Mat Lewan Meets Rossi in Sweden, Rossi Bidding on Factory For QuarkX Production

Quote from Keieueue

Seems according to Rossi that an arrangement was made so neither party could have a look at the other's workings and it does make sense

It makes a lot of sense that a bona fide customer that Rossi searched for and found wouldn't want the public to have access to their facilities, or to know who they are, or to see what they had set up. It doesn't make a lick of sense that the "customer" in this instance wouldn't want IH to see into their facility, or that IH would have signed an agreement that this information would be kept secret from them, essentially taking Rossi's word on faith that the customer was anything other than a Leonardo fiction.

One conclusion that can definitely be drawn from what information is now publicly available, by the admission of Rossi and by what is disclosed in the lawsuit, is that Rossi had no intention of carrying out a test of the 1MW plant in a way that could have been rigorously verified by IH. If IH signed on to all of the details that we have heard through Mats and Rossi, such as signing away access to the customer facility, it was not looking after its own best interests. Whether it was in fact will be clearer from its response to the suit and from the determination of the court. But it in any other context it would be redonkulous for IH not to be allowed to see the customer facility, as it is in this context.

Keieueue wrote: "6. This has been extensively proved here and on ecat world that this is ridiculous, especially if the manufacturing process turns heat into chemical bonds."

An endothermic industrial processes turns only a tiny fraction of the heat into chemical bonds. The rest is waste heat. A typical process is cooking or canning food. When you bake a cake, nearly all the heat ends up as waste heat in the kitchen. Only a little goes into changing the chemical bonds in the cake.

It is not a bit ridiculous to claim the heat release would be fatal. Rossi says the facility is 6,500 sq. feet. Conventional heating calls for no more than 20 BTU/sq. ft. in Florida. That's 130,000 BTU. 1 MW is 3,412,142 BTU/h. So that is 26 times more heat than normal heating would supply, and it would not be thermostatically controlled. It would be continuous. If you turned on 26 times more room heating furnaces than normal, and left them on at full blast, obviously the room would soon be too hot for a person to survive in.

If there were large scale ventilation equipment in use, you could release this much heat, but there is no such equipment in the customer area.

What you are saying makes no sense. All of your other points are also wrong. You should stop dreaming up preposterous excuses for Rossi. At long last, have some common sense. No honest person would bar the door of the customer facility to an expert who insists on seeing it. Any expert would insist.

Keieueue wrote: "Customer's IP, not IH's."

The customer never claimed to have any IP.

The customer is listed as a chemical distribution warehouse. Such places do not develop secret or patented technology. In fact, there is no conceivable use for 1 MW of process heat in a small chemical distribution warehouse, but even if there were, it would be in form of conventional ovens, kilns, steam presses or some other off-the-shelf industrial equipment. Such equipment is not secret. It lists the process heat consumption on the faceplate and in the manual, and an engineer can measure that consumption.

Furthermore, as I said, the facility would have to have ventilation equipment with a 22" vent and high powered fans. The I.H. expert would measure the air temperature and flow rate to confirm this equipment is removing 1 MW of heat. There is no intellectual property associated with vents and fans, and no conceivable reason to keep them secret.

Furthermore again, even if the customer had secret equipment with IP associated, an engineer can measure the process heat consumption of that equipment without seeing the internal workings or knowing exactly how it works.

So what you are saying makes no sense at all. You need to stop and think, rather than throwing out a stream of nonsensical excuses and baseless assertions.

"Seems according to Rossi that an arrangement was made so neither party could have a look at the other's workings and it does make sense . . ."

Such an agreement makes no sense at all, and serves no purpose. Rossi himself had unimpeded access. The company was a shell founded by Rossi's own lawyer, so of course he had access! Furthermore, as I pointed out, there is no rational reason to prevent access, and even if there were such an agreement (which is unlikely), any honest, sensible person would agree to change it. If the heat is real, it is 100% in Rossi's best interest for the I.H. expert to confirm that by examining the customer facility, equipment and ventilation.

Keieueue wrote: "Dewey reported nothing about IH seeing no equipment. This is speculation, deliberately misleading or not."

You are confused. Rossi said that I.H. was not allowed to see the equipment. He said that in the interview with Lewan. I.H. confirmed that.

However, as noted above, I.H. and others have now seen the facility, and they know that it has no industrial equipment, no industrial ventilation, and the room could not possibly allow a 1 MW heat release. As I said, that would be like turning on 16 furnaces and leaving them on continuously, with no thermostatic control, no matter how hot the room become. This is preposterous.

From Mats' blog:
"Last week, Andrea Rossi made a visit to Sweden, and apart from meeting with the team of professors in Uppsala, with me and other persons, he made a trip from Stockholm to the south of Sweden to have look at a 10,000 square meter factory building for sale. The day after, assisted by his Northern Europe partner and licensee Hydrofusion, Rossi made an offer on the building in the order of USD 3 to 5 million. Negotiations are now ongoing."

Any more infos about this available?

Do You think (or merely fear) the important next test - ecatx for the new partner - no public - will be conducted by the Uppsala NDA-team?

Monty wrote: "You obviously have no idea about what was going on there but you have a very distinct opinion about it. why?"

First, I do know what goes on in a chemical distribution warehouse. It does not call for 1 MW of process heat. Not even 10 kW, which is how much a dry cleaning shop uses. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. 1 MW is enough for a factory, such as a carpet mill. If this is not actually a chemical distribution warehouse, as listed with the state of Florida, the operators are in violation of the law. You cannot inform the authorities you are distributing chemicals and then instead of doing that, set up large industrial equipment to do something else. If you operate equipment that consumes 1 MW of process heat, the state has to be informed, and they have inspect the equipment and ventilation for safety on a regular basis.

I doubt this building is zoned for a 1 MW industrial process in any case.

Second, I know there is actually no equipment and no ventilation equipment at all, as noted by Dewey.

Third, I have some sample data and information about Rossi's calorimetry. It is ridiculous. It could not possibly indicate 1 MW of heat. Every indication is that the machine produced no excess heat. You can figure this out from the numbers Rossi himself quoted in the interview with Lewan, which are the same numbers in the sample I have analyzed, only I have somewhat more detail.

Monty asks: "To me it feels like there was a point after which no other opinion about Rossi but that he is a con artist is valid for you."

That is correct.

"When was this point?"

It came about in stages.

I have seen a sample of his calorimetry. It is garbage. It is either fraud or grotesque incompetence. You have to look at other factors to decide which it is.

The Lewan interview revealed other factors. The most important was Rossi's announcement that the I.H. expert insisted on seeing the customer facility, but Rossi did not allow this. As I said, there is no reason to do that except to hide the facts. I knew that the calorimetry is so bad, the only way an expert could confirm anything is to examine the equipment and ventilation in the customer facility, as I have explained above. Rossi's own data proves there cannot be 1 MW of excess heat, but his error margin is huge, and his methods and instruments are crude, so you cannot rule out some slight excess.

The interview also confirmed that my data is from Rossi. He quoted the same numbers I have. The data was not invented by I.H. If you carefully analyze the numbers he gave Lewan, you see he cannot have 1 MW.

Experts told me they did additional analyses that showed no excess heat. I have not seen details. Anyway, that is why I.H. announced they could not substantiate the results.

Finally, as Dewey noted, third-party experts have now gained access to the customer facility, and confirmed there is no equipment, no ventilation, and there cannot be a 1 MW heat release. The overall heat release in Rossi's facility and the fake customer facility is about the same as input energy, meaning there is no excess heat. Since Rossi was often in the fake customer facility, obviously he knew that all along.

I consider all of this evidence enough to prove that Rossi was engaged in fraud. Actually, in my opinion, his refusal to allow the I.H. expert into the customer facility is all the proof you need. His own numbers from the interview show he did not have 1 MW, and his own words are tantamount to admitting he is a fraud. Bragging that he is a fraud, not just admitting it!

OK,

There are two ways of proving the Roosi 1MW e-cat claim.

Either Properly measure what goes in and out of the e-cat plant. Flowrates, pressures, temperatures and steam quality will tell you excactly the power level.

With the above you don't need to know what produced heat fluid is used for.

Alternatively: Properly measure the use of the fluid from the e-cat plant.

But The overall easiest way to prove the E-cat plant power level would be to just let the produced steam condense by heating a water stream.

Which means using a heat exchanger where steam is fully condensed and cooled to say 95 degrees C. And the other side of the exchanger a water stream may be heated from 20 degC up to 85 degC

1MW heat will be fully removed by heating a 3,7 liter/s water stream from 20 degrees C to 85 degrees C.

So the water heated will tell you excactly the heat content of the steam that where condensed to water phase.

oystla wrote: "OK,There are two ways of proving the Roosi 1MW e-cat claim."

No, there are several other methods, such as measuring the ventilation heat loss in the customer facility. All methods should be used. In fact, all methods MUST be used in a safety inspection, which has to be conducted on a regular basis by a licensed HVAC engineer. You have to test the boiler, the industrial equipment, and ventilation equipment. The methods and instruments in these tests are described in detail in the laws. Rossi's calorimetry violates these laws. It is ridiculous.

"Either Properly measure what goes in and out of the e-cat plant."

Which Rossi has not done.

"Flowrates, pressures, temperatures and steam quality will tell you excactly the power level."

No, this is not exact. It is within about 10% as you see in the worksheets and instrument specifications in the inspection laws. It is not exact, but it is precise enough to ensure safety.

"With the above you don't need to know what produced heat fluid is used for."

Yes, you do. No sane expert would fail to confirm what the heat is used for. No state inspector or licensed HVAC engineer would fail to confirm this. The state would revoke his license. It would be criminal negligence. You have to be sure the boiler, the equipment and ventilation is up to code and working correctly. An I.H. expert assigned to confirm the claim would also have to confirm the heat flow at every stage.

"Alternatively: Properly measure the use of the fluid from the e-cat plant."

Both steps must be taken.

"But The overall easiest way to prove the E-cat plant power level would be to just let the produced steam condense by heating a water stream."

Which Rossi did not do, as far as I can tell.

Jed:
Wrt your "No, this is not exact. It is within about 10% as you see in the worksheets and instrument specifications in the inspection laws. It is not exact, but it is precise enough to ensure safety."

Please, seriously, in this case measurements where not done for "safety", but to certify a claim.

Commercial Pressure and temperature transmitters can be accurate down to less than 0,1% of range If required. It all depends on what was specified and what ERV used.

It would be gross negligence of IH not to require instruments in the agreement having required accuracy for a commercial agreement. And If IH did not as you imply, they deserve to loose their investment.

Proving a claim of 1MW heat using instrument measurements of fluid in and out will be more than accurate enough for any commercial purposes.

The end use of heat produced is of no relevance.

Keieueue wrote: ". . . since the customer did not gave access to his process-, do not take more heat than baking a cake- IH people have seen the customer facility which they don't have access to -or did not have-, and there is nothing there"

You have a positive genius for misunderstanding. I said that industrial endothermic processes all produce mostly waste heat. Food preparation is a widespread, typical endothermic process. Baking a cake is an example of that. If you have baked a cake, you will know that very little heat is absorbed by the process.

"IH people have seen the customer facility which they don't have access to -or did not have-, and there is nothing there"

I.H. people and others have now seen the customer facility. They now know there is nothing but a radiator and fan.

oystla wrote: "Please, seriously, in this case measurements where not done for "safety", but to certify a claim."

The methods are exactly the same. A safety inspection includes a measure of the performance (COP) of a boiler.

Various other things are also checked during a safety inspection, such as the emergency off switch, and the vent or chimney.

"Commercial Pressure and temperature transmitters can be accurate down to less than 0,1% of range If required. It all depends on what was specified and what ERV used."

I know what the ERV used. The instruments and methods were crap.

Jed : "The methods are exactly the same. A safety inspection includes a measure the performance (COP) of a boiler."

The method was not my point. You referred to 10% accuracy. No sane engineers would use that kind of accuracy of instrumentation when evaluating a claim of energy production, If not specifically specified in a contract that is.

And If IH openly went into a contract with this kind of accuracy, then Shame on IH.

Jed: "I know what the ERV used. The instruments and methods were crap. "

Well, and this is what IH calls "due diligence", and what they Signed off on, haha ?

No. We do NOT need to be either 100% for or 100% against Rossi / LENR / mainstream science / IH or anything else for that matter.

Polarization isn't helpful. For example - are you for abortion or against it? The truth is that 95% of us are neither for nor against it. We recognize it is an ugly last resort for the ugliest of circumstances. Denying it to those in need is just a bad as allowing it for those who don't. But stupid polarizers insist. And there's a lot of money in the abortion fight ... that's the most immoral part of it.

Keep a healthy skepticism. Keep a healthy optimism. And beware of anybody with a financial interest in the outcome.

I'm in no way defending Rossi, or his way of doing business.

I just think Industrial Heat did a very poor due diligence job.
There exists creative inventors, smart investors and energetic, intelligent entrepenours able to build strong companies. But very seldom you find all of these in one single person, like Elon Musk.
Rossi is possible a creative inventor, but has not yet proven to have adequat skills as entrepeneur. One important skill as entrepeneur is the ability to trust and cooperate with other people and partners. Rossis behaviour have indicated more of the typical inventor - "I trust no one", and therefore can be very difficult to work with and have business arrangements with....

The Court will decide If it's all a scam.