Why Cherokee changed its tune?

    Is there any proof that Rossi is getting COP's 10 and can boost to 50? If so and this is true Rossi why would he not collect his 89m....surely the obvious is true and IH have held out hope until they have to admit
    that there is no useable energy, as I am having to admit to myself. Rossi has millions out of It to play about with various tech. Where is the power supply that controls 100 ecats or is it 4 x 250kw I've heard diff. stories for each?

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    The flow calorimetry Penon test has not been looked at by me, I don't think the report has ever been released. It would be the 24 hour $10M test?


    Yes. My timeline for the tests by Penon (I've started to keep a timeline to keep all of the dates straight), neglecting the 1-year test, says:

    • August 7, 2012 [1]
    • July 16, 2012 [1]
    • May 1, 2013 [2]

    To my knowledge, the May 1 test, which was done in Ferrara as the validation test for the license agreement, and which released the 10 million, is not publicly available.


    [1] http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-co…09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf
    [2] http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-c…4/Leonardosuit01-main.pdf


    Quote from Shane D.

    Correct Tom. Note that Penon's Hotcat test in July 2012, was done while he was also doing a product certification, for what I am guessing was the 1MW?


    Without commenting on this possibility directly, I note that 1 MW reactor was not available to Penon in May 1, 2013, when he did the validation test; instead there was an amendment made on April 29, 2013 (the First Amendment to the License Agreement), Exhibit A to which said the test was to take place on a unit of 30 E-Cat modules instead.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Quote: “I think the fact that trolling activities have increased so much in the past 72 hours is a significant clue.”


    Do you consider me a troll? The fact is, I deal with the substance (of the tests, and what IH might have made of that) in as much…


    I said nothing negative about IH Darden nor Vaughn, you did.


    Seems like textbook trolling 101

    Deacon:


    Quote


    I said nothing negative about IH Darden nor Vaughn, you did.


    Seems like textbook trolling 101


    You are accusing me of trolling, which in my book is an insult and contrary to site policy unless I am, in which case I should be banned from the site.


    Many people here have said or implied unpleasant things about the actions and motives of Darden and Vaughn. That is not surprising since Rossi has said under oath (presumably - not sure of the exact status of thiese initial statement) that IH are fraudulent.


    you have said:

    Quote

    So now what are the odds that all of this is because Rossi's device couldn't work. I would say increasingly smaller and smaller. It appears there are numerous ways to get the effect and these efforts have been actively attacked since at least 1989.There were likely ego and relationship issues that came up, but to deny the possibility that it works is in my opinion a sign of a sheep or a troll. Both equally dangerous.


    Since IH themselves in a PR (with informal additional background from 'guest's close to the players rumours on the other thread) have said Rossi's stuff does not work except sometimes when he is present your argument would lead not just me but also IH to be either sheep or trolls. That is an insult. And it is such implied snide comments that are getting me incensed in this case, when it is obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that given Rossi lying or IH lying the former is true to form and the latter not. I've said that Rossi generally manages to twist the truth rather than lie, and that remains so here, but there are two very likely exceptions:

    • Rossi has stated clearly in patents and to possible funders that in 2010 he has a COP=10 device heating a factory for one year.
    • Rossi has said in the legal action that IH are fraudulent


    There are many many comments here about how people cannot understand IH actions [unless they have behaved very badly]. I take issue with that, and think it is grossly unfair. Your "trolling" post feeds into that frenzy.

    Quote from Rionrlty

    I've learned over time that if someone begins touting their religious belief as a character reference, I start looking behind me so I can see the knife coming.


    Well I agree. I feel responsible for this misinformation. Neither Darden nor Vaughn have ever to my knowledge brought up their religious belief.


    The comments here were me noting the comment of bachcole on ECW, posted in full somewhere else here i think. I don't set much store by it myself, just a straw in the wind, but character references matter even in legal proceedings when parties contradict each other.

    Quote

    Calm down guys, we need bare unadulterated facts not supposition, unless its in pursuit of 'discovery' then the supposition must be 'evidence based' we risk loosing our way here if we haven't done that already.


    I'm with you there - which is why I'm against the non-evidence-based supposition that Rossi has ever had anything that works!

    Quote

    Since reasoning is not objective, sometimes there *can* be no other evidence than a gut feeling. One can spot trolling


    I always think it is trolls or the like, arguing gut feeling not facts, who bring up trolling, or complain about it. lucky we don't have any of that stuff here :)

    Quote from Eric Walker

    To my knowledge, the May 1 test, which was done in Ferrara as the validation test for the license agreement, and which released the 10 million, is not publicly available.


    Assuming that the following English/Chinese presentation and its date Oct 13, 2013, is genuine, these IH believers surely believed in "the Reactor" after that May 1, 2013, test:

    • Official Post

    Eric,


    Thanks. You are right , it was one of two 30 Ecat units they tested. Looks like IH had some experts advising them on the methodology, and conditions too. After reading your link, I have a little more faith in IH's preparations going into this:


    "E-Cat Validation Protocol Description: Two separate units ("Unit A" and "Unit B"). each composed of a different set of 30 individual E-Cat reactors, will be tested for a period of 24 hours, per the schedule below. Subsequently, a Hot Cát unit will be tested for a period of 15 hours, as described below.


    For purposes concerning validation achievement, only the performance of Urit A will be considered. Unit B and the Hot Cat are being tested solely for purposes of further research and development. Location: Factory of Leonardo Corporation, Ferrara, ltaly Schedule: unit A will be tested 9:00 a.m. April30th - 9:00 a.m. May lst Unit B will þe tested 5:00 p-m. May tst - S:00 p.m. May 2nd The Hot Cat unit will be tested 6:00 p.m. May 2nd - g:00 a.m. May 3rd The time of consideration will be the local time in Ferrara, ltaly,


    Unit A performance requirements: Unit A will be required to consistently produce energy that is at least six times greater than the energy it consumes (that is, a coefficient of performance "COP of six or greater) and stearm that is consistently 100 degrees Celsius or greater during a 24 hour test period.


    Unit A test requirements: Prior to the test, the expert responsible for validation (ERV) must provide lndustrial-Heat 1) a list, including make, model and calibration, of all instruments used during the test[ and 2) a detailed test protocol which describes, among other things, how the ERV will extract measurements and where he will place thermometers, rnanometers, flow meters and other such measuring instruments used during the test.


    Activation and deactivation of the unit will occur before and after the 24-hour test period. Measurements outside the 24-hour test period will not be included for purposes of calculating the GOP. The COP will be calculated as the ratio between generated energy and absorbed energy during the 24-hour period.


    In the event the individual reactors produce differing COPs, an average COP will be calculated and used for purposes of determining the COP. The ERV will measure the flow of the heated fluid and the Delta I between the temperature of the fluid before and after the E-Cat reaction. The energy absorbed by the unit will be determined by measuring the electricity consumed. From these measurements, the ERV will determine the COP of the unit. At the conclusion of the test, the ERV will produce a final report showing the results."

    Before Rossi's lawsuit revealed this, skep conjecture all along has been that IH relied solely on other reports of Rossi's public tests, and demos in making their DD. Made them sound naive, unprepared, making them easy targets for the seasoned con-man Rossi.


    They were obviously wrong as this shows...as they (IH) did their own DD. Apparently with some expert advise to guide them. They did not go into this venture cavalierly. They did their homework. These guys were serious. Helps fill in a few more pieces.

    Shane,


    IH did indeed require significant validation from no less than 7 independent tests documented in 4 reports.


    Unfortunately they agreed to testers who were:
    (1) not competent at testing
    (2) chosen by Rossi (Penon comes from UoB and is a nuclear engineer, you can guess that he might be somone disposed to believe Rossi, you can also see that his qualifications (a "Masters" equivalent in Nuclear Engineering) are not in the area of rigorous testing or indeed calorimetry).


    This 24 hour test was Penon. Do you need me to reiterate the quite appalling errors in basic test 101 methodology that Penon made in the previous report from his that is public domain?


    Quote

    Before Rossi's lawsuit revealed this, skep conjecture all along has been that IH relied solely on other reports of Rossi's public tests, and demos in making their DD


    I think the point was that they did not do "real" independent testing. Which is true. The non-public tests are just more of the same, with the same (incompetent at this testing) tester, and a test setup influenced by Rossi.


    I notice that IH have in this license tried to tell Penon what to do having noted his previous more obvious issues. You do not get good results trying to micro-manage incompetent or unqualified experts in this way. Better to find a competent expert.

    • Official Post

    Tom,


    We know of Penon's poor execution of the July Hotcat test, for which he made it a point to mention that his Hotcat work was not his primary task for being there...Product Certification of another unit was. As I said earlier, he may not have put much effort into it because of that. Like an: "OK Andrea, I am kind of busy on this other testing you have me here for, but since you insist, I will do it as a favor". Even he may have felt it was not up to his standards, as he went back the next month to run the Hotcat again, upon which he reports duplicating his earlier, August, findings.


    Doing poorly on the Hotcat, does not necessarily mean the other tests on the 2 30 unit Ecat modules acceptance tests, was similarly poor work. Nor does it mean he always does shoddy work, or can't be trusted in his role as ERV for the 1 year test. That is stretching the known facts too far IMO.


    There is also no record of Penon not being "independent" -from Rossi, either. None. As restricting as skeps have defined that word, there is not a single graduate of the UOB, or any Italian or Swede scientist, who meets the criteria of independent, or even have the qualifications to do the job...ask H-G, he is a Swede and even admits to the last! ;) .


    Now, you may have a point about the shell factory, it's owner, or whatever, not being independent, but until we see the report, or hear from IH, we cant be sure of that. Knowing Rossi, and in light of IHs public statement about needing truly neutral tests, this may likely be where the neutrality, and independence smell test, fails.


    Back to my point; IH shows here that they entered the venture with their own experts at their sides. They did not go ONLY by others published reports. That gives their word some credibility knowing they have good advice, are backed by experts on their payroll, when they make public statements, as they have, about their belief in LENR and that they are seeing some "promising" things from their portfolio.


    Kind of funny how skeps can argue on the one hand; that if IH says, as they have, that the Ecat technology can't be "substantiated", yeah we trust them on that, but on the other hand, argue that they don't trust IH on their word that LENR is real, as they have also claimed. That is having it both ways.

    Quote from Shane

    We know of Penon's poor execution of the July Hotcat test, for which he made it a point to mention that his Hotcat work was not his primary task for being there...Product Certification of another unit was. As I said earlier, he may not have put much effort into it because of that. Like an: "OK Andrea, I am kind of busy on this other testing you have me here for, but since you insist, I will do it as a favor". Even he may have felt it was not up to his standards, as he went back the next month to run the Hotcat again, upon which he reports duplicating his earlier, August, findings.Doing poorly on the Hotcat, does not necessarily mean the other tests...on the 2 30 unit Ecat modules, was similarly poor work. Nor does it mean he always does shoddy work, or can't be trusted in his role as ERV for the 1 year test. That is stretching the known facts too far IMO.


    If you had a plumber who did a really lousy job, you'd say "well, maybe he had an off day. Probably he is a good plumber most of the time".


    That is not good enough when it comes to testing. In August there was still only the one (lousy) report from both tests. Penon appears to have no sense of professional integrity when it comes to testing. I agree, if his reports were not showing extraordinary Nobel Prize winning new physics, you might forgive it, though you would then never employ him in any related formal certification process.


    Also, he has shown himself to have no common sense. How could he make that mistake about power from inside and outside of the cylinder? We are asking this guy to detect one of Rossi's creative false positive results. You think he is up to it?

    Quote

    There is also no record of Penon not being "independent" -from Rossi, either. None. As loosely as skeps have defined that word, there is not a single graduate of the UOB, or any Italian or Swede scientist, who meets the criteria of independent


    Hey Shane, you are wrong. Pomp is independent :)


    You miss the point. This guy comes from UoB and has a nuclear background. That means:
    (1) Rossi/Levi/etc probably chose him
    (2) He will be highly interested in LENR and therefore either pro or against. Guess which is most likely?
    (3) His background is not relevant to the testing


    Rossi is good at choosing people who believe him. I'm sure Penon is such.


    In fact, listening to the video of the Mats Rossi test that included a whole load of Rossi PR I can see why he is convincing. he comes across is clever, passionate an an otherworldly scientist sort of way. He is charismatic.


    Don't think he'd ever choose me as a tester, do you?

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    <a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/603-Thomas-Clarke/">@Thomas Clarke</a>
    Why would it matter if Penon was highly interested in LENR?


    He would be more vulnerable to the Rossi glamour and likely to believe Rossi's story. It would not matter if he was a professional tester of course, but he is not...

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.