protect their investments?

            Anyone with a business background would find IH’s statement to be highly contradictory and at the best, VERY BAD business practice.

            I live in the business reality world and I can tell you I would NEVER have signed off on the heat sale without talking with the UK parent of the US startup to ensure they would be paying the account and ensuring the plant was safe.

  62. ‘And yet, If there is a real customer that is NOT Mathey, what is the likelihood that the employee shares a name now found connected with Mathey, and how did this company wind up in the exact same business, with exact same product, with almost identical name’

    To find another UK company in the business and with the same product is difficult, if not impossible. I have sat here doing websearches all ways and found nothing. Most of the precious metal companies are in the recovery business for catalytic converters. The company has to be big enough to figure on the international stage. Proving a negative is difficult but ….

    1. My contact’s contact really didn’t know anyone at Royston, so more information on JB is not forthcoming, I’m afraid

  63. I didn’t expect to take this turn but I agree that now the customer is a relevant piece of the puzzle. If he’s fake that makes the other accusations a lot more credible or vice-versa, in the eyes of the court.


    On page 25, it states that the customer was a british company and meets the requirements of the office of foreign agent control.

    “JMC is owned by an entity formed in the United Kingdom.”

    Now how can that certification be scammed?

    Often described as one of the most powerful yet unknown government agencies,[5][6] OFAC has been in existence for more than a half-century and is playing an increasingly significant role as a foreign policy lever of the U.S. government. The agency is empowered to levy significant penalties against entities that defy it, including imposing colossal fines, freezing assets, and altogether barring parties from operating in the U.S. Notably, in 2014, OFAC reached a record $1 billion settlement with the French BNP Paribas, which was a portion of approximately $9 billion penalty imposed in relation to the case as a whole.[7]

    1. Hi Axil,

      Need to factor in that IH’s vice president, J.T. Vaughn made the name change and initialed them.

      Would expect the companies lawyer & president to do this.

      So why did Vaughn do the changes?

  65. So, this mail is sounding like a smoking gun! Everyone keeps talking about it, but can someone provide the link?

    Sorry, have been absent for a while.

  66. My point was that it is far more difficult to fake automated data logging, and any drop-outs in the plants performance would be immediately noticeable in the data and comparable with the data from JM if that was available. If they allowed AR to only use human readable meters, again, IH were mugs.

  67. You should read the emails from Rossi to Darden, then, when he states how much Cherokee can make (2012 when he was being courted). He certainly believed he was dealing with them as the email when to a Cherokee email address!

  68. Hi Jed,

    Can you explain why John T. Vaughn, IH’s vice president, altered and initialed the document originally created by Johnson that made various claims about who did and who did not have beneficial ownership / control of JMP as attached?

    Does this not suggest IH knew the statements in the document to be true and correct as Vaughn did the alterations and placed his initials on the document?

    Surely IH did due diligence on the UK parent to be sure they would be paid the heat fee and that their plant would be safe?

    Or did IH jump into bed with a US startup company and had no idea who the beneficial owners were?

    VERY difficult to believe IH did not do due diligence on the UK parent.

    VERY simple for them to do this check prior to signing the heat sale agreement.

  69. Exhibit 5:
    ‘In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day without deviation.
    See Exhibit B
    . How is that plausible? ‘

    This is plausible for two reasons :-
    1: The water is supplied to the reactors by precision positive displacement pumps where you dial in the desired flow rate and that is what you get.
    2: LuFong’s data obtained from one of the Exhibits states that, in June, 26 days were at 1MW and 4 at 750kw. In July 26 days were also at full power and 4 days at 750kw. If the July reductions in power were all at the end of the month and the last reduction in June was on the 29th, a continuous run at full power is what occurred.

    LuFong was reading one of the Exhibits and I do no know which one yet.
    LuFong GiveADogABone • 2 days ago
    Here are the month’s days at 1MWh/h and 750KWh/h
    June 26/4
    July 26/4
    August 15/16
    Sept 15/15
    Oct —–
    Nov —–
    Dec 20/11
    So 50 days over 5 months (no data for Oct/Nov and other months of test).

  70. It appears that document was altered after creation (the ‘w’ was inserted in place of the ‘y’).

    I don’t know by who or why. I speculate that even though Rossi was telling IH that Johnson Matthey was involved that felt it unwise to put that name on any official documents because either:
    a) it was false and they didn’t want Johnson Matthey to have any legal reason to sue
    or b) they wanted to preserve plausible deniability of any involvement for Johnson Matthey.

    There are other possible explanations too. But it appears to be an intentional typo.

  71. I found another inconsistency regarding Rossi’s claims vs IH’s rebuttal:

    Andrea Rossi
    February 4th, 2015 at 2:34 PM
    Steven N. Karels:
    On the base of your comment, I definitely used the wrong English translation.
    Let me then correct, and write that the 1 MW plant that has been delivered to the Customer is a production plant, the number one of the production made in the USA by Industrial Heat and our magnificent team.
    Warm Regards,

    Here, Rossi is saying in no uncertain terms that the 1 MW plant was made “in the USA by IH and Leonardo”.

    However, in EXHIBIT 17:

    “Industrial Heat– –owns a 1 MW E-Cat steam plant (‘the 1 MW Plant’) built by affiliates of Leonardo in Italy in 2013.”

    1. Somebody is not telling the truth and that is a BIGGIE!
      Not just because the statements conflict but also because IH built, or had a hand in building, a 1MW E-cat that runs.

      1. One side knows it is going to lose. There is nothing subtle about this lawsuit. One side is lying its butt off.

        So, one has to wonder what the motive is for the side that knows it has no chance.

        Industrial Heat: delay, obstruction, tie up Leonardo resources
        Rossi/Leonardo: buying time for and perpetuating a scam

        Which seems more likely?

        1. The only motive for IH to delay and obstruct would be if they got an offer they could not refuse from a BIG FISH.

          I find that really hard to buy.

          Rossi, on the other hand, has been shown to revel in glee in his little dog and pony shows (see the Hydrofusion deception, EXH. 12 and 13).

          Of course, this is exactly how IH would want to paint him as IF they were compromised and would not think twice about fabricating evidence when the stakes were so high…

          1. Not necessarily. They could have other tech in their portfolio that they have decided to commercialize instead of Rossi’s.

            That would mean somebody else with prototype reactors, such a Lenuco: Lenuco owns a portion of IH’s international holding company, so there is a clear, provable relationship.

            It could also mean government coercion. I don’t know if you included them in BIG FISH.

          2. I have one implicit assumption that may be wrong, but nevertheless makes a great deal of sense to me: It was Rossi’s work that started the whole revitalization of the LENR scene. If the E-Cat were just smoke and mirrors, it would be a bit too convenient for actually working technologies to suddenly rise in its wake. Therefore, if any of the purported LENR technologies of IH work, then that almost certainly means that the E-Cat works. And if the E-Cat works, I cannot imagine any other technology being so much ahead that IH would just dump Rossi cold.

            And yes, government is def. included in BIG FISH.

          3. Right, but technology lead is not the only factor. As we have seen, Rossi can be very difficult to work with and they may have seen a way to ride another horse, avoid payment of $89M and still get to the finish line with more control and revenue potential. (Plus it may be a more defensive move if they felt Rossi was scheming to move on with a larger player like ABB or Johnson Matthey.)

            Knowing of course, too, that they could sideline Rossi rather easily given his reputation and the general cold fusion denial of the scientific community.

            If that’s what is going on the emergence of the E-Cat X and QX must have been a rather unwelcome turn of events in IH headquarters.

    2. There is more than one plant. The six cylinder, the original plant with the big boxy silver E-cat things, and this plant. It is a little confusing. We see the images of the current one being made by a crew, and was that once it was in the US or Italy? Was it worked on in both locations? We’re the Tigers installed in the US but other units in Italy? Just to hard to say at the moment beyond what the visual evidence we have shows.

    3. Hi Teemu,

      You need to get your time lines in order.

      That term sheet was signed 13 Aug, 2014, when the only plant IH had was the unit originally deliver to IH from Italy.

      Prior to the start of the 1 year trial, IH built at least 2 more 1MW plants, being the 51 reactor backup plant and the 4 slab/Tiger prime plant.

      So Rossi’s statement of 4 Feb 2015 is correct and the plant as installed at Doral was an IH manufactured dual 1 MW plant.

        1. Hi Teemu,

          The only reactor IH had when that term sheet was created was the 1MW reactor in a blue container as IH tested in Italy. Note the roof mounted slab reactors.

          And yes that is Darden and Vaughn there for the testing process, where they also tested a HotCat reactor.

  72. I find Industrial Heat’s technical case underwhelming. For all the whooping and hollering going on from Planet Zero I thought the information they presented would be damning and comprehensive.

    But the flow meter is fine, iron deposits in the pipe don’t mean much to me without much more discovery and analysis, the constant flow is easily explained by pumps/flow regulators designed to make it so, the steam pressure argument is weak, the changes in the number of active reactors are interesting but hardly a smoking gun if redundancy was built into the reactors for just such outages, and things changing after the system was shut down is to be expected.

    The argument that Rossi missed the performance window is just plain slimy. All the he said/they said and document forensics is tiring. Rossi and company being uncooperative once the Murray team was hired seems predictable. I await Rossi’s response and then we’ll be better able to hash things out.

    I could use some MFMP or me356 news. Or a Mats Lewan interview with James Bass.

  73. I cannot get over Exhibit 18.

    Rossi claims that Johnson Matthey is NOT the customer, but the letterhead (promptly removed in latter mails) read “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthew Platinum Sponges”. This implies three distinct possibilities:

    1. ‘Johnson Matthew’ was a misspelling of ‘Johnson Matthey’ –> Rossi is a liar
    2. It really did mean to read ‘Johnson Matthew’, which is a nonexistent entity –> Rossi is a liar AND purposely misleaded IH with a red herring
    3. Fabrication by IH –> IH are liars

    The only reasonable defense that Rossi can muster up is pure fabrication, which really sets up a larger IH conspiracy theory.

    1. JM Chemical Products is the customer. Doesn’t matter who is behind them when one says who the customer is, same with IH and Cherokee. That is how the business shell game works and why it is done. Technicalities!

      1. But do you really believe that a shell company with possibly no employees and Rossi’s lawyer as its President is going to hold up in court? All these sneaky allusions to JM will not go unexplored, as they serve as vital pieces of evidence to Rossi’s persona and integrity. The parent company will have to come forward, as they’re a key witness in all of this.

        1. Indeed, they will be fully explored and parent pulled out of the dark, which is great!

          But shells let businesses do weird stuff that makes little reasonable sense from our view, like IPH which is literally just IH by a different name, without actually lying… technically. The Court will cut through the crud, thank goodness.

        2. Hi Teemu,

          JMP employees could have been on loan and paid by their Tennessee employer JM Catalysts. So it is very possible for JMP to have had no, on balance sheet, employees.

          As for the JMP parent coming forward, I believe IH need to prove to the court their counter claims are valid, especially as they claim fraud by their own employees, consultants and IP licensor.
          BTW shell companies happen all the time as do lawyers being the company president. Nothing special in that.

    2. If you add that up there were at least 50 days in which the plant operated at less than full power. the test only ran for 352 days, therefore the test failed because it did not produce the required output for the required duration. As this information is incomplete we can’t be sure that there were no further outages. On these figures alone, the test would have had to continue till day 365 in order to provide 1MWth 24hrs a day for 350 days. Also, why wasn’t JM not complained about loss of production on so many days and asking for a refund? Clearly the plant was running unreliably and yet JM didn’t complain once.

          1. Err. No refund would be asked for since they did not overpay, but scaled payments to what they got.

      1. Hi Bill,

        There is no requirement for the plant to achieve 1MW x 24 x 350. Just that the COP was 6 or greater over 350 days of the trial.

        All a lower MWh generation effected was the amount JMP paid IH for the heat.

        1. I highly dubious reading of the facts. Day 1, COP 6.1, write up the report and let’s go home…what about the customer?….oh sod them, let’s collect the cash…

    3. Regarding possibility 1: Henry Johnson made the letterhead and only used it once – it was a typo. This makes sense since JMC is just a shell company with Johnson the representing agent, which we already knew.

      Possibility 4: “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthe[y] Platinum Sponges” actually means that this company buys Johnson Matthey Platinum Sponges and then makes something else, e.g. “advanced derivatives” out of them. This company could be connected to Johnson Matthey or maybe it’s not. The point is that just because the letterhead says “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthe[y] Platinum Sponges” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s directly connected to Johnson Matthey.

      All this being said, I agree that a number of things are somewhat fishy. On the other hand, the license agreement regarding the 1 year test says nothing about a customer. What counts is whether or not the plant produced excess heat or not. More specifically regarding the license agreement, whether or not it produced on the order of 1 MW with a COP > 4 for 350 days.

      On the other hand it also seems clear that IH never intended to pay the $89M, since apparently they delayed the test and now claim that the delay means that that they don’t have to pay even if it worked! All this despite the fact that they signed an amendment agreement allowing for a delay in the test! What we’re talking about here is a one-sided (in terms of contracts and territories) agreement in favor of IH, their rapacious desire to patent something which they claim does not work, including in Rossi’s territory of Europe (and also including an obscure shell company in the Netherlands which again is in Rossi’s territory, and an apparent attempt to “steal” Rossi’s IP – worth trillions if it works – for a mere $10M (rather than the $100 M promised following a successful test). So right now things look fairly bad for both sides, although I think that we still need to wait for two things before coming to a firm conclusion:

      (1) the results of the court case/trial and

      (2) whether or not Rossi can demonstrate successful technology before then.

    4. Hi Teemu,

      JMP is the customer.

      What Rossi has said is JM is not the UK parent, which seems to be technically correct as Alan Smith found the UK parent and it is just another shell company but this time a UK shell company.

      1. “What Rossi has said is JM is not the UK parent”

        On the JONP? I have never seen this, please provide a link.

          1. I have provided links for my arguments. Only fair you should do the same and stop being condescending.

  74. They didn’t provide any photo proof about it either yet, so we just have a vague description in the unsigned exhibit to go on. Actual photos would do wonders so I wonder why they aren’t here. Hopefully eventually.

  75. Jed RothwellAugust 7, 2016 at 8:42 PM
    You misread the documents and data from I.H. They said there was no measurable excess heat from any reactor. Not the ones Rossi made and operated, and not the ones I.H. made according to his instructions. They said, for example: “Indeed, using the E-Cat technology Plaintiffs directly provided them, Industrial Heat and IPH have been unable to produce any measurable excess energy.” Elsewhere, they said this about Rossi’s own test.

    They did not say the COP was less than 4. They said it was less than 1 (no excess heat). They said this repeatedly and unequivocally.

    I have seen a sample of Rossi’s data, and I agree with I.H. evaluation. There was no indication of excess heat. Furthermore, the data is rife with fraud and outrageous mistakes, as described in Exhibit 5. There were days when the reactor was half turned off, or fully turned off, yet the data log shows it produced 1 MW continuously on those same days. That is blatant fraud. The claim that 1 MW of heat was released into the customer site is baloney. They ran the wrong kind of flow meter in a pipe half full of water. They knew they were doing that! They were told. They did it deliberately, in order to produce a fake, inflated COP. They did this with other instruments as well.

  76. Hi Michael,

    When IH and Rossi were alleged to be discussing JM’s desire to be involved in the test, it would have been very simple and quick for IH to call JM and verify what Rossi had told them.

    In fact it would have been mandatory for IH to do that due diligence check with JM, BEFORE entering into any agreement with JMP, as otherwise why would they jump into bed with a total US startup, trust them to pay for the heat, trust them to not steal the plant, thrust them to keep their property safe, etc?

    That IH apparently did not do that very simple act of proper due diligence is BEYOND BELIEF!

    Or maybe they did act properly, did the due diligence on the UK parent and engaged the term sheet contract having executed all the expected due diligence.

    It would seem that as Vaughn made the name changes and initialed the Johnson document setting out who does and does not own what, that IH did execute due diligence as why would Vaughn do the document alteration as IH are claimed to be at arms length?

    Very strange!

  77. Hi LT, I wonder the same.
    Also it seams that Abd and Jed are working hard to put the last post on all pro Rossi posts,
    while questioning Rossi do not render keyword efforts from them.
    It reminds me of a certain Thomas Clarke over at LENRForum and other blogs. It is not a sign of health to put in that much effort for nothing. This goes for sifferkoll as well.

  78. I agree that IH probably thought it was Johnson Matthey, but the dispute I was having with Engineer48 was over whether these 2 documents specifically suggest that. :p

    There’s still a chance that the ‘James A. Bass’ as representative of JMP was not the same James Bass that works for Matthey. Who knows?

  79. This is a problem with cut and paste.When you are not the writer can not answer.
    Maybe someone else knows
    what the writer means.

  80. Hi Michael,

    Technically the JMP UK parent could be a shell company set up to further isolate JM. So when Rossi states JM is not the parent UK company he is probably correct.

    As for IH and their reported conversation with Rossi about JM’s desire to be involved, it would be VERY simple for IH to call JM and confirm Rossi’s claim.

    So it seems highly likely that JM were involved in the 1 year trial in some way but that the UK parent of JMP is not directly JM but a UK shell company set up to further isolate JM.

  81. Rossi says his relationship with Hydrofusion not affected by the publication of the correspondence with IH in regard to the 2012 test in Sweden:

    Andrea Rossi
    August 8, 2016 at 8:10 AM
    Never been better than now. We are a Team and a united family, working together to make in Sweden our European pole. We had this morning an important meeting on Skype focused on that: we also talked of the countercomplaints of IH for a minute, but did not have much time for it, leaving space to the important things we are doing.
    Warm Regards,

    1. Hi Teemu,

      Ask yourself why IH put that HF email corro into their countersuit? I has NOTHING to do with the actions between IH and Rossi.

      Did they seek to try to damage Rossi in the eyes of potential and current partners?

      Did they include the wider frame of reference or just cherry pick an out of context example designed to inflict max damage to Rossi?

      1. Yes, obviously it was intended to defame Rossi’s character. And Rossi, it turns out, is not always a very nice guy.

        1. Hi Teemu,

          We really have no idea what was happening in the HF relationship.

          I know from my own dealing to buy several plants from Rossi that he can be a little frustrating at times (mainly because I wish he could deliver quicker) but he has never lied to me.

          I have orders in the pipeline for:

          2 x low temp 1MW ECats for own heat clients,

          6 x 50kW QuarkK reactors for my Remote Area system,

          5 x domestic 10kW home units for me

          10 x 1MW ECats for my power plant clients.

          1. I think when you talk about domestic 10KW units you’d better get to the end of the queue, or more than a few people are going to be upset with Mr Rossi.

          2. Rossi purposely engineered the circumstances to forge a failed demonstration of his technology and reveled in the ‘masterpiece’ plan that allowed him to escape the agreement through a loophole. Call it what you want.

          3. Hi Teemu,

            Unless you can prove that allegation, I suggest you retract it or just maybe be accused of slander.

            ECW is not the place to make wild claims that you can’t prove.

          4. Hi Teemu, who wrote:
            “Rossi purposely engineered the circumstances of a failed demonstration of his technology and reveled in the ‘masterpiece’ plan that allowed him to escape the agreement through a loophole. Call it what you want.”

            Your statement is just your opinion and nothing more but you state it as if it was fact, which it is not. What it is, is slander.

            As I stated before we have no idea as to the relationship with HF at that time, so no one outside that circle should make comment, especially from what may be IH cherry picked emails that may only show what they may wish to show.

            What we do know is HF and Rossi are building a factory together in Sweden. It is also highly probable that it was HF who steered JM into the Doral test.

          5. I don’t know, E48, seems like fact if one assumes that the emails in the exhibits are genuine.

            They show Rossi to be very calculating, unethical and self-serving when it comes to business relationships.

            I don’t know that I am even mildly surprised by this.

          6. Hi LenrG,

            What we know is HF are still there, so just maybe the email was Rossi the salesman trying to close a deal with IH, which I expect that was all it was.

            In 40 years of business, have seen a lot worst close pitches, which after a few start to educate the gut as to that is real and what is salesman BS.

          7. Why are you making assumptions based on pure conjecture? We know from Mats Lewan’s book that the failed demonstration actually happened, and here we have a perfectly good explanation based on material evidence. Could there be more to it than we currently now? Sure, but you’re going out of your way to INVENT scenarios to defend Rossi. Why are you so irrationally and emotionally invested in a positive outcome?

          8. Hi Teemu,

            I invent nothing but real technology for my business.

            We are done with our discussions.

            Must say you are the 1st forum member I have blocked.

          9. Have you actually READ the exhibits?

            Here, let me give you some quotes:

            “Dear Tom, mission accomplished. With this company Hydrofusion we had agreed upon a draft to sell them IP, know how and manufacturing license for Europe but Germany, France and Italy. By our law, if you send a proposal you are engaged to accept if the proposee accepts all the conditions of the proposal. After receiving your last text at the end of August I decided to go ahead with you, THEREFORE I HAD TO GET RID OF THIS ENGAGEMENT.”

            “The only way out was to invite them to a test, ask them to bring
            with them their consultant. I MADE THE TEST ABORT, maintaining the temperatures below the starting limit. THEN I MADE UP SOME DISCUSSIONS, I SAID THEY MADE A WRONG TEST, they escaped, I am free.”

            “NOW I AM PUBLISHING THAT I AM SURPRISED OF ALL OF THIS ADO FOR NOTHING, since I already said that for the Hot Cat we needed more tests before saying it is a product ready for the market.
            At this point we can organize with Cherokee a world strategy…”

            “I got rid of the European big clicense I had to sign. I MADE A MASTERPIECE MAKING THEM GO VOLUNTARILY.. .I will explain personally. “

          10. Hi Teemu,

            I will say this to you again.

            You have no idea what was really happening with HF nor if that email was just a bit of sales bluff and what Rossi describes to IH really happened.

            You are reading way too much into one side of a sales pitch corro and forming negative assumption based on nothing of substance.

            I have been in business a long time and have had much worse sales pitches made to me to me, which as it turned out was just made up salesman BS to try to sweeten and close a deal.

            Happens all the time in business. That is why my gut is such a good BS detector.

            However your statement about Rossi is pure slander and I suggest you remove it unless you think you can defend it in a court of law.

          11. How cute.

            Let’s get real, though: this blog is meant to be a place for speculation. We are now forced to consider two options: either Rossi or IH have engaged in fraudulent activity. I’m not taking sides, just shooting ideas around – while you, clearly, are part of the “Rossi defense force”. Why? Is it because, unlike me, you have vested interest in the outcome and HOPE your business plans will come to fruition?

          12. Hi Teemu,

            Unlike you, I have had my interests known almost from day one. That is the way I work. I don’t play games nor make statements I can’t back up. I also offer kindly advise when I see someone going off the deep end.

            I have done extensive investigation of all the available photos and descriptions of the 1MW reactors and as an engineer what I see there is what I would expect to see there, knowing the end product and how it is controlled.

            Your mileage may vary as I have no idea of your age, business and engineering experience.

          13. I don’t judge people’s arguments by the credentials of said people, I suggest you do the same.

            If you’re so good at determining who’s lying in this dispute, perhaps you should offer your expert services to the Silver Law Group.

          14. Hi Teemu,

            I’m very good at a wide range of engineering and know when I read BS as in item 5.

            I also have enough coal face business / contract law experience to know that there is no way IH did not contact JM and execute their due diligence, re Rossi’s claims as any decent company would do to protect themselves and their investors with a VERY important test.

            When I read their claims as in item 5 and their claims about Rossi’s claim about JM, well that is more than enough to cause my BS detector to hit the upper limit.

          15. I believe you to be a far better judge of such technical details than me, so I am not going to challenge you on that.

            However, even if the claim is false, that does not automatically imply a “IH are frauds” scenario. There are so many inexplicable decisions and claims made by both sides that defy logic that I don’t think we’re going to find out the truth before we get the full picture.

          16. How do we know that? It’s equally conjecture, it’s a “Rossi says” unless you can show a contract, a building, a picture, a location? anything concrete in fact.

    2. Seems from all accounts it appears like Hydrofusion doesn’t care about that 2012 thing, or more is going on than IH is presenting (such as did they ask Rossi to try to get out of his dealings with Hydrofusion?).

      Would love to hear from them again and their view on things.

  82. Well, several things that IH has done indicate gross incompetence or WORSE. Like, for example, taking Woodford’s money for misrepresenting what they knew to be a scam that they agreed to go ahead and play pretend regardless.

  83. Jed, the face plate can show 1.6 (as a reasonable approximation of the 1.575 in the spec sheet for steam at 130 deg C). But the spec sheets also clearly show that the flow meter’s minimum flow rate for warm water is much lower.

    I’ve pegged you a straight-shooter so far. I’d hate to have to modify that opinion.

    But you went on for weeks about how the flow meter was inadequate and now that I finally know the model and did a little research I come up with the opposite conclusion. Your argument seems to be based on a face plate number where the real situation is more nuanced.

    So this is your chance to persuade me.

    What am I missing?

    BTW people, you can use blockquote tags to make your posts clearer as to your own words and quoting others.

  84. I never want to face YOU in court!

    That was some FINE logic right there folks – FINE Logic. And so well explained that even us landscapers and dog-walkers have no problem following the technical details of the conditions described.

    I am glad that YOU and ENGINEER are on the side I am sympathetic to, because the two of you together cut through the technical BS-Speak and get right to the facts.

    I challenge anyone to review such conversations and ponder over the fact that when G-Bone and Engineer address the technical facts you come away saying, “Oh, so THAT’S how that works!” and you move on with greater understanding – while the nonsense and doublespeak of the “Tres-Amigos-Diablos” leaves you saying, “What? But how? I don’t get it…”. I contend that it is not an accident that their “clarifying” leaves you with more questions than you started with.

    One group explains – the other confounds.
    Confusion is not an accident.

    1. Not quite as dramatic as it could be but the hi-res photo is too big. It’s the water lines along the bottom of the pipe where residue liquid stayed. If the water stays there long-term, the air+water start corrosion and you get the water level iron stain.

  85. Of course, a fourth scenario would be that Rossi told a white lie to the JONP in order to protect Johnson Matthey, who does not want to be implicated at this time. After all, we now know it is not unlike him to ‘adjust’ the truth when it so fits him.

    1. Hi Teemu,

      5th option is there is a UK parent shell company to further isolate JM.

      Alan Smith on Lend-Forum did some digging into UK company registrations and believes he knows the identity of the UK parent, which as would be expected is a shell company.

      Which means Rossi has not lied to JONP as JM is NOT the UK parent of JMP.

      Of course then you ask who owns the UK shell?

      1. Rossi did not say “Johson Matthey isn’t the parent of JMP”, he said “Johnson Matthey is not the customer” – which would be technically correct, even if Johnson Matthey WERE the parent. How convenient.

  86. However, a single thing that is in the report that can be proved to be false will discredit the ERV and collapse the case. The number of days when the plant was only running at 75% is almost enough

  87. If i was basing my decision making off “just” Rossi then I would answer in the manner you describe.

    since the original post was based on evidence gathered since 2011. I find it hard to believe that the poster in question has truthfully weighed all the evidence from the different factors we have discussed over these past few years, and could logically come to his conclusion.

  88. Could any of our resident chemists comment on what “advanced derivatives of platinum sponges” might mean and the processes involved?

    Can you identify some process that requires a steady source of ~100 deg heat?

    1. As I have mentioned before, preparation of the Ni (rather than Pt) sponges requires heating a mixture of 50% caustic solution and Ni/Al alloy to leach out the aluminium and leave the Ni sponge. Depending on the type of sponge (fine powder or honeycomb chunks) the mixture requires heating to 90C and maintaining for many hours. Some of the “multiple boil” processes will require repeating this procedure.

      Additionally, from what is known, the heat is also used to boil down the aluminate residue solution to make disposal easier.

      To be honest, Pt sponge is some rubbish that was put on the letterhead (and subsequently removed) along with the spell check auto correct mistake. Pt CANNOT be handled in an environment such as this as is is an incredible sensitiser (learned all this from a JM person that worked with me).

      Additionally, JM controls most of the Pt market and the production costs are not sensitive to energy input; in contrast the Ni based catalysts are. During my efforts to find JB, my contact told me that there is little sponge metal work done by JM in the UK due to energy costs. If true, this could change the economics for JM with regards to this product

      1. The E-cat runs steady-state at 1MW producing slightly superheated steam at close to 1.2barA and 105C. The load must be ultra-reliable 350/24/7. The ideal load to achieve this is an evaporator working at atmospheric pressure that will swallow everything it is given.

        The requirement for an intermittent? supply of steam to heat the process to 90C could be made by diverting steam away from the evap. Could the heating to 90C in the process be continuous over long periods of time?

        1. Clearly, there would be an initial load to get the mixture up to 90C; the process can be quite exothermic, which would help. I don’t think that they would have been making the very fine catalyst on the plant (which would be most exothermic) due to the hazardous nature as the catalyst absorbs/occludes (one for Bob, there) hydrogen when it is being made and can easily go up in flames.

          Given that there are probably dealing with chunks of alloy which would be used in higher temperature flow processes, then there would be only a small exotherm and the process would have to be heated to, and maintained at 90C for the period of the process which can be many hours. With these “chunks” the process is called “multiple boil” and may have to be repeated several times until the aluminium is fully leached out. Maintaining 90C will not consume too much energy if the equipment is well lagged so the major draw would be to get it up to temperature.

          The leachate from the reaction needs to be reduced in volume for disposal purposes and it is most likely that this is where the bulk of the 24/7 energy would be going. Removal of water, even on a small scale under vacuum can be a time consuming process.

          Rossi has stated that the return flow was not a constant temperature so there were clearly different periods of energy draw which is why the heating to 100C was ignored in the calculation.

          I would suggest that the mentioned modifications in the new plant would be for the use of Dowex rather than water/steam and higher temperature operation. Plants usually run with 3 temperatures of Dowex (-20, 50, 180) and computer controls these to achieve the desired reactor temperature. Certainly, when a plant that I worked at switched from steam to Dowex the savings in energy were over 50% (cleaner as well).

          1. No it is not; it has had extensive toxicity studies done on it for production use and is not allowed! Whenever I develop a process I usually use hexane but, when checking out for scale up I have to switch to heptane (which is nowhere near as toxic) and validate with that (it is several times more expensive for me on a small scale. I am currently making a kilo of material for a pharma company and am having to use heptane which is £12/litre while hexane is less than £2/litre).

            Both would need extensive containment for their use and I don’t believe that the quoted space would be anywhere near large enough. Additionally, there is no way that the volumes of hexane/heptane would be allowed to be stored in a warehouse such as that.

      1. Hi Slad,

        Yup really interesting as it answers:

        1) how the customer’s process waste heat was handled by the existing ceiling fans.

        2) the return water temperature.

        3) the ability of the heat exchanger to operate with 0.0 barG 102C superheated steam.

        4) why JM UK would be very interested in the reduced energy costs to run the process.

        Really nice info that clearly shows Engineers rule!

  89. Tried it myself and can confirm that the spacing is the same as typing.

    The ‘w’ still appears to be slightly lower and rotated a bit, but not enough for me to make any definitive claims.

    Going forward I will assume that the document has probably not been altered.

    Thanks for checking, gameover.

  90. Would seem Rossi will enjoy answering the IH counterclaims in court:

    August 8, 2016 at 1:57 AM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Will your party make counter complaints against the countercomplaints of IH ?

    Andrea Rossi
    August 8, 2016 at 8:04 AM
    Nooooo! The countercomplaints of IH are a gold mine: the evidence born by them is the total lack of evidence against us. We will analyze them, line by line, in Court. It will be fun, believe me. Some important passages are literally comic, as it will turn out when we will bring our evidences.
    Warm Regards,

    1. One thing that didn’t appear in the counter-complaint was any mention of equipment being improperly removed and replaced by Rossi’s own equipment.

      That was some spectacular FUD that floated in the air for quite a while.

      1. Good point.

        There is also a surprising lack of hard evidence in the counterclaims, such as data or pictures, from the plant. We have already seen how Exhibit 5 is factually wrong at points, and which is probably why it is unsigned so no one easily gets in trouble, but even that didn’t actually have supporting data from the plant to back it up anyways. It seems like the most IH has presented is the customer billing stuff, and that’s about it for real data I have seen so far (could have missed something though).

        1. It’s really a moot point. IH are implying a conspiracy, so any of the hard data could be trusted anyway.

          It is not the case that they want to make any specific critiques of the methods used, which would in a way legitimize Rossi and his cohorts; but a categorical rejection of ALL the data, instead.

          1. That’s a fair counter argument for perhaps the ERV report, but the data is still needed to evaluate it against reality to find the inconsistancies. Hiding it does not help their case, really. There is also hard data they themselves could provide, like pictures of the pipes.

        1. Non issue if the flow was above the minimum flow in the specs (which it is by my reading as opposed to what the defendants allege in the complaint based on the face plate number).

          1. The minimum flow is the minimum amount that reliably makes the wheel turn. That does not imply accuracy. It might read something close to reality… But it is odd for a $1.5 million machine to have such a strangely out of spec measuring tool for calculating power. The meter labels are clear to read. It’s not like they read the manual wrong.
            They sized the meter to a pipe, not the meter to the expected flow. That is breaking measurement rule one for flow.

          2. You should actually look at the spec sheet. It quantitates the errors for you so you don’t have to make assumptions. The meter was -not- out of spec.

          3. Hi Ged,

            Rossi did say the ERV had all his instruments pre install calibrated as to the expected conditions. About the flow meter he stated the ERV was having that instrument recertified at the recorded temperatures of the flow.

            I note there is nothing about the steam pressure nor steam temperature measuring instruments, so by default IH have accepted their accuracy and placement.

            What I see is IH cherry picking data points that seem, to a non engineering type, to indicate something was wrong with the instrument selected.

            I suspect the ERV selected that instrument as the diameter of the condensate circulation pipes were DN80? Or 80mm in diameter as the meter’s bore ID diameter needs to match the piping ID diameter.

            BTW Rossi told me the meter has backflow protection. IE zero flow recorded from fluid backflow.

          4. Indeed. The spec sheet also demystifies the model number. MWN is the device, 130 is the maximum temp of 130 C, 80 is the pipe size (DN80), and the letters at the end are the accessories, like if it has a transmitter for remote reading. Whoever made Exhibition 5 did not actually bother to read the spec sheet or they would have seen the 1.57 m^3/hour (or 1.4 m^3/hour on another more recent sheet for the same instrument) is for at 130 C. Doubt the input was running at 130 C. The sheet also shows that at 30 C, the reliable min is ~0.6 m^3/hour. But, the sheet even quantitates the error, and if one ran it at half the min reliable flow speed it would under report by 3%.

            Other than arguing the model number was mistaken, the spec sheet leaves no room for the attempted claims.

          5. Hi Ged,


            Further reading the statements in item 5 seems to suggest the writer, if an engineer, doesn’t understand what they are writing about.

            As the reference to 0 bar as if it was a vacuum. In reality the outlet of the reactor could be a 0.0 barG and the outlet of the ECat side of the heat exchanges at -0.2 barG by using a sealed condensate tank and using the circulation pump to create a slightly lower than atmospheric pressure in the tank air space. Ok I’m not an expert here but from what I know this could be done. Rossi did say the heat exchanger was a complex setup.

            Then again the IH expert who wrote item 5 never mentions the heat exchanger.

          6. And that expert is never named in the document itself, doesn’t date it, apparently writes exactly like the lawyers who wrote the Counterclaims document, and did not provide the original document (not a photocopy of a letter nor an e-mail). Who knows though.

          7. The spec sheet actually shows a break down of the internals, and that appears to be so, though I didn’t look too closely at the innards so someone else would have to confirm.

          8. I see that the steam pipe is reported to be DN40.
            So smallish steam pipe, rather large water pipe.

            I think one manual mentioned to check that the counter goes the right way after installation.

          9. Exhibit 5 claims that (1.57 inch diameter pipe. Would take something around 200 m/s steam flow speed or so to match the 36000 kg/day flow rate in a pipe like that–impossible), but it definitely doesn’t match our current visual evidence.

          10. Textbook speed is 40m/s max. Pressure would need to be excessively large as well, not sure exactly what, because no chart covers such a daft setup.

          11. The issue is the accuracy of the meter.

            The meter would be quite accurate at the flow rate of 36,000 kg/day.

            End of story.

            Anything else is just BS.

            The face plate number is a red herring and the defendants should be embarrassed that they failed to understand the minimum flow rate for ~70 deg C water for this flow meter.

          12. ‘The meter would be quite accurate at the flow rate of 36,000 kg/day.’
            With CoP=1 as asserted by IH in the Answer, you would need 1MW of electricity to generate the 36,000kg/day. The design maximum electrical power is 200kw which could only generate 7200kg/day.

            So, if you believe IH, the meter will never spin at 36,000kg/day.
            But there again I do not believe IH so accurate it is.

          13. Hi GiveADogABone,

            Then again if Mats utility electricity account is accurate, the energy usage was 22kWh/hr or say 20kWh/hr to the ECat heaters, then as item 5 states steam at 102C and 0.0 barG it was superheater and therefore water flow was 30kg/hr, which is so low as to not spin the meter.

            So for COP = 1, the meter would not register any flow and any flow registered would indicate the COP was > 1.

          14. You complete my point perfectly.
            The IH CoP=1 scenario is a dog’s breakfast and that is putting it politely.
            Rossi will rip it to shreds when he gets into court.
            I make no comment on legal potholes that may have adverse consequences but on the engineering IH are totally outclassed.

          15. If we say it over reports by 1000 L/day, opposite the direction of published error, that would be ~916 kW just from just the heat of vaporization instead of ~942 kW. If the error goes the other way by the same magnitude, then it would be 968 kW of vaporization.

            Doesn’t make an overall difference for the question of if it works or not, but one would overcharge a customer in a utility setting by ~3%, which they might care about.

          16. Hi Obvious,

            I suggest the ERV selected that flow meter as to match the 80mm ID of the condensate circulation pipes.

          17. Hi Obvious,

            The flow that makes the wheel turn is stated as the starting flow.

            The min flow is the flow necessary for device claimed accuracy and that flow varies as the temperature varies.

            As Rossi has stated the ERV removed his instruments and sent them to be certified at the measured flow, pressure and temperature range.

          18. And the starting flow is roughly a whole order of magnitude below the qi (min reliable) flows we have been talking about. I love publicly available data and specs.

          19. Hi Ged,

            Which totally destroys item 5 as well as Jed’s claims about the flow meter or maybe as he is not an engineer, he didn’t understand the relationship between the water temp and the min flow to achieve device measuring accuracy.

            Also with an 80mm bore it would seem sure it was mounted at the outlet of the sealed condensate tank. I say sealed so it could operate at say -0.2 barG so to aid steam flow from the reactor’s claimed 0.0 barG outlet pressure, which I don’t accept as factual.

            Here also note the reactor container was installed about 1.5ft above the slab and as the condensate tank was probably mounted on the slab floor, both the flow meter and the prime condensate circulation pump would be installed below the bottom of the lowest slab reactor and below the fluid level inside the condensate tank. So any talk of a partly filled flow meter is just that. Talk or wishful speculation or worst.

          20. Well, at 101C super heated steam, one just needs 0.04 BarG. Guess that would round to 0.0 BarG. But no data means we know nothing about the accuracy of that Exhibit except that it is factually wrong about the flow meter specs.

            Also, I wonder about where it says the steam pipe was a DN40. That would make it just 1.57 inches in diameter. Doesn’t seem to jive with what we see in the pictures of the plant I have seen so far.

          21. Hi Ged,

            We now know the condensate pipes the flow meter was attached to had an ID of 80mm and from this image the steam pipe to the heat exchanger was much bigger than 40mm ID. So just more bad data from the item 5 writer.

          22. The point of Exhibit 5 is not that what Murray wrote was correct, but that Penon refused to answer, even though he was responsible to IH. Exhibit 5, dated March 25 as to when it was given to Penon by IH, per the Answer, appears to me to be a memorialization of a verbal conversation in February, IH lawyers probably suggested he write that. Written communication is a basic tool of business process, for obvious reasons. Verbal communications are plastic in memory, because of how the brain works. If a verbal communication is important, personal notes can make a huge difference later, and the sooner those are shared with another party the better.

            And if this actually was given to Penon as claimed, it would have been Penon’s professional responsibility to respond, to correct errors or to acknowledge concerns. That he did not supports the theory of fraud. Keep in mind how this would look to a jury. Rossi requested a jury trial, so this is all a show put on to impress a jury, one way or another, and Jones Day would be expert at that. It was funny to read the idea that they would put experts on the stand to present long, boring analysis. No. Tell a story of fraud and the jury will be sitting on the edge of their seats. Rossi’s evidence for fraud was his undocumented memory of the conversations in 2012, in explicit conflict with the Agreement itself. IH has presented serious evidence of fraud, already, and they have not shot their wad, it’s not over, we already know substantially more (as rumor). Infrared imaging of the building, for example.

          23. Hi Abd,

            Item 5 is IH puffery at best and total BS at worst.

            You can’t spin it away. The coal face engineers here will eat your Jed clone repeated statements alive.

            BTW Penon has no liability to answer BS questions.

          24. He can say that to the court. “My client asked me BS questions so I wouldn’t answer.” Will the jury be impressed with his professionalism? Will we see an Answer from Penon? From Fabianin? I assume one from Rossi and Johnson, Oh, and from JM Products, Inc., too Will the real JM Products please stand up?

          25. I don’t have “wishes” here. I’m interested in what happened. Always, all through my life. I trust reality. If there was steam coming back (which could even be above water at lower than boiling, for a time), it all goes out the window. Whether that is possible depends on details we do not know. Just understand that once fraud is on the table, almost anything is possible. That is why independent testing is a sine qua non for major decision-making. In what Rossi set up, apparently, in the Agreement, it all seems to depend on one person, the ERV, but … the GPT is to be done in the Industrial Heat facility, and not by Rossi. What I suspect is that IH could not get the Plant to operate at low levels, they could not get individual units to generate XE, so the GPT never started up, and Rossi kept improving the design. Then he pitched the Florida installation as a sale of power. So if IH could get some money back, why not? It was *obviously* not the GPT. And the results, then, are moot.

            But in defending a lawsuit, a good lawyer will create layers of defense. So behind the “not GPT” defense is a claim of fraud in the test performance. By going after Cherokee and Darden and Vaughn personally, Rossi took this entirely out of a gentleman’s game, it was vicious — and without legal foundation. He may have been hoping for a settlement, he might still be. At this point, though, I suspect IH will stick to their guns. Their long-term reputation is at stake.

            With a claim of fraud, the specific fakery need not be shown, only that the judgment of the faux “ERV” was possibly corrupt. This is not a criminal case. That would be separate, filed by the state or the feds. There is also possibkly an Italian case, because the Validation test was in Italy.

            Carrying a big stick is not a bad idea. Actually swinging it, better be prepared to win or, with your target being, among others, a $2.5 billion corporation, you could be squashed. “If you are going to shoot the King, don’t miss.” Did Rossi actually go up against the Mafia in Italy? If he actually did, going to jail was lucky by comparison with what could have happened.

          26. Hi Ged,

            Then consider this.

            If 36 pulses in a day = 1,500kg/hr or 36,000kg/day, how many pulses per day will a flow 2% of that produce? Say 30kg/hr or 1.8 pulses per day but then the flow is really way below the min even to turn the meter.

            So to get superheated steam with 20kw/hr input and COP = 1, the flow needs to be 30kg/day and the flow meter would not record such a low flow. So that blows up the argument the flow was only 30kg/hr.

            Then to make matters worst for the IH crowd, any flow above 30kg/hr where input power stays at 20kW and the steam temp is superheated is a COP > 1.

            So either the flow was 30kg/hr, the meter never turned and the COP = 1 or the meter turned as the flow was above min to start and the plant generated a COP > 1.

            Would seem IH have a real credibility problem on their hands once real engineers got hold of the flow meter specs.

            As the Myth Buster would say of the IH / Jed claims. BUSTED!

          27. 36 pulses a day would be 1/10th of the 36000 kg of water, in the standard meter configuration.
            If the meter was read manually, then it could be read to much higher detail than 1 m^ 3 increments.

          28. Hi Obvious,

            Point being that at COP = 1, with superheated steam as stated in item 5 and 20kw/hr as from Mats utility bill, the water flow needs to be 30kg/hr and not 1,500kg/hr. A flow of 30kg/hr would not cause the flow meter to turn, so no flow would be indicated.

            Any flow above 30kg/hr would indicated a COP > 1.

          29. The meter can easily be spun with very little water volume. Just don’t fill the pipe. It can be spun up with a garden hose in theory. Maybe even a fish tank pump.

            Why would a meter manufacturer make a meter in such a range as this one in such a large diameter pipe size? Because such a large pipe is expected to carry a certain volume of water, otherwise no one would use such a large pipe in the first place.

            Now at least we have a pipe size to fiddle with for calculating. A full pipe that big could probably leisurely move 36000 kg of water in 1.5 hours. So are we looking at something like water travelling 8 or 9 cm a second in this reported arrangement? (I could easily have messed these numbers up).

            I don’t have the answers for this gauge thing. But I sure have a lot of questions.

          30. Then read the spec sheet :/. There is nothing wrong with the setup given the instrument, it is fine for the job, and flow was well above the lower standard bound for 60-100C. Seriously though, all the meter questions are already answered by the manufacturer.

            As for the pipe size, all we need is a handy calculator thankfully:

            For that DN80, we see the water speed would be about 0.078-0.08 m/s, so you got it right. A nice clip, and at least lower than the 0.5 m/s max safe water speed I see quoted in engineering sites.

          31. There is nothing wrong with putting a section of flow restriction (smaller ID pipe) to size a more appropriate meter to the typical flow also.

          32. Yes, that is possible also.
            The letter seems to indicate that the specs were read from the label, however.

            I suppose the photos might eventually surface in court. That’s the main reason I posted the photo above. So we know what it should look like, where the labels are, what they say, etc.

          33. I think someone did post an internal plant picture where the flow meter was visible. It was grainy from zooming in, but I remember it was black, not red. Not hard to paint it a color though.

          34. I looked for the meter in the photos. I couldn’t find it.

            I wonder what the Customer used to measure the steam going in, so they knew how much power they were getting.

          35. One little wrinkle is the main pipe will be feeding into smaller pipes, so the flow of the main must be slow enough not to blow out the small pipes (or reactor housing). Don’t know the size of the smaller pipes though. However, if we can find the picture of the plant’s inside showing the intake pipe, we could guess if DN80 visually fits. We at least have the outside view, but that pipe is rather heft seeming.

          36. The question of interest to us if we are interested in the science side of this is, could flow measurement error cause major error in measuring heat? The above only considers the minimum flow rate. But there is also the possibly unfull pipe and meter. A simple problem could be steam coming back from the customer area. If this is a closed system, that’s possible. If it is sparged, as Engineer 48 shows in his (imaginary?) diagram, no.

            However, once fraud is on the table, we can then think of steam being fed back deliberately, which would not be difficult to arrange, given they had full control of the customer area. The flow meter would then read flow much higher than the actual water flow in.

            This is why there is so much emphasis on independent testing. A test in the control of the inventor is *intrinsically unreliable*. It’s a demonstration, not an independent test. Rossi *always* acted to prevent independent testing.

            When a magician tells you “let’s be generous” so “don’t look at X,” X may be the place where the trick exists. Input temperature, what was it actually? If I were IH, I would want accurate measurement, not “generous.”

          37. Hi Abd,

            You do realise you are talking to real engineers, who totally understand the physics of how to measure thermal gain.

            No where has IH questioned the measurement of the steam pressure, the steam temperature or that the steam was superheated as it was.

            What item 5 questioned was the flow meter, well here is a updated English data sheet for the reported but not verified flow meter which shows 1.4m^3/hr is the min flow for a non temp certified meter at 130C:


            For sure when Rossi / Penon post the certifications that the ERV did on ALL the ERV meters, the doubts about the measured accuracy at the temps and flow rates as measured will be bull dust.

            In the meantime please feel free to cherry pick data and post to other forums that do not have a lot of real coal face engineers that have good BS detectors in operation.

          38. The min flow is the flow necessary for device claimed accuracy and that flow varies as the temperature varies.


          39. I was under the impression that the meter was removed, possibly but not necessarily by the ERV, then confiscated by IH for photos and analysis, including a calibration test.

          40. I heard the ERV remove it himself an had it post calibration checked. We just have no evidence in either way, and no photos yet to verify it is what we assume it is either. Sigh.

          41. I have heard both versions. The version you mention is not necessarily inconsistent with the other.

          42. I would love to see someone try to claim the input (or output) of the reactor was 130 C. But even at half the flow rate of the min reliable, it’s a 3% error under reporting of the actual flow according to the spec sheet (friction errors causing the wheel not to turn quite enough). Definitely doesn’t help that case.

          43. Any way you slice it the flow meter was accurate to 3% or better under the test conditions.

            Hmm, let’s see 5000% versus 3%…. Nope.

            Planet Zero made such a huge deal about the flow meter. So now we must wonder … accidental FUD or intentional FUD?

          44. Hi LenrG,

            Next is the claim about having Rossi’s data (illegally I might add and bragging about how Rossi would be pissed if he knew how Jed got it) and it is bad.

            Will that claim also evaporate as the real data is revealed as like his claims about the flow meter data being bad have just evaporated?

            What we see in the 66 items of the counterclaim is IH apparently have nothing to technically dispute the ERV report.

          45. Actually, if Rossi shared data with anyone outside of IH of Leonardo, he violated the Agreement. He did this many times, in fact. Rossi apparently provided ash to Bo Hoistad. That was actually — apparently, if without permission — theft and violation of the Agreement. What I see here is a vision that is looking for whatever dirt it can find to allege about the “IH side,” though Jed is an independent commentator, who knows the IH people because he has been heavily involved in LENR for decades.

          46. Hi Abd,

            Shall we discuss why IH lost control of the 3 unloaded reactors, fuel for all 3 and the control box they sent to Lugano? Then we can discuss where they really ended up?

            BTW an NDA can’t be used to stop disclosure of knowing false data by one party to the NDA.

            IE IH can’t stop a fuel analysis that disproves their apparently false claim that no nuclear isotropic changes occurred in the fuel after 1 year.

            But I’m sure you know all that.

          47. The 130° is the maximum rated temperature of the meter.
            (This is not THE meter from the Plant. Just a photo of the same model.)

          48. It is also the temp for the 1.57 m^3/h metric, and at 30 C they list the same metric as 0.63 m^3/h or so. Anything less than 130 C would be within bounds, but even at worst case at half the speed as the lower bound it would only be 3% off. Don’t know how the error behaves after that as they don’t provide past that point on the sheet.

          49. Yeah, I know. And the minimum flow rate displayed is for that temperature.

            But the minimum flow rate is a function of temperature. Look at the spec sheets, Obvious! They are obvious!

          50. They are obvious.
            The unit is designed for a constant flow of 63 m^/h.
            Not a constant flow of 1.7 m^3/h. Although it may be able to measure that low.
            Like using a measuring cup to measure out a teaspoon.

          51. No.
            It is typically within 3%, with a full pipe, in ideal experimental conditions. Others’ results may vary until the flow is sufficient to get out of the ramp area of the Typical Error diagram. Ie: >= Q2

          52. But now you are assuming too much. Error will not very that much compared to spec as long as it is installed right, and so far we can’t say yet if it was or wasn’t, just how it would act of it was. And the answer to LENR G’s question is “Yes”, if we look at the meter itself and make no assumptions of the install. It would be interesting to analyze what happens to error of it is not installed right, but if it is then it is negligable, and no data has been submitted that demonstrates otherwise.

            We have no evidence the pipe wasn’t full, yet. And the only mysterious source that says it wasn’t couldn’t even be bothered to check a spec sheet.

          53. Below rated flow, which flow was at times (how about operating at nominal 750 kW?) and with a pipe not full of liquid, the error could be enormous. And 3% of what? This is common in Rossi demonstrations. Unclarity, possibility. It could be good and it might not. And this is why the GPT was planned to be in the IH facility, not somewhere else. Rossi was not to be in charge. The Validation Test was Rossi in charge and the ERV. The GPT was to be independent.

          54. Hi Abd,

            A word of advice?

            You need to stop being Jed’s sock puppet.

            There are real engineers on this forum and they have torn apart item 5 and what Jed says.

          55. Seems to me that if IH wanted the GPT in their facility during the sacred time window specified in the agreement they could have made it happen.

            Why didn’t they make it happen, Abd?

            Don’t say Rossi’s demands stopped them. Rossi wanted the test. That was his route to $89M. In the end he had to practically beg for it and go land a suitable ‘customer’ himself.

            Seems once IH had the IP they were not so interested in commercialization or facilitating the final phase of the agreement which would cost them serious money.

          56. I wasn’t there, how would I know? However, these are possibilities:

            1. The GPT required the consent of all parties. Rossi appears to have refused to allow it at the IH facility.
            2. They had no incentive to create the test. that’s correct. However, what would they have tested?
            3. They could not begin it on their own (just as Rossi could not). But especially they could not begin it because, it appears, they could not get the devices to work.
            4. Rossi wanted to improve the Plant. He certainly did not want to start a test based on the shoddy mess that had been delivered to IH. Hence the Second Amendment specifying the new design, the “Six Cylinder Unit.” However, apparently that also did not work, so what was installed later in Doral was yet again different.
            5. A customer was not necessary for the GPT and a secret customer area was fatal to test transparency. From the Rossi proposal, IH was wiling to install the unit at a “related company” in North Carolina. Rossi was not willing to allow that.
            6. They could not proceed with commercialization, period, until they had individual reactors that worked when independently tested. The GPT was not relevant to that.
            7. If Rossi did manage to run a 1 year test in Doral, that would still not give them what they would need to raise the $89 million: individual devices that worked without Rossi Grease all over them. By the way that Rossi managed the Doral installation, it was useless to IH as an adequate test for purposes of going ahead with commercialization.
            8. I assume that IH did attempt to test test the individual reactors that were delivered to them in August, 2013 as the “1 MW E-Cat.” I assume that they found no excess heat. At that point they had high suspicion that the Validation Test was fraudulent. But they wanted to nail this, to make absolutely sure, because maybe Rossi was simply not disclosing the secret. So they gave him every opportunity to perform on the contract, until the end.

          57. The spec sheet shows the error creeps up to +2% at most within range and falls back to ~0% near qi (min reliable flow). So operating it close to its min speed is actually more accurate, amusingly enough according to the manufacturer.

          58. I think Engineer48/Ged/LENR G have put the smack down on the flowmeter FUD. Obvious, as much as you fought the good fight, I think you would get more bang for your buck if you focused your efforts elsewhere.

          59. Right. Clear analysis is not welcome here. At least not by some. Don’t confuse us with facts!

          60. I haven’t checked this, but I would assume that error is absolute error, not relative error, it would be, perhaps, percent of full scale. In the end, what is important about Exhibit 5 is the stonewalling, showing that Penon was not a neutral expert working for both Rossi and IH, but only for Rossi. All this is not going to be difficult to show to a jury, this is not an issue of long, boring presentations by experts with the jury falling asleep, as some imagined. It’s a story of fraud, dramatic, you could sell popcorn if they would allow it in court.

        2. Not a problem. Look at the spec sheet, it was used well within its linear range at these temps. It’s a good flow meter with great range, and the spec sheet even quantitates the error on log scale for if you use it out of range. It reports 3% less flow than in actuality if you use it at -half- its lower rating point.

      2. You expect IH to allege in the Answer everything they have? They essentially went for the jugular, the core.

        1. The Doral plant was not a GPT, and not only because of the 2nd amendment signature problem, also because of lack of consent as explicitly required. There was no estoppel because there was no consent to the Doral plant as a test, only as a demonstration and sale of power. No GPT, no payment requirement and no fraud and no case. Test results irrelevant to the case.

        2. The Validation Test and the alleged GPT were fraudulent. The customer was a sham, an excuse to move the plant to Florida so that Rossi could then run a pretend GPT, fully under his control, whereas the contemplated GPT, from the Agreement and the Second Amerndment, were to be in the IH facility in North Carolina.

        With all this, “improper removal of equipment” is small potatoes. The exclusion of the IH engineer, and anyone not “previously agreed,” violating the Test sheet, is huge.

        Contrary to claims, IH does not need to prove fraud, as if this were a criminal case. They must merely show it by a preponderance of the evidence.

        1. Abd, I can barely read through your many mini-novels on LENR Forum. I swear I don’t know how you find the time.

          I see a lot of opinion in your reply and not a whole lot to do with my comment.

          Don’t you find it interesting that Planet Zero asserted over and over that Rossi had messed with the instruments and then that wasn’t in the defendants’ reply? Maybe they do really think it happened and are holding it in reserve. I can’t imagine why, given the other stuff in there.

          Kind of like the incessant chirping about an inadequate flow meter and then straightforward analysis showing that meter would under-report the flow and only by around 5% anyway.

          I’m learning to place much less emphasis on the things asserted by Planet Zero. They often amount to not much of anything despite the repetition and fervor.

          1. Please don’t read them. They are my studies, how I develop knowledge. They are not summarized for you.

            The Answer is by no means a complete compendium of what they might present and argue at trial. It is an outline, a framework, and focuses on the most essential claims. There are some oddities in there, like the denial that Vaughn is a Cherokee manager. I have no idea why they put that in explicitly. But I also don’t think it makes any difference.

    2. Perhaps the snakes will eat the clowns, and Rossi’s rod will eat the snakes, and then if the Court does not worship the God of Rossi, it will be invaded by a plague of Rossi fans.

      Oh noes! Please! locusts or frogs, not Rossi fans!

  91. How come the flow rate doesn’t alter when the heat production changes?
    It does alter. If a reactor slab(1 of 4) comes off line that reactor’s feed flow drops to zero so the total feed flow drops by 25%.

    Isn’t the only way that water can get from the power plant outlet to the customer (and then back to the power plant) as steam?
    No. To the customer as steam and returned as condensate water.

    And if 36 m^3 per day is the flow doesn’t that mean that a corresponding amount of steam has to be created?
    Yes. The plant is a closed loop.

    And if a corresponding amount of steam is to be created doesn’t that require 1 MW of heat being produced all day every day?
    Yes. 36m^3/day of condensate water is equivalent to full power of 1MW.

    I think that on days when heat is being produced at a rate of less than 1 MW there should be a correspondingly smaller flow rate.
    Drop the power to 750kw and condensate production will be 27m^3/day.

  92. Rossi is hiding something. If he will turn out to be a sophisticated fraud it will most likely kill the LENR research for a while. Really bad. I have been following up this story since 2011 and it seems like the tide is turning against Mr. Rossi. But then trying to run a con when the entre world is watching is…….insane….

    1. Ok, here’s just one factoid for you.

      Leonardo Corp, which has a board of directors, is reportedly investing in a factory in Sweden.

      How does this happen if the technology is not real? Is a new Swedish factory so key to an ongoing scam, organized and executed by many more than just Rossi (even by IH’s estimation) that they would need to sink hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions?) into it?

        1. Or Barry West since he was there working on it too. Will be interesting to hear his testimony, as he could be key to either side depending on what is true.

          1. Hi Ged,

            I agree with Rossi. IH has nothing and has showed they have nothing.

            Suggest all they can do to stop Rossi being awarded the $89m is to try a desperate last ditch attempt to slander Rossi, the lawyer and the 2 engineers with alleged fraud allegations.

          2. It might be useful in understanding this case to recognize who first raised claims of fraud. By the way, yes, they are actual allegations, real allegations, with a first level of evidence presented, they are not merely alleged allegations, but, of course, all allegations are alleged or they wouldn’t be allegations.

            There is much more evidence for fraud presented, regarding Rossi, Johnson, Penon, and Fabiani (the weakest case, my opinion) than Rossi presented re Darden and Vaughn. However, this must be kept in mind. Full evidence is not presented in Complaints and Answers. These lay a foundation, a case to be made, not the full case.

          3. Hi Abd,

            For sure interesting times ahead.

            But for now IH have shot themselves in the foot in regard to item 5 claims, the totally laughable claims Vaughn is not a Cherokee manager and that Darden did a last moment before signing switcheroo with IH being registered 2 days before Darden dropped it on Rossi that he was signing the License Agreement with a clean skin startup IH instead of the expected Cherokee.

            If I was there I would have walked as credibility is blown when a potentially new partner does the last moment before inking switcheroo act.

            In the US that may be considered fair game but in my neck of the woods it is considered a VERY BAD move as it reveals a lack of good faith from a potentially new partner.

            Old Italian saying:

            “Cui nun voli pagari, s’assuggetta ad ogni pattu”

            English translation: Who doesn’t intend to pay, signs any contract.

          4. Barry West manages to stay out of everything despite being at the center of it all.


            Barry, if you’re out there, how about sending Mats Lewan an email. Tell us what you know, dude.

          5. Barry West could be subpoenaed by Rossi if needed. He might also be called to testify by IH.

    1. Hi LenrG,

      Alan said his find was registered to a private address in Wimbledon.

      Anyway it makes perfect business sense for JMP’s UK parent to be a shell company.

  93. Darn Europeans take the whole summer off and disappear to some beach in France or Spain.

    MFMP is gearing up for a new GlowStick generation run — quiet but not dormant.

    1. Our purchasing department was shocked this past June when a company we needed to buy some stuff from completely went on vacation for that entire month–every single one of their employees, without so much as a notice till after they got back. Thankfully it wasn’t anything time sensitive. I wish I could do that!

      1. Hi Ged,

        In Aussie almost all manufacturing and fabrication shuts down mid Dec to mid Jan as all workers get 20 days / 4 weeks annual leave, plus 17.5% additional leave loading and 10 sick days a year.

        Nice place to be employed. Not so nice to be the employer.

  94. Hi Mike,

    I expect to get my 2 x 1MW plants 1st, then the 10 x 1MW plants, then the 5 x 50kW QuarkX reactors then finally the 5 x domestic 10kW reactors.

  95. Hi Bruce,

    The waste heat from the reactor and the customer’s processes can be discharged like this. Bottom drawing is a side view.

  96. Hi Chapman.

    What Rossi has stated is JM is not the UK parent of JMP.

    If as Alan Smith claims the UK parent is a shell company then Rossi is correct that JM is not the UK parent of JMP.

    I also note IH is upset with Rossi for outing their License Agreement and maybe their revenge is outing Rossi’s claim to IH that JM had an interest in being involved in the Doral test?

  97. Concerning the company who received the huge benefit of the 1 MW reactor for a whole year… Why won’t they simply acknowledge the energy bargain they got in order to end this protracted and wearying dispute. They have had a huge financial benefit, and in the normal course of things, being grateful and humane, they should want to help Doctor Rossi out. Shouldn’t they? I mean instead of just gawking at the upheaval and doing nothing. Of course I’m assuming there was a company and that they did obtain cheap energy from the reactor for a year.

    1. They may want to keep their competitive advantage(E-Cat use) confidential to delay the likes of Johnson Matthey from getting up to speed on the new tech,

    2. Fibber, it is a good question. But if the real party in interest happens to be a Chinese interest (as the evidence might lead to), then I could understand them wanting to stay out of the spotlight. They may be pulled into it one way or the other by effect of legal maneuvers in the U.S., but even then, it is tough to litigate these matters with parties located all over the world.

  98. What is the flow rate then?
    Depends on the power.

    Isn’t it claimed to be measured as 36 m^3 per day all the time
    No unless you ask the person who wrote Exhibit 5 in respect of a limited period and he was not making a claim, he was asking a question.

    Exhibit 5:
    In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation.

  99. Guys, you will find a killer suggestion on the ‘always open thread’ from Jamie Sibley: the explanation of the secret customer and it’s secret chemical process. Check it out, what do you think?

      1. Hexanes are basically just gasoline (slightly more refined than the typical gas we use in a car), so wouldn’t be hard to procure or use. Any leak would make the distinctive smell of gasoline, so easy to trace if it occurred. Dunno if we have any evidence to prove or deny this yet.

        1. See my reply below.

          I forgot to add that, if you wanted to store any significant quantities of hexane, there are lots of rules and storage both in and outside the buildings. There was no obvious external storage outside, so they would need specially designed facilities inside. These don’t come cheap; we are just having one delivered next week for external use (though this could be used internally due to the spec) which is costing £22K and still only allows storage of up to 1000 litres of flammables.

  100. Not just an error, a falsehood.a lie. The test didn’t run for 350 days at fully rated output power, and funnily JM didn’t protest or complain but meekly paid up. Didn’t they have staff to pay overtime to? didn’t they lose 25% of a days production? Didn’t they get fed up with an unreliable supply of heat? Oh, yeah, I remember now, they had their own power source. I bet that cost them a fortune to run, and they didn’t squeal foul once, really?

  101. Nice discussion here. Interesting to see core elements in IH’s Answer being pulled apart by people like Engineer 48 and Ged, even though they don’t have any direct knowledge of existing evidence from either part. I’m looking forward to seeing this unfold when evidence is presented. To be honest, I don’t think it looks good for IH, although I wouldn’t underestimate what Jones Day and APCO can obtain.

    A few notes:

    – The Italian Law mentioned in section 49 in IH’s Answer can be found here: – which is an adjustment to this original law on installation and maintenance of heating devices:
    The law mentions the limit 35kW several times and Rossi’s statement, that IH refers to, seems absolutely reasonable to me, knowing Italian society and bureaucracy.

    – After the failed HotCat demo on September 6, 2012—the one IH claims that Rossi made failing on purpose—I actually asked myself if it was a pattern, a way for Rossi to get out of deals that he decided he didn’t want to make. Here’s what I wrote in my book An Impossible Invention (Chapter 18):

    “The whole situation was reminiscent of what had happened when the American investor group lost confidence in Rossi after the failed test with the older E-Cat in Bologna, ironically a year earlier to the day. I asked myself again if there was any pattern behind this, if Rossi consciously or unconsciously made sure it ended in discord and distrust.”

    A few months later I asked Rossi about this and he then vaguely admitted that the failure could be his fault, or maybe not. So I wouldn’t be surprised if what IH claims is true. It also seems obvious to me that this part of IH’s answer is specifically intended to try to sow discord between Rossi and Hydrofusion, but I really don’t think that will work.

    BTW, I also remember some calculations showing that using the correct electricity input readings at the September 6, 2012, experiment, there was a small sign of excess heat starting to show up at the very end of the run.

    – James A. Bass is the person that people who visited the plant talked to. I don’t know more about him.

    1. BTW, I really appreciated the message in this recent piece in NY Times—that journalists’ most sacred duty is to be true to the facts, not “balanced” (in that case regarding the ongoing presidential campaign):

      “…journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.”

          1. No Intel. Probably a coincidence.
            The sort of coincidence like J & C Chemical Products ends up in the phone book with the 7861 address in Doral, when there is/ was a J & C Imports just a block away.

          2. I found a James A.Bass (age 63) who has a connection to a woman called Shirley A. Johnson. This is probably pure coincidence. It’s so easy to draw conclusions from stuff like this but we need to keep to hard verifiable facts if this puzzle is to be solved.

          3. I don’t want to delve into details. I didn’t note any other name coincidences, but I didn’t look too hard either. The last thing some poor guy with a coincidental name needs is to be bombarded with a million questions from a strange group of strangers. It is one thing when the people are directly involved with the businesses and they are already part of the record, and their public business details are being examined. It is another to snoop around at private details around coincidences.

  102. Yes. The control systems in the E-cat core must stabilise the core output. Seems to be electronic pulses that do it. Also, the load must be equally capable.

    There are 4 Tigers(sometimes called slabs) in the E-cat and they can be individually switched off, so you can achieve steps of 100%, 75%, 50%, 25% and 0% in a straight forward manner. Within the slabs there are 16? separate heater modules and they can be controlled individually. Rossi spent 18 hours a day in the container trying to keep things at 1MW. When one slab came off line drops of power to 750kw(75%) are recorded in the logs.

    The E-cat runs steady-state at 1MW producing slightly superheated steam
    at close to 1.2barA and 105C. The load must be ultra-reliable 350/24/7.
    The ideal load to achieve this is an evaporator working at atmospheric
    pressure that will swallow everything it is given.

  103. Rossi ran the 51x20kW for the first four days of the test as a proving run and then shut it down. They were never restarted and were the emergency backup. All the logs I have seen so far show 1MW or 750kW as the power.

  104. Just finished reading the 66 pages of IH’s answer to Rossi claims. In the second paragraph on page one this is legalize for admitting the E-Cat works! IH denies the E-Cat works except, “along the lines claimed by Plaintiffs – which is that a reactor using the E-Cat technology produces more than 50 times the energy it consumes.”
    This is legalize meaning, the E-Cat works, but Rossi outsmarted us and our little plan to steal his IP did not work, so our only “out” is to convince people it was a fraud.
    Whatever they said after the above statement is delaying puffery tactics and does not negate the fact that both Rossi and IH are bound by ERV’s report. IH loses unless they can prove fraud and that is what pages 2-66 are all about. IH‘s attorneys are good, but not that good.

    1. What I find interesting is in their conspiracy theory IH tied together the ‘Italian Mob’ – Rossi, Penon and Fabiani – but no speaking ill of Barry West. Maybe we should bar all Italians from entering the country until we can figure out what’s going on?

      1. Thanks to LENR G, this is the IH counterclaims for dummies:

        Explain Rossi’s, Penon’s and Fabiani’s behavior after they supposedly divvied up $11.5M.

        Rossi: “Hey let’s channel some money back to IH, set up a fake customer, run the test for a year, and continue to pretend to advance the technology through R&D! Get us another $89M!!

        Fabiani: I could even give an interview to Mats that backs the whole thing up.

        Penon: Shouldn’t we just find a nice beach somewhere with our millions and tell stories of our conquests to incredulous natives while sipping Champagne?

        Rossi: Where’s your sense of adventure? I’ll even spend every waking hour in the shipping crate just to sell it better.

        Penon: I don’t know Andrea, seems awfully risky. We could wind up in jail; they’re bound to figure it out at some point and we’ll wind up in court.

        Rossi: Court? Screw court. I’ll sue them first when they refuse to pay.

        Penon: But wouldn’t that mean a bunch of lawyers will get a bunch of our money?

        Johnson: I resemble that remark.

        Rossi: Henry, can you make it look like Johnson Matthey is the customer?

        Johnson: Sure I’ll just set up a shell company and call it JM Chemicals or something like that. The blogosphere will run with it.

        Fabiani: I love those useful idiots.

        Penon: I don’t know guys. Shouldn’t we just cash in? I mean we’ve been pretty lucky to get this far.

        Rossi: You owe me this, Alfonse. You’d still be living in that dump if it weren’t for me. I’m having too much fun to stop now.

        Penon (pausing); Alright, Andrea, but after this I’m out.

    2. ‘Defendants deny that the energy catalyzer (“E-Cat”) technology “generates a low energy nuclear reaction resulting in an exothermic release of energy” along the lines claimed by Plaintiffs –‘

      Which is not the same as “Defendants deny that the energy catalyzer (“E-Cat”) technology “generates a low energy nuclear reaction resulting in an exothermic release of energy” “

      So it can work but under what circumstances? CoP=6 will do. $89M please.

      ‘which is that a reactor using the E-Cat technology produces more than 50
      times the energy it consumes.‘
      Who cares? CoP=6 will do. $89M please.

      ‘Such claims [CoP>=50] are not scientifically verifiable or reproducible. ‘
      What about CoP>=6?

      I take your point but …
      … if the ERV report is true to reality in all respects where is the fraud?

      1. Well, clearly they’re saying the ERV report is NOT ‘true to reality in all aspects’.

        “– –Such claims [CoP>=50] are not scientifically verifiable or reproducible. ‘” Hence, a scientifically non-verifiable report.

        1. Interesting because that puts the argument in the hands of the engineers and scientists. You have to take the ERV report and forensically examine it and its supporting numbers and instruments.

          Who has the burden of proof?

          1. Which is exactly my point.
            ‘ that puts the argument in the hands of the engineers and scientists.
            You have to take the ERV report and forensically examine it and its
            supporting numbers and instruments.’
            On the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ how is IH’s case going? Early indications are not good.

    3. Yep, and a similar qualifier exists in every other spot where this kind of allegation arises in the answer. Sometimes the qualifier is the word “direct,” as in “the stuff directly received from Rossi” doesn’t work. The unspoken escape hatch is “but we have our own version that works.”

  105. Well, then E48 should say what he means.

    “when people ask Rossi if it is Johnson Matthey, he can say no and yet JM is the actual company, but since it is a shell, Rossi’s answer wouldn’t be incorrect.”

    But see, your conclusion–which I agree with btw–is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what E48 said:

    “Rossi has said JM is not the UK parent”

    What is so hard to understand about this?

  106. Oh, really? Is that what you call my inquiry for accurate information and holding someone accountable?

    This guy has been pulling rank on me like a hornet since yesterday, has an inflated ego and a bad temper. He sounded hurt by my words, like I insulted his religion or something. “Arrogantly snotty” is what fundamentalists often call rational scientists.

  107. You are stuck with the basic equation :-
    CoP = Specific Enthalpy Transfer * Mass Flow Rate / Electricity In

    The specific enthalpy transfer is a fixed number for steady inlet and outlet temperatures; you can look it up online. With full boiling the evaporation takes more than 90% of the heat and Rossi took just evaporation at about 2257kJ/kg.
    CoP = 2257*MFR/Ein

    The Total Enthalpy Transfer = 2257 * MFR

    As long as the specific enthalpy stays the same the total enthalpy transfer is proportional to the mass flow rate.

  108. Flow meter observations.

    Flow meter basics:
    * Flow meters register no flow at all until the flow reaches the starting flow value (friction wins).
    * Flow meters under-register flow until the flow reaches the minimal flow value, at which point they are guaranteed to be accurate to within 5% (friction is a significant factor below the minimal flow).
    Flow meter guide (pages 15-18 for error curve discussions):

    Specs for Apator PoWoGaz MWN130-80-NC:
    * Starting flow is 0.35 cubic meters per hour
    * Minimal flow is 1.575 cubic meters per hour (1.6 is shown on the label)
    * The typical error chart as a function of flow is provided in the specs. It shows the absolute value of the error never greater than 3%, even at the starting flow.

    Minimal flow rate by the specs in kg/d
    Taking the more conservative 1.6 cubic meters per hour from the label and using 60 deg C water, the minimal flow rate in kilograms per day would be 37,755 kg/d.

    1 MW Test:
    * Flow was reported as 36,000 kilograms per day, which is equivalent to 1.5256 cubic meters per hour for water at 60 deg C. The temperature of the water matters because the density of water changes with it. A temperature of 90 deg C for comparison would yield a flow of around 1.554 cubic meters per hour (for lower density, a greater volume of water has to move through the meter to get to the same reported mass flow).

    * The 36,000 kilograms per day in the test was just under the minimal flow rate of the flow meter.
    — This reported flow must be less than the actual flow since it is in the region between the starting flow and the minimal flow and friction is still interfering in a significant way. By how much exactly is unknown; the spec chart would indicate by no more than 3%, but since it is under the minimal flow even > 5% under-registration is possible.
    — But from the specs we know that flow at 37,755 kg/d would be registered accurately (to within 5%).
    — And a 5% under-registration error on 36,000 kg/d means the actual flow would be 37,800 kg/day. That brings the flow into the certified region where the error must be less than 5% (spec says more like 2%). So the error is bounded; at the minimal flow with a maximum permissible under-registration of 5% the flow would register as under 36,000 kg/d.

    The flow meter reported 36,000 kg/d and by the nature of flow meters in general and this flow meter in particular, that number must be LOWER than the actual flow, but by no more than 5%

    Hence, the 36,000 kilograms per day is both conservative (under-reporting the actual flow) and reasonably accurate.

    This might not be the ideal flow meter for this situation but we can be confident that at least 36,000 kg/d passed through it.

      1. I don’t know. Possibly availability/available diameters, cost, someone had previous experience with it… ?

        Maybe Rossi or Penon will explain some day.

    1. Thanks for the information LENR G. As An engineer I would not use this flow-meter for this, but who know why it is chosen? Maybe it is a very reliable type?
      Nevertheless is the error we are looking for (@COP=1) about 50 times less flow. So IH claims (assuming all other instruments are accurate and working properly) that this meter should have shown a flow of 720 kg/d. That does not seem very likely :).

    2. Now we just need actual pictures of the flowmeter, close-up of pipes, and other performance data, and we’re set on finishing this thing’s analysis :).

      1. Hi Ged,

        Would suggest IH giving us the flow meter model was a very bad mistake for the FUD crowd.

        We have spoiled all their fun with real numbers and damn close to real modeling.

        Imagine if they gave us the other instrument model numbers and some of the ERV data.

        It would be all over red rover.

    3. Don’t forget that flow meters rely on constant flow and can be manipulated by adjusting the flow. By knowledge of how flow parameters are sampled and the inherent inertia of the paddle mechanism it it’s not difficult to imagine strategy’s for defeating the flow meter. I don’t know exactly how this would be done, and it’s probably flow meter model dependent, but I’m sure manufacturers of flow meters do not want to advertise these things and rely on normal flows for their specifications.

      Using these principles, as an example, you can register under the minimum registered flow by ‘batching’ the flow, turning it on and then off such that the average flow is below the minimum registered flow. Defkalion also took advantage of non-constant flows to fake their results creating higher than actual flows by a significant margin. This was not in the specifications for the flow meter, I’m sure. For the 1MW test Rossi controlled the pumps. In fact if I recall DW claimed Rossi ripped out the pumps installed by IH and installed his own.

      There are too many assumptions being made by your analysis–you should at least state them. For example, if you go by the emails requesting invoices for heat supplied (Exhibit 15) there were many days where the flow was only 75%. The daily flow rates reported in the emails also appear to be made up.

      I’m sure Ross and Penon are competent enough to consider normal operation. What analysis should consider are abnormal operations and I don’t think we have much data on that. What your analysis shows at best is that if the flows were normal then the flow meters should provide reasonable results.

      Finally it appears that the flow meter chosen was oversized for the flow. Why would a competent engineer chose an out of spec flow meter? You can wave your hands all you want but a “real engineer” would not do such a thing but chose a flow meter appropriate to the flow. Also Rossi evidently installed his own flow meters. Why would he do such a thing? If I were Penon I would not have allowed it. Why would Rossi not trust the ERV?

      1. Yes, Lu Fong, the implicit assumption is that the data was actually recorded and they weren’t intentionally trying to trick the meter, however that might be accomplished.

        Since IH personnel were on site frequently and reporting back I doubt anybody was messing with the flow often like you describe. I mean if it’s just fraud then we can just say they made up the numbers and leave it at that. This was a technical analysis evaluating the numbers provided and device in question.

        The main takeaway is that any reading below the minimal flow, if incorrect, will be too low. That goes for 75% flow too, just the error will be potentially much larger in that case (meaning the reported number is way too low). So we are safe using the actual reported numbers as conservative estimates of the actual flow.

      2. Where are the bits and evidence for Rossi installing different equipment? I have missed it in all the fray, I am fraid, so would you be able to provide a link?

        The flow meter seems fine. On the otherhand, we have no evidence the flow meter is what that weird Exhibit 5 say it is, so our assumptions and analysis could be all wrong once actual pictures are shown.

        If the flow was different in the e-mails, that directly disproves that point in question in the weird Exhibit 5. Or vice versa I guess. That’s the problem with not having the data provided in evidence.

        1. Rossi did say that he installed his own equipment and everything was in agreement with the ERV’s equipment, but we don’t know anything about the flow meter other than that “it was sealed”.

          1. But not in replacement of anything–such as IH equipment–after the fact, but only in additional tandem for verification purposes he said. That’s the allegation that even IH doesn’t seem to make, but LuFong references, so I wonder if I missed it.

          2. Jed always refers to it as “Rossi’s”. Maybe Rossi should send him the 12 million data points to review.

          3. The difference is that it would take him half an hour for a full analysis and you would be there for a year or two.

          4. Hi Wpj,

            I’m very careful and would try to built a dynamic model that matches measured data when 1 or more variables alters.

            Ie build a virtual reactor.

            Would REALLY like to have Individual reactor data.

      3. Hi LuFong,

        Rossi told me this meter registers zero for backflow.

        The flow is very constant as the big prime and multiple smaller top up pumps all have multiple 1 way valves and micro computer controlled flow regulation against varying pressure.

        The engineers basically dial in / program the pumps for 1,500kg/hr and that is what the condensate circulation system pumps deliver, 24/7/365.

      4. Lufong,

        I have used a simple paddlewheel flow meter and in my opinion, the inertial of the wheel is irrelevant. It is so small compared to the drag of the water flowing through it that there is little of no “inertia effect”. Further, the meters are very accurate over their entire range. I used a 10 GPM meter made by Omega Engineering when I tested solar hot water arrays. The test data was almost independent of the flow. I have attached the one page calibration report for all to see.

        1. Thank you for that response. This certainly makes sense in the normal case. But what if the pipe was not full? What if the water flow was pulsed? I’m only suggesting that the flow meter may not work as designed under certain scenarios.

          1. In my opinion (I have not tested it), it would be very hard not to have the channel filled during high flows. Although you could think about a partially filled channel, I do not think that it is likely. Think about a drainpipe — when the pipe is partially full, the water trickles out. When it is moving a lot of water, it is full or nearly so.

            As for pulsed flow, the water-hammer effect would require very high pressures to move a lot of water in a short time. If even the slightest amount of water was in the paddle flow meter, the vanes would not “spin” with inertia. You would have to pulse water, then completely evacuate the meter so the vanes did not sit in water.

            If the entire meter was evacuated of water and air was used forced though the pipe, the vane could spin. I have done this with compressed air. That would be a condition that was easy to detect, however. It is highly unlikely that it would not be detected.

          2. Hi Thomas Kaminski,

            Obviously I’m talking about generalities here. I do not know enough about fluid dynamics nor flow meters but my basic premise is that it is possible to get flow meters to make incorrect readings. Defkalion demonstrated that. A smart person with hands on experience and microprocessor controlled pumps and control over the testing environment *might* be able to do so.

    4. Your reading the spec sheet wrong: 1.6 cubic metres is for water at 130C. At lower temps the min required flow is less.

      Although I agree with your basic premise.

      1. Hi Slad,

        Another point to consider:

        Assuming Mats 20kWh/hr electricity account is correct, item 5’s 102.8C steam temp & 0.0 barG steam pressure are correct then the condensate flow rate would be 30kg/hr at COP = 1.

        At that flow rate, the flow meter would more than likely show no flow and not the 1,500kg/hr needed to report 36,000kg/day.

        1. Very good point.

          In my opinion, something’s wrong with 0barG. It can’t be reactor or pipe pressure because the pipe is just not wide enough to carry 1MW otherwise. Even given a hard vaccuum in the condensor.

          I think it has been measured in some weird place, or is being misrepresented somehow.

          …To my mind, even saying 0barG is actually the condensor pressure still sounds odd. Isn’t that suggestive of a leak somewhere?

          1. Hi Slad,

            Given this diameter pipe, others have calculated -0.2 barG would be more than enough pressure differential to transport the steam from the pipe in the container to the heat exchanger that may be just outside the right photo wall.

            Which maybe setup like this.

            But I agree 0.0 barG steam pressure at the outlet of the reactor seems nuts.

          2. I’ve not seen these calcs so don’t want to comment… but I assume that in order to make them work, the overall system pressure would have to be huge (15atm?) or else steam velocity would be insane (200+m/s?).

          3. Hi Slad,

            I’m not a sream engineer but know a few that work at a big thermal power plant plus a few others on ECW.

            Think 0.2 barG differential data was for a 200mm or 250mm ID steam pipe 6mtr long.

            Rossi did tell me the heat exchanger / condensate system was complex due to the customer’s requirements.

          4. Yeah that sounds more reasonable. Thought we were still talking about the dn40 mentioned in the ‘suit

      2. I agree that the minimal flow is probably less at lower temperatures but I can’t prove it from the spec sheets (different models for different temperature ranges)…. so I left that out of the analysis. As you can see, even accepting that the flow rate was below the minimal flow, it certainly was above the starting flow and any error would be due to under-registration.

        So that’s a basic analysis I think everyone can agree upon.

      3. The meter was certified at 50°C.
        It has no certification below 1.6 m^3/h. This makes it “inappropriate”. Many days were less than 36000 L, since the plant was making only 750 kWh. this makes it further below spec

        Typical performance specifications are not necessarily indicative of the actual performance below the certified values. The error that is certified is +/- 4.25%, when in the specified flow ratings.
        Yes, the real life error, pipe full, may not be severe.

        But this gauge is measuring return flow, not output. The output water volume, before being turned to stream, should match closely the return volume. Hopefully this was also recorded.

        The meter pulses every 100 L by default. So perfect 1000 L increments are unusual to be recorded, continuously.

  109. Yes, as usual we await confirmation of various aspects of this story.

    But I trust Mats would not have reported it if he thought is was a lie so I’ll put it in my likely true bin until forced to move it.

  110. Nice try at misdirection, but these two things are totally unrelated. E48 is claiming he is ahead of everyone else in the queue, I’m asking him to prove it.

    1. Hi Bill,

      When did I say I was at the head of the queue?

      I did place an order when the offer was made, as I suspect a lot of others did. Have no idea where my order is placed in the queue.

  111. Yes but if you know it will run for one year and you want an accurate reading it will end up with 36x24x365=315360. A smaller flowmeter would probably fill the display with nines, lap over to zeroes and after that the reading will be questioned.

  112. Assuming they have two attorneys working on this at $500-$700hr each it probably costing them 40k a week during busy weeks. Some weeks will have a light work load and cost less. During discovery and depositions it’ll easily cost 50-100k per week.

  113. Oh wow. I was replying to this post yesterday when your post actually disappeared. Even after several refreshes throughout the day, it was still gone, but now here it is! I think Disqus just couldn’t keep up with all our fun.

    0 barG was claimed for the steam (0.04 barG needed for 101C superheated), obviously not the actively pumped water (if water is flowing, there is a pressure differential).

    We don’t have any of the actual plant data to evaluate the flow claim, but the customer invoice data shows output was not static. So either temperature or flow rate had to vary. What Exhibit 5 also doesn’t establish is how granular the data is–if it is averaged over a day, then could not flow speeds be ramped up and down to meet daily quota? And since the plant is so modular, can units be ramped up to replace the output of downed units (not completely, based on the invoices, but within what margin) and keep flow up at expense of temp or vice versa? We don’t have those answers as none of the supposed data referenced in the weird Exhibit 5 is actually provided for verification.

    If they actually read the manual instead of just glancing and citing, they would have seen how the error and flow speeds actually worked and had the answers to those questions. Albiet, it is possible they feign ignorance as a posturing or doubt sowing play, so they may have read it fully in that case too.

  114. That may be a reason for yelling at Rossi and/or Penon. It does not impugn the analysis, which is all that I really care about.

    I’m not nominating them for engineering team of the year.

  115. I’m sensing some straw clutching on here. Even from some who now claim to be unbiased. A lab is the best place to test the ecat. Always has been – always will be. Setting up a secret customer who uses a secret process to create secret output and then pretending that internal verification is in fact external isn’t a rational way to get at any objective. In my view, who said what to who is just a distraction. If Rossi is owed $89M then it’ll be real easy to get it. PROVE the ecat works as specified by running it under proper, EXTERNAL lab conditions. You’ll have a clear case within 7 days. You can then focus on the jet pac quark cat with the optional anti gravity add on.

    1. There have already been a number of lab tests including external. This was one was geared towards testing industrial scale viability, more than anything. So that is sorta the lens to look at this through.

    2. Hi Blanco,

      Except iH accepted a liability to pay Rossi $89m based on the ERV report covering 350 days of operation and showing a COP >= 6.

      The ERV report triggers the payment requirenent.

      Testing in a lab for 7 days will not trigger the IH payment requirement.

      1. What would trigger the payment would be a successful 350/400 day test beginning on a date agreed upon in writing by all the parties. That is if the Second Amendment is valid, which remains legally questionable, because, in fact, estoppel may fail. Only if IH allowed a GPT would it create estoppel on the signature issue. Rossi sold the Florida installation to IH as a sale of power, not as a GPT. There is no mention of testing in the pitch. Now, if one is going to sell power, of course one would want to measure it. So Rossi pitches Penon as the engineer to do that. Does this create a GPT? Here is the problem: The GPT plan had it being run in the IH facility, under their control. There would have been no hidden power application, it would all have been visible. And the Florida power sale was pitched as all accessible, too. Reading the Term Sheet, I get no idea of a “customer side” or secret process. There is no prohibition of IH access to the ‘customer area” as Rossi later claimed. And IH was guaranteed access to the plant at any time, for chosen representatives. Rossi then prohibited that until the “test” was over. What test? This was a sale of power!!! It was sold as a demonstration and investors could visit. Secret side? That would not impress investors at all. No, this was exactly as IH claims: a fraudulent scheme to set up a faux GPT and collect $89 million. WTF were they thinking? Did they imagine they could get away with this?

        It appears that Rossi refused to allow the test to begin in Raleigh at the IH facility. He thought that would not be impressive, Dewey Weaver mentioned something about conflict of interest, unlike the “independent customer” in Florida. With the President of Rossi’s company, Leonardo Corporation, as President. Independent? Really?

        Rossi was, as always, avoiding independent testing and insisting on demonstrations where he was in control, then he could get an expert to certify it.

      2. Re:
        Except iH accepted a liability to pay Rossi $89m based on the ERV report covering 350 days of operation and showing a COP >= 6.

        FYI from section 5 of the LA. the COP is 4 times not 6.

        …but the ERV confirms that during such time period the plant consistently produced energy that is at least four times greater than the energy consumed by the plant produced and that the ternperatule of ihe steam by the paint was consistently 100 degrees Celsius or greater.

  116. The whole GPT is a complete head scratcher for me. Based on a literal reading of the contract (and I’m not saying this is how a contract should be read), all Rossi had to do is throw a bunch of E-Cats in a box and run them serially such that as one fails he starts up then other. (Evidently this is what he did. See Exhibit 5). As long as the COP is above certain values he gets paid. This provides NO additional value over the Validation test.

    1. Who doesn’t want to show off long-term viability in a setting closer to the real world? If you want to market a product, you gotta test at the closest to real world conditions you can reasonably get.

      So, makes sense to me at least.

  117. On the other hand, it actually provides us a very useful minimum. That is, if the COP is claimed to be 1 at the only power input we have data on, the meter would not have turned at all (way below starting flow). So, we have a very handy lower bound for how much electrical power must go in for this flow meter to actually spin at all and COP be 1. Now we just need the utility data. And verification the meter is the model it is assumed to be in the analyses here.

    1. It’s all starting to feel like an exercise to make us prove that the plant worked.

      But I just can’t go there yet. Even though we definitely have a conspiracy going on here, I have a lot of trouble believing it’s that conspiracy.

      1. It is the responsibility of those bringing allegations to -prove their allegations-; so far the IH answer provides little to know proof of anything concerning the plant, when it would have been so easy. It is deeply disappointing, and just not convincing as yet presented. All we have are the “Begs the Question”s in Exhibit 5 (assumptions with no proof, no author, no date, no original copy), which are contradicted by the invoices elsewhere anyways.

        Just weird stuff; IH will have to provide more if they want to prove their case, and hopefully this is not the best they have got. Same goes for Rossi’s allegations against IH for which we still await more data.

        Discovery could not come soon enough for us.

    1. He started out with an e-mail address, and is high enough up to be put in control of IH, so… Matter of definition perhaps?

          1. Hi Ged,

            Maybe they buck shot out 66 basically worthless claims to see if any find any meat to hit?

            Would suggest desperate times for IH as they have shown no real technical basis to disprove the ERV’s COP > 50 report.

          2. Easter egg? “Come find the errors, ladies and gentlemen…”

            Ehh… probably just a creative interpretation of “manager”… venture investment manager might not equal manager in the Cherokee hierarchy.

          3. Still says manager in the title, so don’t know how one could even argue technicality. Seems just a straight up, materially false statement of something so painfully basic and totally in their control. I wonder how the court will view thay, but it looks -really- bad for IH’s defense in addition to the other problems we are finding.

        1. Rossi’s email also talks about Cherokee making the money, so he firmly believed that he was dealing with them and there was nothing there to correct him.

          1. Hi Wpj,

            Rossi claims when he arrived at Cherokee to ink the deal, he was told the deal had changed and would be executed with a clean skin startup, Industrial Heat.

            I always get a really bad feeling when just before inking the deal, the other side makes changes, knowing you are there to ink the deal and may not fully understand / appreciate what they have just done to screw you.

            Nowadays if someone tries that with me, I walk as it tells me I can’t trust them.

          2. Yes, but it appears that they initially got him on board with false assumptions about who he was dealing with (which he makes clear in his court documents) and his 2012 email backs up these assumptions.

    2. Is this the guy who told Rossi that Cherokee’s funds were available to back IH? Need to break the link, do they?

    3. While some are making a big deal out of this, because it’s so easy to shoot down, it’s really meaningless. Vaughn was with Cherokee and maybe, as some point out, there is some technical distinction. They do not use it in any argument, but there are aspects to this that I have not studied in depth. Mostly they have denied the major claims without comment. That simply allows them to introduce whatever evidence they want, later. Perhaps this was an attorney error, there are communication failures. There are some I’ve seen in the Answer. These documents are rarely perfect because to make them so is ridiculously expensive.

      The whole claim that Darden and/or Vaughn assured Rossi about Cherokee money is a dead end. Statute of Frauds. There is a written Agreement, explicitly the whole of the agreement, any verbal representations before become totally moot. And we do not know exactly what was said to Rossi, and that is why the Statute of Frauds is a basic legal principle.Darden and Vaughn had no authority to commit Cherokee, we can be sure of that. This was not in Cherokee’s line of business, this was a private Darden project. The relationship with Cherokee showed they were serious people and, yes, they could raise another $89 million if they had confirmed independent tests. Otherwise they would be misleading investors.

  118. Hi My2c,

    All the ERV instruments had electronic data reporting to the ERV’s data logging computer.

    Would suggest there was a laptop showing real time data.

  119. Hi My2c,

    Well my 2 cents is the ERV needed a flow meter with an 80mm bore ID to fit the other condensate piping.

  120. Part of my old job was to approve payment of “outside” attorney fees. I would just love to know how much those 66 pages cost IH, big bucks. If the only reason for this fight is the 89 million, which it is not, IH should just pay it and forget it. But, maybe IH is not paying the bills. (:

  121. Parts of what you see as the IH strategy is what I have been harping at for long. IH wants and needs the court to refute every thing negative about the E-CAT and year long test that IH is throwing at the proverbial wall. That is their final intense due diligence to show that the E-CAT works to their investors. As an investment specialist that is their main and only goal in this saga. It may look odd at some points but it all makes sense if looked at in this light.

    1. Hi Bernie,

      Interesting Weaver told me IH lost track of the Dog Bone reactors they shipped to Lugano!

      Lost contact with those reactors?

      No idea where they are?

      Amazing statement!

        1. Er, that is Rossi’s way of totally relaxing when he knew the test was over and he knew what the results were going to be, all positive. Relaxing to the point of not caring about details like extra reactor cores. With a positive test outcome such details, for him, are not important. Anyways he had that covered by planning better cores which made the mislaid cores obsolete.

      1. Apparently they made many versions of that reactor. They also later concluded the things did not work. Testing fuel and ash is expensive. If there isn’t any heat, why bother?

    2. Put the e-cat in a sealed box and put the instruments outside the box and follow the operating manual……simple as that.
      The e-cat must be operated in that way if it is anywhere close to commercialisation.

      1. You would want everything hidden in a box and un-investigateable, yet bemoan Lugano due to the fuel and only the fuel not being independently loaded/removed? Why would a sealed box of unknowns with pre-loaded fuel and componants beyond a tester’s control address your desires? Lugano and other open lab tests have been far superior to what you write here as judged by your own criteria.

        It doesn’t sound like this is a critical attempt to create a testing scenario, but rather just moving goal posts around to try to saite bias by concocting a scenario that has not been done (and for good reason). Albeit, very early on tests (where the ecat is sealed in insulation foil) probably do come close to matching that sealed box description.

    1. Rossi was involved at least in some fuel switching, Maybe also in the instrumentation….disqualifies the test in my opinion.

      1. He was not involved in instruments. He delivered the equipment and fuel (made by IH), loaded and extracted the fuel as it was IP related, but the scientists could do whatever they wanted otherwise with all their own methods and equipment for a month. Sorry, but it fits everything you asked for exactly, so there is no rational basis for excluding it, only bias.

        1. The fuel insertion/extraction was also done before the very eyes of Lugano scientists. The Rossi slight of hand conjecture is all the skeptics have on the Lugano test. And while that is a possibility (Rossi the magician slight of hand), I view it as an unlikely one.

          1. Hi SG,

            Yup and they videoed it.

            Next is I asked Weaver where are the cracked open reactor, the 2 unloaded reactors, the fuel for those 2 unloaded reactors and the control box IH shipped to the Lugano team?

            He told me IH “lost track of them” and don’t know where they are.

            Sort of hard to believe as the cracked open reactor should have heaps more used fuel that could have further analysis done on it.

            But it is conveniently LOST!

            I have heard rumours where those IH owned lost reactors, fuel and the control box ended up at. But that is a tale best told by another.

          2. Brillouin may have some use for them but unravelling what and how without Rossi, and just IH specialists is a slow road to nowhere especially since they are obsolete in comparison to later iterations.

          3. Hi Cash,

            You do understand what it would mean if the lost IH reactors from Lugano did arrive at another LENR lab? Especially if that lab was struggling to develop their own 600C reactors?

            I suggest you should not discount the Lugano reactors. We know nothing of their COP if allowed to run in SSM mode.

            Have a really good look at the Six Cylinder ECat. What do you think are those white central inserts?

          4. Hi Sg,

            Yup. For sure.

            So IH just “lost” what could be the most famous, at that time, LENR reactors, one full of used fuel, 2 unloaded but with fuel and the control box.

            So bloody inconvenient for IH to lose track of them.

            Or maybe not?

        2. Hi Ged,

          Weaver told me IH shipped the unloaded reactors, the fuel and control box to the Lugano team with provided all the measurement instruments and did the wiring before Rossi arrived.

          Rossi then arrived, loaded one of the reactors, while being videoed and watched by all the Lugano team, sealed it and got the reaction going using the control box as supplied by IH and the instruments and wiring as supplied by the Lugano team. It is also reported that IH had people at the Lugano test but I’m not sure when.

          Rossi then left and returned 1 month later to crack open the reactor and removed a small fuel sample, while being videoed and watched by all the Lugano team members.

          I then asked Weaver where are the 3 reactors, 1 fueled but with one end cracked open, the other 2 unfueled reactors, the IH supplied control box and the remaining unused fuel for 2 reactors that IH sent to the Lugano team.

          Was told IH had lost track of them and did not know where they are. My jaw dropped when I read that, which is almost impossible to believe. I mean there are a cracked open reactor with heaps of used fuel inside, 2 unloaded reactors, fuel for those 2 unloaded reactors and the control box. All of which has gone missing.

          I mean who would believe that?

          There exists somewhere heaps of used fuel, 2 reactors worth of unused fuel, 2 unloaded reactors and the control box.

          Imagine if after all this IH owned kit went missing, it turned up at some other LENR lab that IH maybe had an interest in?

          Wonder which LENR lab, that IH may have an interest in, might make good use of the ex Lugano reactors?

          1. It appears that IH extensively tested Lugano design reactors with more careful calorimetry — such has it being calibrated — and could not find any excess heat. I assume that if this goes to trial, this will come out. Lugano was not Rossi fraud, directly. Lugano was gross scientific error, but possibly based on Rossi influence. Who told them that they should not calibrate at full input power because it could burn out the heater wires if they were not protected by reactor heat. Protected? That would increase risk to them, not lower it. Because of that error, they did not know that their thermometry was off, though they should have had a clue that the thing was not at 1400 C because they could look at it without sunglasses. In fact, it appears to have been glowing dull red and only in places.

            Generally, Rossi v. Darden does not turn on the Lugano test. Real heat or not, it’s moot. Yeah, it’s very interesting to us, but not relevant to the case, which is about contract law and claims and counter-claims of fraud, and Lugano is not part of a fraud allegation. IH might have put the Lugano report in to show why it looked to them for a while like the Rossi Effect was real. Lots of people were impressed by Lugano, until people started to notice the blunders.

            On other point that is raised above. The IH patent that quoted the Lugano report. That patent was filed before the Lugano test was done. Without that filing, the Lugano test ran the risk of a public disclosure that would block patentability, and I’m told by a patent attorney that this actually happened, some of Rossi’s later patents are blocked because of the report disclosure or speculation of LiAlH4. But not the filing by IH, because it was before that test. And then it was amended by including the Lugano report. IH was protecting Rossi IP (He is named as inventor on that patent, and Dameron was also named as a co-inventor, which blew Rossi fuses, but it was quite legitimate if any ideas in the Lugano reactor design came from him. In fact, legally necessary.)

    2. Yes, Lugano, with the caveats that Rossi fired up the reactor for them before he left and returned at the end of the test to extract the ash sample.

      But in between it was all scientists doing whatever scientists do whenever they are alone.

      1. And their setup and equipment and methods were all them, and they could do whatever they want including run it more than once (so Rossi couldn’t “fire it up” both times). Whatever scrutany of the results anyone wishes to give, it still meets all the criteria that people ask for for an independent laboratory test, even complete with reactor weighing and some physical analysis.

  122. Basic long term memory test: who started the lawsuit?

    Second long term memory test: what was the purpose of the 1 year test, given laboratory setting tests including with independence had already been done?

    1. Funny with these people who have been ‘lurking around’ for some years and now suddenly turn up to make a conclusion about fraud. Particularly given the recent analysis of various claims in IH’s answer. Beats me.

  123. Never under estimate the ability of attorneys to find ways to bill hours and justifying their rate per hour.

  124. Greetings Mr Chapman

    … if the ERV report is true to reality in all respects where is the fraud?

    I think we might be able to condense your answer to, ‘It’s Mr James A Bass, Director of Engineering and who he really represents.’ OK, if the guy’s a John Doe it’s the end …

    … but what if he isn’t? What if he really speaks for JM or some other UK entity? Is that the end and Rossi wins on all counts?