Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    • Official Post

    [feedquote='E-Cat World','']The following post has been submitted by Josh G With all confusion and back-and-forth over the Rossi-Industrial Heat imbroglio, it’s hard to cut through the thick layer of fog. I’m going to try to do it by zeroing in on some key questions regarding IH’s behavior: A poster on Mats Lewan’s An Impossible Invention site […][/feedquote]

  • So we have had two posters on Mats site and here who appear to have some close to IH info. They have disclosed various things.

    These things may or may not be true. But they are plausible and if true they answer all Josh's questions with no need to cast slurs on IH behaviour. Nor to assume Rossi's technology works, as Josh claims:

    Compared with the cost of the IP ($11.5M + $89M) patents cost nothing. In fact patents are not a big cost and are very important for companies doing research. Unless IH are certain that all the Rossi technology is bunk it is their duty to patent anything they can.

    The expensive part of the patents is done long before we see the applications, so having done that any company would let the patents run. But I suspect IH still wonder if maybe there is some goodness in Rossi's stuff that they cannot see. It derived from Foccardi. In that case patents may do some good even if the reactors do not work.

    The answers here will not be precisely correct. But they do show how something that Josh can't understand is perfectly comprehensible.

  • Shane

    Yes, but isn't he good at it!

    These are the facts IMHO:

    Industrial Heat applied for a patent with information property which Rossi sold to them which they believe is 'their' property and so the patent application is legal, in their application they claimed it 'worked' and was 'useful' which they have to do otherwise the patent will not succeed. This is the evidence that IH believe in the Rossi effect. They have not broken any contract conditions doing this. Industrial Heat believe Dr Rossi's invention works and have not questioned the ERV report at least not directly and in public. However, they can't make it work for themselves. Even with the assistance of other LENR competitors of Rossi. They can only conclude Dr Rossi has not given them the necessary intellectual property and technical assistance, as is required under the contract, to make it work so they have 'legitimately' withheld the $89 million.

    Best regards

    • Official Post


    You may be never knows. At this point, with what is factually known, even Sherlock Holmes would have less than even odds of putting this all together.

    There are 2 things I keep in mind as this saga drags on, and becomes ever more bizarre;

    -Rossi became known to the LENR inner circles way, way back in 2007. Yet during those 9 (long) years he has yet to scientifically prove his Ecat's merit.

    -Rossi, tomorrow, could lay this issue to rest by giving just 1 Ecat, no strings attached, to any of a number of agencies, corporations, or universities to test.

  • Shane

    I don't think it is that difficult.

    First, the case is not about whether or not LENR or the E-cat works. It is about 'breach of contract'. The agreed contract required payment of a balance which has not been paid. Why, not because IH question Penon, both Rossi and IH both agreed to use Penon and pay for his expenses; No its because IH cannot use Rossi's IP to make his invention work on their own, independently of Rossi. That would be the best test of all. So they will claim he has not been forthcoming with IP and assistance as is required under the contract.

    Where will that leave us. Well the Judge will instruct Rossi to provide IH with IP and assistance until IH have a working unit ready for manufacture and market, otherwise Rossi will be in breach of the contract and will loose, If Rossi then defaults on that, IH will be able to look their investors in the eye and sue Rossi for damages. .

    So if the e-cat never did work, Rossi has his head in the lions mouth already. We should wait and see, the courts will not be fooled easily, I think the outcome will be good for everyone.

    Best regards

  • Quote

    So if the e-cat never did work, Rossi has his head in the lions mouth already.

    Well I hope you are right, but I suspect that what will suit both IH and Rossi best will be a quiet out of court settlement in which neither party gives ground and Rossi can continue his claims with the $11M he has already extracted from IH. That is small change for IH whereas a damaging public trial proving Rossi a fraud would be bad PR for them and LENR.

  • A survey here ? about a Scientific topic ?
    And also.....
    Mr. Clarke you seem to fight against LENR like in a Holy War. Why ? Nothing is more damaging Science than faith in some ideas even if those ideas are considered mainstream.
    Can we know your background ? I searched Google Scholar with your name and found only papers about Biology. Is that you ?

  • Thomas

    So if the e-cat never did work, Rossi has his head in the lions mouth already.

    Well I hope you are right, but I suspect that what will suit both IH and Rossi best will be a quiet out of court settlement in which neither party gives ground and Rossi can continue his claims with the $11M he has already extracted from IH. That is small change for IH whereas a damaging public trial proving Rossi a fraud would be bad PR for them and LENR.

    Now, regarding this 'Holy War' of yours! The last time a believer was flung into a 'Lions Den' was by King Darden or Darius or something, and what was his reply? "My God has sent his angel and shut the lions' mouths that they have not hurt me, because I have not sinned against him; and also, unto thee, O King, I have done no wrong."

    We shall see.

    Best regards

  • I have something of a bee in my bonnet about Rossi ever since I got involved in working out how the temperature measurements from Lugano (Rossi's most convincing test) could be written up by 7 Profs as 3X excess heat and guaranteed LENR, when in fact they showed nothing other than an electric heater. They were never corrected and Rossi continues to insist all is good.

    I'm all for LENR research - though less optimistic than some. Rossi is not LENR research.

  • Tom

    I can understand and even respect your position to expose errors. But King Canute also had a singular belief, I think the tide is turning my friend but you do provide an important 'check and balance' to this debate, I hope it remains 'objective' and 'impartial'.

    Best regards

  • Here is my summary post from Mats site comments, now closed, over the test evidence on Rossi. Most I knew before this resume, some I did not, some is actually new (Levi's response to the Lugano test recalculations, which he rejects). Mats is still sitting on the fence - even over the Lugano results - extraordinary!

    I've included the "something fishy here" issues where they give indications as to the reliability of Rossi or Levi. (Both are now provably unreliable). I realise that "something fishy" is not hard evidence and these have less weight than the measurement specifics.

    Finally - it would help not to confuse Rossi with LENR. Rossi is a particular character who has profited from free energy claims that turn out not to work before. LENR is just the unfortunate recipient of his attentions.

    The facts below don't prove Rossi's stuff does NOT work. That can never be done. Ever. But they do show that all evidence it does work is severely compromised.

    I may have missed out a few bits in which case I'll add them.


    Obviously, as Jed points out, the issues re the lawsuit are as yet halfbaked because we have not heard the IH reply to Rossi’s accusations.

    However the issues about Rossi’s long sequence of known flawed tests, and the known unreliability of certain key testers, are factual and known.

    In this situation even countenancing as plausible the statement that IH are lying and Rossi’s contrary statements are correct seems strange? I mean, in the interests of fairness, you can posit that anybody anywhere is lying because a shady character on no evidence claims this. The point is that Rossi has not only no evidence to support his claims, but also a good deal of evidence against them and his reliability as claimant.

    (0) Do you agree the early public tests show no evidence of extraordinary excess heat – all have known errors, and Rossi refuses to correct these even when it is easy to do so?

    (1) Do you agree the 6 Oct 2011 test showed no evidence of LENR? Check the numbers, and the way that every one of the positive points made is clearly wrong by ascoli’s hot core model. See thread here, and ascoli's detailed analysis of hot core heat capacity and heat needed to warm and partially vapourise the primary water.

    (2) Do you agree the Levi figure for pump flowrate in the test he conducted himself was much higher than could be delivered by the pump? (see ascoli comment for details)https://animpossibleinvention.…ih-affair-2/#comment-5545

    (3) Do you agree the Lugano test temp figures show no evidence of excess heat? You will notice the various online support for the details I’ve given. can check yourself what Levi got wrong.You can delay the day of reckoning by waiting to ask an official competent thermographer. But, remember, they must have experience or understanding of the theory relating to surfaces which are not grey body.

    (4) Do you agree the Penon reports show clear circumstantial evidence of average/rms mixup leading to the high COP (1st) and that the electrical measurements for the second are easily got wrong by somone who can write a report as Penon does?

    (5) Do you agree that through his history (Petroldragon, TEG) Rossi has been selling technology which claims great things but is not used, and given its importance if claims are real, does not work?

    (6) Do you agree that Rossi’s license, with a large up-front payment, looks very suspicious? (For Rossi - it would never be what an investor wanted).

    (7) Do you agree that this JM Products chemical company with claimed parent that seems identical to JM in UK, but is known not to be JM in UK, looks very suspicious?

    (8) Do you agree that Levi’s rejection of the Lugano correction shows at best extreme carelessness. He must have been e-mailed, 12 months ago, my paper, by one of the other testers. (I was told my comment would be considered):
    Any competent thermographer (aware of the band vs total emissivity issue) would see the mistake.

    (9) Do you agree that Levi has been paid 75K Euro in one year by a Rossi-related company? I’m not saying this is fraudulent – but it does make him very highly biassed in this matter and not independent as stated.

    (10) Do you agree Fabio F is so heavily involved with Rossi he is no way a fair independent tester for IH?

    (11) Do you agree that the 1st sample of ash provided by Rossi for isotopic analysis contained an admixture of copper grains and therefore was certainly manipulated by Rossi, and that this was deliberate? (See Peter Ekstrom comment on LENR world).

    (12) Do you therefore agree that the extraordinary 99% 62Ni sample from Lugano handled by Rossi looks overwhelmingly likely also to have been manipulated. especially because Rossi is on record as buying 62Ni.

  • The comment string appeared to be getting to close to the truth and was deleted. Mats is now deleted NCKHAWK comments on the other strings as well. Doesn't look good for him at all.

  • While never in favour of censorship, I am very pleased because the comments had descended to gutter level. Personal attacks are never called for, and IH Trolls nchawk and guest, and Cimpy (an Italian journalist with a long-standing grudge against Rossi in particular) were behaving like animals.

    Sounds like a personal attack against those "animals," conveniently posted of a forum not censoring to "friendly" diatribe.

  • Alan Smith

    If we see a repeat of the disgraceful behaviour here that was being displayed on Mats' blog it will damage ECW/LENR Forum considerably, and reflect badly on LENR research as a whole, so I will be the first to plead with the moderators to do something about it. I hope that at least some of you would support me in that effort.

    Yes, I think Mats et al were straying a bit too far, shame as he is a very useful source of information.


    Thomas Clark (see example above) might be a boring kind of critic, but at least he is a professional bore and not impolite (generally).

    I agree also; although I do see some MY type tendencies (a pre occupation with Rossi as a fraud) which do not appear to be healthy to me. One of the phrases introduced to me by Thomas himself which influenced me a great deal was this: "'ad homs' do your case no good" and I'm afraid they are not doing Tom's case any good for the same reasons he gave me.

    Best regards

  • Peter - thank you for the links to the restored comments. I've tried to see them from three different computers and two IP address but they would not load, despite flushing cache. Perhaps a wordpress issue. That trouble started immediately after the closing of the comments sections on the truth search by Mats.
    Mats deleted my inquiry in another string about why the closed and what have been temporarily deleted comments.

    Frank did the same on E-CatWorld.

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.