Why was the one-year test performed?

1st Official Post

    Perhaps the most remarkable thing in this story is the 1MW test. What was the purpose and who wanted the test. If Rossi has something that works fully or partially, I can not understand why it came about.


    I have read three different explanations to why it happened.


    (1) In order to test the reliability of the product.
    But as many have pointed out, it is a very strange way to test a product composed of several units together before they have been tested completely separately.


    (2) In order to convince potential customers to the 1MW power plant.
    But who else than possibly the secret customer may have become convinced by the tests that were carried out? And if you have one of the biggest inventions in 100 years there must be better ways to convince customers that it works over than a one-year test at an undisclosed customer.


    (3) After the agreement was released, we found out that the test was a condition for full payment to Rossi.
    But who came upp with this very strange ide? According to Dewey, it was a demand from Rossi to have it this way in the agreement. I do not know if it's true. But I wonder why Rossi accepted or wanted it this way. If he really does have something that works, I think he's taking a very big risk with the one-year test. If he failed to keep the reactor running 350 out of 400 days because of reliability problems, which would not be strange with a completely new product, he is not entitled to more than 11.5 million of 100 millions. If I understand the agreement correctly Rossi is not even entitled to the commission of up to 1 billion if the one-year test fail. And IH still keeps the same license rights and do not have to pay commission. It is not reasonable to risk revenue of 89 million and commissions of up to 1 bilion on single test. Why not instead sign a contract in which Rossi get his 89 million when IH has been able to verify the product on there own. And if IH claim they can't verify the product there could be a clause stating that the license is returned to Rossi. This ought to be a much safer way for Rossi to receive full payment. And safer also for IH because they can be 100% confident that it work before they pay the greater part.

    But if Rossi know that it doesn't work he would also know that IH would not be able to replicate. Remember that IH had more than one year to test the IP from Rossi before the one year test would be finished.


    Did Roosi really think IH would pay 89 million even when they could not get the IP they got from him to work. That does not sound reasonable to me.

    Quote from DNI

    Did Roosi really think IH would pay 89 million even when they could not get the IP they got from him to work. That does not sound reasonable to me.


    It has not to sound reasonable.


    Fact is that they didn't pay and that Rossi tries to enforce the payment.


    We do not know whether this had been planned so but it can be assumed because the complaint has apparently been prepared long before.

    Quote from DNI

    Did Roosi really think IH would pay 89 million even when they could not get the IP they got from him to work. That does not sound reasonable to me.


    I have been dealing with Rossi for a long time. Nothing about him is reasonable. NOTHING. He has done more strange things and self destructive things than any person I know. That is saying a lot, because I know hundreds of cold fusion researchers, and they tend to be strange people. Not all of them.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    DNI wrote:


    I have been dealing with Rossi for a long time. Nothing about him is reasonable. NOTHING. He has done more strange things and self destructive things than any person I know. That is saying a lot, because I know hundreds of cold fusion researchers, and they tend to be strange people. Not all of them.

    For over four years, people have been writing about Rossi with comments like, "Rossi would be crazy to ... and therefore he hasn't done that."


    My operating hypothesis is that Rossi is insane. High functioning, yes, obviously, but ... my sense is that he trusts nobody. He must be in control. Whether or not this fits some psychiatric diagnosis or not, I sknow how these traits routinely lead to ultimate failure. The chorus of approval on Planet Rossi doesn't help, it will lead him down the rosy path.


    Even if the Rossi Effect is real. Planet Rossi thinks like Rossi. Collectively, it makes all the same blunders. I'm not talking about those who have attempted to confirm the Rossi Effect. That's science, or at least a part of it, even if sometimes done without skill. People can learn skill. But Planet Rossi is fueled by fixed belief, and as fact is revealed, it is all interpreted within the framework of the belief.


    The following assumes that the Rossi Effect is real and that Rossi is not a complete con.


    It must have become obvious to Rossi at some point that, if they were not satisfied, IH would not pay him. He was right. They were not going to pay him. They may have told him that.


    Instead of seeing that as a problem with customer satisfaction, to be addressed head-on, finding what they needed and satisfying it, he concluded that they were snakes, frauds, out to screw him over, to steal his IP and not pay him. Within how he thinks, this was a normal conclusion! Now, people who have paranoid tendencies can do well, if they have advisors they trust. Does he have that? All the signs are, no. He doesn't.


    Rossi does things his own way and doesn't listen to anyone.


    And that is a fatal mistake, if he does not recover. From my point of view, Rossi is at risk of a fraud claim, himself, and prosecution. As pointed out by another, perhaps he believes that he is right and therefore a fraud claim is nothing to worry about. But you can be right and be convicted of fraud, because of appearances. He really needs sound legal advice. Dewey is correct, he is in danger.


    He could still take responsibility for how this all went, and recover. But people like him, in my experience, rarely do. They would literally rather die than recognize and take responsibility for their own errors. Still, it's up to Rossi, and if he has friends, his friends.

    Quote from DNI

    But who came upp with this very strange ide? According to Dewey, it was a demand from Rossi to have it this way in the agreement.

    At some point I may review and quote from An Impossible Invention on this. Rossi was fixated on a 1 MW plant from at least early in 2011. Because this makes no sense from a commercial development standpoint, but is only grandstanding, I find it extremely unlikely that the impetus came from IH; rather, as has been suggested, Rossi insisted on it, and the whole single-test make-or-break idea.


    So why did IH agree? It seems fairly obvious to me (but the truth will come out, I assume). It was agree or walk. Darden and Vaughn wanted to know if the Rossi Effect was real or not. IH was actually formed to find out. From this point of view, the Agreement makes sense to me.


    Reading the Complaint, Rossi seems totally naive. He didn't know that he was dealing with a limited liability company, IH, and not Cherokee? He imagined that IH would pay him $89 million even if not satisfied? He thought they would honor the literal wording of the agreement even if the purpose -- IP transfer -- was not realized? Where in the world did he get that idea?


    IH knew that they were risking $11.5 million and not, realistically, $100.5 million. They knew that if they could make the devices work, when they were completely responsible for making and testing them, that it was well worth the full amount. So they took the risk. Did they receive anything of value? That will depend on how this all goes, and depends on information that we do not have, the exact IP that was transferred. If it was valid and adequate, it's what should be in a patent, and if it's not in a patent, it is very weakly protected by commercial secrecy.


    If this goes to trial, this is what I expect. IH employees will testify that they followed Rossi's instructions. It is very possible that the instructions will be introduced into evidence. They will testify that the devices didn't work. There may be details revealed about how they were tested. They will testify as to what support Rossi gave them or did not give them. This testimony will establish, if not controverted, that the IP transfer failed, and, it will be argued, this was core to the Agreement.


    And that argument would be sound, it's obvious, it's common sense.


    How could Rossi controvert it? Well, suppose there is this evil IH conspiracy. But an employee feels guilty about persecuting Saint Rossi. So he decides to reveal the truth, that they found plenty of heat, but were greedy bastards, etc. If that happens, all hell breaks loose. Don't hold your breath.


    In a case like this, committing perjury would be extremely risky. The truth has a way of coming out. Planet Rossi is not accustomed to statements made under penalty of perjury, statements with the world watching through a court reporter, and a jury watching, every movement of the eyes and mannerism, and attorneys asking questions who know how to ask and what to ask. And where, by the way, all those blog comments will be available as a record, and if Rossi has lied, that just might end up being introduced, because all those statements will create a background. Even though the blog statements are not made under penalty of perjury, he might be asked about them where his responses are legally compelled to be honest and complete.


    For Rossi to prove that their devices actually work is not going to be easy, and the ERV report could be an element, but would not be adequate. It's very possible that IH will allege fraud, and in this field, allegations of fraud are easily made and have a tendency to stick even when not true. Convincing a jury that this all worked is not going to be simple, unless there is evidence we don't know about. (If there was fraud in the GPT, or just a reasonable suspicion of fraud, then IH would have a clear reason for nonpayment.)


    Notice that this consideration does not require that no anomalous heat was ever observed. What was required for the payment was way beyond ordinary scientifically significant anomalous heat.


    There is a great deal we do not know, possible facts that would turn this picture around. So my comments are based only on what I've seen so far, and not on any imagination of what is in the ERV report.

    Rossi's previous deal with Defkalion was based on a shared view that the technology was ready to roll out on a mass market for industrial and domestic use. The 1MW plant was part of that idea. My understanding is that IH's 1MW plant and the one year test is simply a Defkalion residue. Rossi insisted on that the technology is ready for market and it is priced accordingly. I can't imagine that IH shared his view but they had to align with it contract wise to get the deal. A one year test as such is not a bad idea for IH becuase it postpones their heavy payment with the same amount of time so theres is no reason to stear away from it. As I pointed out in previous posts I think it is a huge misstake to think that IH ever had any genuine interest in the test in the first place and in particular in a positive outcome.

    Quote from Zuffhaus

    Rossi's previous deal with Defkalion was based on a shared view that the technology was ready to roll out on a mass market for industrial and domestic use. The 1MW plant was part of that idea. My understanding is that IH's 1MW plant and the one year test is simply a Defkalion residue. Rossi insisted on that the technology is ready for market and it is priced accordingly. I can't imagine that IH shared his view but they had to align with it contract wise to get the deal. A one year test as such is not a bad idea for IH becuase it postpones their heavy payment with the same amount of time so theres is no reason to stear away from it. As I pointed out in previous posts I think it is a huge misstake to think that IH ever had any genuine interest in the test in the first place and in particular in a positive outcome.


    The 1 year test was a waste of time if its intent was to improve the quality of Rossi's LENR power core. Rossi never replaced this core though he did verify that the fuel load would produce power for an entire year without reload. All the problems and improvements were related to the steam boiler.


    LENR must be improved to generate electricity directly as a solid state device and move away from steam as a energy carrier.

    So, that suggests that we should be attending to Mitchell Swartz' Phusors and the like. I recall Thomas Clarke dismissing them solely for the reason that they were so small that errors were even more likely [I paraphrase from ~ one year recollection of a post here].


    Well, if one thinks about it a bit, having an energy source whose energy density could well be 1000s of times ordinary internal combustion or flame sources, necessarily dictates that "small is beautiful" since such densities could easily result in very dangerous explosions--- to say the least. Swartz has shown in detailed lectures [see MIT IAP on YouTube} curves indicating very clearly "runaway" conditions where the effective COP greater that 6 or so, in my recollection. He dedicated a lot of effort to establishing an OOP "optimal operating point" argument. Besides the obvious thermal dissipation issues that would be familiar to anyone who has ever "hot rodded" an engine far beyond its factory rating, we have a plausible positive feedback loop in many LENR output curves (so called "parabolic" behavior as temperature rises), but instead of a "blown" engine in two distinct senses, we have with overdriven phusors etc, essentially a failure, but with the conclusive event being a miniature thermonuclear event.


    So, "tickling the tail of the dragon" [q.v.] might wisely involve a fraction of a gram rather than say 13.2 kg of material in that famous event. Mitchell is prudent and correct in his approach. The "replications", if they were not not simply enhanced chemistry, but truly nuclear, are as Ekstrom and others here point out, potentially extremely dangerous in their scale. Here Thomas has done no one a favor, unfortunately for his gifted efforts. Of course he is perhaps more convinced agnostic or even a "non-believer". I count myself as open to the possibility of hydrogen LENR.... this is why I continue to be concerned for experimenter's safety.

    I want to live in that universe where Tom Darden pays Rossi 10 million because he just believes in him without hiring several consultants to test his low-temperature reactor.


    People here describes the whole situation that Rossi has a Kw LENR reaction of 1.1 and we don't know if it can get higher. Then TD steps up to the plate and invests money to do some more R&D in the hope we can get the COP maybe higher.


    It's NOT, Rossi describes very specific what the reactor is capable of. A 10Kw Reactor(100°) with a COP 6. Piece of cake for every professional to check that claim out.


    It's just that straightforward, it works! The mental gymnatics going on here are laudable. But your scenario has to explain everything that happened in the last 6 years, none do.


    Even Jed & Weaver claim that Rossi can create excess heat(but not always and very low). Even in their irrational hate toward Rossi they can't deny the obvious truth.

    Quote from STDM

    Even Jed & Weaver claim that Rossi can create excess heat(but not always and very low)


    Not as far as I know, he can't. There are some indications he may have in some previous tests, such as the first Levi tests, but that is not a "claim" that he can. It is too unclear to be sure of anything, and it was never replicated.

    I think the statement is "Crazy like a fox". 11 Million bucks with several tests and they can't find anyone (ERV) that both parties will agree too? Then one sides lawyers recommend that the principle parties sign off on? At the least someone skipped a beat on the lawyer somewhere.

    STDM keeps his streak alive and is off to a great start in this week's rankings. It's straightforward alright, Rossi's IP will continue to bump along at junk status unless he quickly proves otherwise to the satisfaction of those who are not on hallucinogens, doggie uppers and/or Planet Rossi payroll.

    Quote from Tom Paulsen

    All he had to do was to define the inadequate test procedure in the contract, so that the fulfillment depends not on real values but on calculations which are based on assumptions.


    Yes. Indeed, I think the 1MW plant is a ruse through multiple manipulative factors. Some examples of the manipulative rationale are below.


    1). It looks impressive with all kinds of boxes, wires, lights, and so forth. A scammer surely wouldn't build such an elaborate device (so people tend to think).
    2). A large complicated device provides a lot more opportunity for error.
    3). A long test provides a lot of opportunity to manipulate the measurement system to give the readings you want.
    4). It provides the illusion of product maturity.
    5). When you mention "millions" of data measurements, it provides a similar illusion to calling the plant 1MW.


    I wouldn't be surprised if the 14-16 hour days were spent trying to make sure nobody went where they shouldn't or took measurements they shouldn't (in addition to keeping the attention and interest going through his blog). The real work was done mostly by others from what I can tell (building the reactors, etc...).

    Quote from Jack Cole

    Quote from Tom Paulsen: “All he had to do was to define the inadequate test procedure in the contract, so that the fulfillment depends not on real values but on calculations which are based on assumptions.”


    Yes. Indeed, I think the 1MW plant is a…


    Jack Cole said: " 1). It looks impressive with all kinds of boxes, wires, lights, and so forth. A scammer surely wouldn't build such an elaborate device (so people tend to think)."


    You would expect a 1 MW device made of many smaller devices (all of which need to be controlled regarding heat output, water flow etc.) to be complicated. So this is not a red flag IMHO.


    Jack Cole Said: "2). A large complicated device provides a lot more opportunity for error."


    Perhaps, but IH already did a 24-hour validation test of a much smaller device, and agreed in the contract to this test. It makes sense as a next step to do a long test with many units to test for stability etc.


    Jack Cole said: "3). A long test provides a lot of opportunity to manipulate the measurement system to give the readings you want."


    But there were interim reports every 3 months, and as already mentioned IH already carried out a 24-hour validation test.


    Jack Cole said: "4). It provides the illusion of product maturity."


    Andrea Rossi has been working on these 1 MW units for 5 years! So, hopefully there would be some product maturity.


    Jack Cole: "5). When you mention "millions" of data measurements, it provides a similar illusion to calling the plant 1MW."


    This is true but is a minor point. With modern lab techniques and computers, it is easy to carry out real-time measurements. In any case, what counts is not the "millions" of data measurements but the RESULTS (and quality) of these measurements, which should all be explained in the ERV report.

    Quote from Jack Cole

    Yes. Indeed, I think the 1MW plant is a ruse through multiple manipulative factors. Some examples of the manipulative rationale are below.


    1). It looks impressive with all kinds of boxes, wires, lights, and so forth. A scammer surely wouldn't build such an elaborate device (so people tend to think).
    2). A large complicated device provides a lot more opportunity for error.
    3). A long test provides a lot of opportunity to manipulate the measurement system to give the readings you want.
    4). It provides the illusion of product maturity.
    5). When you mention "millions" of data measurements, it provides a similar illusion to calling the plant 1MW.


    Then why do you think IH ever agreed to it? If it is so plain to you, why wasn't it to IH?

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Then why do you think IH ever agreed to it? If it is so plain to you, why wasn't it to IH?


    It wasn't so plain to me then either then. Why would it be? There were several apparently positive test results (as far I can tell are all shown to have major problems). Indeed, Parkhomov's apparent success was galvanizing to myself and others to perform a lot of experiments. Then over the course of 2015, the negative replications came one after another. In the later part of 2015, it occurred to me that Rossi has made sure that all of his tests shared a single flaw: no proper calibration was ever performed. That is the key factor enabling the false positive results. Parkhomov went almost silent only popping up a time or two to note much less stellar results, but no reports. This fact combined with all the other negative replications are sufficient to cast doubt onto all of his results. There is not one high quality repeatable experiment demonstrating that it works.


    There is no evidence that Rossi's formula outlined in his patent works. What more evidence is needed? Perhaps one could think he is a shrewd inventor who knows he must provide a non-working patent, but hold back a key ingredient from the patent (and his funding partner). The alternative explanation is much simpler: he has nothing held back. It doesn't work and people provide him all kinds of ready excuses. All he has to do is patrol the net a bit to find plausible cover stories generated by other people.


    A man of conscience would admit to experimental problems, but he is willing to stand on false results over and over. The central question for all to answer is how far do his lies extend?


    1. Is he incompetent at science or deliberately skewing results?
    2. Did he lie in his patent and to IH leaving out a key special ingredient?
    3. Did he swap out the spent fuel with Ni62 at Lugano producing a fradulent isotopic analysis?
    4. Did he deny the IH expert access to the "customer" factory to protect trade secrets or to cover his lies?

    Jack Cole said: " 1). It looks impressive with all kinds of boxes, wires, lights, and so forth. A scammer surely wouldn't build such an elaborate device (so people tend to think)."


    quizzical said: You would expect a 1 MW device made of many smaller devices (all of which need to be controlled regarding heat output, water flow etc.) to be complicated. So this is not a red flag IMHO.


    I'm not sure what your point is. Do you not agree that it looks more impressive to onlookers to have a large complicated, high-tech looking device?


    Jack Cole Said: "2). A large complicated device provides a lot more opportunity for error."


    quizzical wrote: Perhaps, but IH already did a 24-hour validation test of a much smaller device, and agreed in the contract to this test. It makes sense as a next step to do a long test with many units to test for stability etc.


    Maybe you have a point, but this doesn't detract from point 1. You could just as easily do it with a 20kw unit. There is no need for 1MW.


    Jack Cole said: "3). A long test provides a lot of opportunity to manipulate the measurement system to give the readings you want."


    quizzical wrote: But there were interim reports every 3 months, and as already mentioned IH already carried out a 24-hour validation test.


    What is your point? What test are you referring to that was carried about by IH?


    Jack Cole said: "4). It provides the illusion of product maturity."


    quizzical wrote: Andrea Rossi has been working on these 1 MW units for 5 years! So, hopefully there would be some product maturity.


    Yes, and he has kept the illusion going for awhile. It's like all the towers he built during the petroldragon affair. It is an illusion of product maturity and readiness for production and the market.


    Jack Cole: "5). When you mention "millions" of data measurements, it provides a similar illusion to calling the plant 1MW."


    quizzical wrote: This is true but is a minor point. With modern lab techniques and computers, it is easy to carry out real-time measurements. In any case, what counts is not the "millions" of data measurements but the RESULTS (and quality) of these measurements, which should all be explained in the ERV report.


    You miss the point. He presents this as something amazing that there are "millions" of data. It is not amazing at all with modern lab techniques and computers. You and I agree that the quality of the results matter. You can never know if his results are of any quality without a proper calibration. However, if there are any measurements that have been taken by IH that agree with the expectations of conventional physics, an objective scientist would always trust that.

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.