Leonardo/Industrial Heat Court Case on “Complex Track” — to go to Jury Trial in September 2017

Quote from Steve Savage

Jed ... You mentioned that Rossi is a thief and "stole" 10 million dollars from IH ... How could this be true at all if the reactors were working at some point and IH tested them and agreed they were working?

I said that some of his reactors might have worked at some point in the past. I have no idea whether the one I.H. looked at initially was working. I have no information about that.

The one in Florida used for the 1-year test was definitely not working. Not only did it fail to produce excess heat, but in my opinion the whole setup was fraudulent, because Rossi pulled out some essential instruments, and refused to let people into the customer site next door. I think it is likely there is only hot water coming out of the reactor, not steam, and there is nothing next door but a radiator and fan, which removes about 15 kW of heat.

I.H. referred to other reactors that did not work, in their Motion to Dismiss. I have no knowledge of these.

Even if any of his machines did work in the past few years, Rossi still failed to transfer his IP to I.H., so he is still at fault. No one will pay him $89 million in these circumstances. If he would now demonstrate the machines do work, and then transfer the IP, after a while I.H. would probably pay him. They can afford it, and paying would be the best business decision. I think they are upset with him, but they would never let hard feelings get in the way of the right business strategy.

Mary

Quote from Mary Yugo

IH was quite clear in wording their response to Rossi. Nothing they ever got from him ever worked. If it had, they would have sought some compromise from Rossi so that they could investigate it more.

If it had they would have invested £11.5million, after various tests and due diligence of course. Oh they did, fancy that!

Their wording indicated their efforts to 'substantiate' it were 'without success', perhaps they were using their own 'commercial' standards and tools. This will not matter to the court. The tool both sides agreed would be an acceptable indicator to show 'substantiate' is the ERV report. Why would Rossi need to compromise further?

Best regards
Frank

stephenrenzz wrote:"I just don't see how brilliant minds can still be fooled by Rossi at this point short of pure hope and faith."

It's the "Rossi Effect"

Just watch the likes and You see the Troll's work fine again.

Troll's repeat all over the same blunders, never based on certiffied facts.

Their killing arguments are: "I know", "I heard it from", "You must believe me", "and most hillarious: Im a pro (LENR), why should I lie...".

Quote from frankwtu

The tool both sides agreed would be an acceptable indicator to show 'substantiate' is the ERV report.

And that report shows no evidence for excess heat. Furthermore, any qualified expert witness who examines the report or the actual device will testify that the report is preposterous and the test configuration cannot produce a useful answer.

If the ERV report is entered as evidence, Rossi will lose.

Quote from Mary Yugo

IH was quite clear in wording their response to Rossi. Nothing they ever got from him ever worked. If it had, they would have sought some compromise from Rossi so that they could investigate it more.

Exactly...and if I may add...no one in their right minds (investors or not) would turn down the technology of the century if they DID in fact see it working as claimed...or even working at all. Those on planet Rossi want it both ways, on one hand they clamor on about how IH used the 1MW to get $50+Millions in investment money, so much talk of Chinese investors...but then when asked why on earth IH would walk away from the invention of the century...they say IH could not raise the money. They can't have it both ways...and this has become a very significant talking point for those on the planet. An intelligent mind should be able to follow this logic quite easily I would think.

Quote from Mary Yugo

Proper due diligence is very unlikely. Of course, nobody knows what they did to confirm Rossi's veracity . . .

Since nobody knows, it is a bit of stretch for you do declare as a fact "due diligence is very unlikely." You just said you don't know.

Quote from Mary Yugo

IH was also sloppy, incompetent and negligent when they allowed Penon as referee, when they allowed Rossi's lawyer as a client

I doubt that. By the time that happened, I think they had no choice but to accept Rossi's choices. It was that or nothing. However, I think they also probably had contingency plans to deal with the likely problems. If they did, these plans have not yet been revealed. I mean that they have not responded to the lawsuit, except with the Motion to Dismiss, which is only a preliminary step. The statements in that motion in the footnotes about the "inoperative reactors" and so on give you a sense of what they will say, if it comes to a trial. I expect they are prepared for what comes next, however much they were blindsided by the initial test that led to the $11 million fiasco.

Those are only my impressions, based mainly on comments made by I.H. people during formal presentations at ICCF conferences, their press releases, and so on. I have not discussed their business with them directly, except in a few informal chats.

Quote from IH Fanboy

And therein lies the enigma of Andrea Rossi, and one of the things that keeps me engaged. I'm pretty certain that all of those participating in this forum are uncertain. That is why we are here.

I actually do understand why some would have a fascination with the uncertainty and I suppose a little shred of hope left at this point sadly, but what boggles my mind is the incredible defensive stance over Rossi that is more strong and aggressive than a vicious mother over lion cubs...or cats I suppose (I couldn't resist lol). Some of the explanations to skeptics questions and challenges have to be so outlandish to fit holes in Rossi's stories, unexplained odd decisions and the ultimate lack of proof at any reasonable level. It just amazes me that it is not apparent when stepping back, that there is WAYYYY too much smoke for there not to be fire (no pun intended this time). When you look at it from a far and realize that all answers have to be outlandish to fit...soooo many anomalies...so many logic problems. This is a perfect textbook example of the boy who cried wolf...the only difference with this version of the tale, is sadly many of the towns people never stop believing the boy...

Quote from stephenrenzz

Some of the explanations to skeptics questions and challenges have to be so outlandish to fit holes in Rossi's stories, unexplained odd decisions and the ultimate lack of proof at any reasonable level. It just amazes me that it is not apparent when stepping back, that there is WAYYYY too much smoke for there not to be fire (no pun intended this time).

Yes. I think this goes to such extremes it almost resembles confabulation, defined as: "the replacement of a gap in a person's memory by a falsification that he or she believes to be true." People who support a lost cause and who feel cornered will come up with an ever-more-improbable set of explanations, excuses and beliefs to justify it. You see this in the diaries of people in Japan in 1945, when they remained convinced that Japan could never lose a war, and they would never surrender. People in this state are anxious to come up with something -- anything -- to justify their beliefs. They say the first thing that comes to mind. You pointed to a good example in a message from Axil the other day. I had to explain to him that when an employee defrauds a company, the police do not hold the company responsible, but rather the employee. I expect that in another context, Axil would realize that, but he somehow convinced himself that if Penon lied, I.H. is responsible. You wrote:

Quote from stephenrenzz

For example, when a bank teller embezzles money from the bank, they arrest the teller, not the bank president. (This seldom happens nowadays thanks to computers.)

I am at a loss for words that you are having to explain these rudimentary points that we were taught in grade school...on a forum about cold fusion. FACEPALM!!!

Along similar lines, someone over at e-catworld says that if a machine is installed in the customer site, that means there will be no heat because it will be "used up," or perhaps they can "store up" "waste heat" indefinitely, or there would be no problem getting steam from a heat exchanger when the primary fluid goes in at 100 deg C and comes out at 60 deg C. This person claims he is an engineer. I doubt he is, but no matter who he is, he seems to have no grasp of middle-school level physics. He either forgot or he is letting his emotions overrule his knowledge. The thing is, everyone else there goes along with it. No one tells him "that is a violation of the Second Law." Many of those people clearly do understand basic physics, even if he does not.

It is wishful thinking. I think this also what is driving Peter Gluck around the bend.

Quote from JedRothwell

, or there would be no problem getting steam from a heat exchanger when the primary fluid goes in at 100 deg C and comes out at 60 deg C

Someone there correctly pointed out to me that with a counterflow heat exchanger, the cold fluid will come to an average temperature between the hot fluid inlet and outlet. With the Rossi device, the hot fluid comes in at around 102 to 104 deg C, and leaves at 60 deg C. So the cold fluid will be around 80 deg C. Still not steam as someone there suggested.

The hot fluid is probably not steam either. I believe it is hot water under a little pressure. 3 psi would be enough:

https://durathermfluids.com/pd…ressure-boiling-point.pdf

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from Steve Savage: “Jed ... You mentioned that Rossi is a thief and "stole" 10 million dollars from IH ... How could this be true at all if the reactors were working at some point and IH tested them and agreed they were working?”
I said that…

You are very sure that the 1 year test did not work, and you base your conclusion directly on data that you received from IH, I believe that I correctly summarized your position, yes? It seems that perhaps neither you nor I have all the necessary facts and evidence to determine if the 1 year test setup was adequate, we were not there, we have no first hand evidence, correct? So I cannot in good faith argue against any points you have made in that regard.

You say you have the data, and I fully accept that you do. What completely perplexes me is the divergence of conclusions based on the same data. I am assuming you have run analysis on the full data set for the whole year or some substantial part thereof, yes? I do not have a strong science background (high school level - 1974) ... But, I have been following these types of topics in great detail for 30+ years. I have picked up a few things over that time. Despite my limited background, what I know for sure is that if any machine was producing an output of hot water or steam, that I could compare that volume of hot water or steam to a control set up to output a similar mix of water and steam, it is quite simple to do, yes? (I say this at the level of a COP > 3, below that I agree I may not have the measurement skill to be sure). Then comparing the input usage of electricity which should be the same for both systems, on the aggregate, to the output volumes of identical (or very close to identical) water / steam products, I should be able to say, yes there is approximately 3 or 5 or 10 times the output of product, yes? Not rocket science, right? So, my question is, with 3 or 4 highly skilled engineers and testers running around for a year, with strong and agreed upon measurement systems generating data for a year, how is it that not one of those raised an alarm or expressed a concern? It should have been as obvious as the nose on my face that it was failing to produce nothing over unity. It certainly seems it is obvious to you? How is it not obvious to all these other people? The only explanation is that they are deliberately perpetuating or covering up a fraud, publicly, in full view of the world, yes? Not only that but, at the end of the test, an experienced validator who, has at stake his entire professional reputation, issues a report that says that the COP > 50. The only explanation is that someone has a bad data set? Nothing else is possible, assuming that the validator and yourself are both honorable and honest people, and that is exactly my assumption in this matter. Is it possible that we are looking at 2 different sets of data? I am very curious, what is the precise source and what is the time frame of your data? Do you have strong confidence that the data you are looking at is exactly the same data that others have made their evaluation against?

It is no secret that I am optimistic about Rossi and his results but, I always try to keep an open mind and balanced perspective, I will abandon my optimism easily when and, if there is good evidence that contradicts it. There are many questions above and I would greatly appreciate the most specific answers that you may have time to provide. Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Quote from Steve Savage

You are very sure that the 1 year test did not work, and you base your conclusion directly on data that you received from IH, I believe that I correctly summarized your position, yes?

Not exactly from IH. I have the same data from various sources. Rossi himself quoted some of it in public, and gave it to other people. I have confirmed it is the same in all these sources. Also, I know people both in I.H. and outside of it who were in the lab and read the instruments directly. I checked in some other ways I cannot discuss. All in all, I am sure this is his data.

Quote from Steve Savage

It seems that perhaps neither you nor I have all the necessary facts and evidence to determine if the 1 year test setup was adequate, we were not there, we have no first hand evidence, correct?

I believe I have all the facts and evidence needed. Of course I could be wrong about that, but I compared notes with people more skilled than I am, and we reached similar conclusions. That gives me confidence. The problems are starkly evident.

Quote from Steve Savage

You say you have the data, and I fully accept that you do. What completely perplexes me is the divergence of conclusions based on the same data. I am assuming you have run analysis on the full data set for the whole year or some substantial part thereof, yes?

I think you only need to run an analysis for 3 or 4 days. We have discussed the numbers here, such as the flow rate being exactly 36,000 kg for several days. Such round numbers and such an exact result are preposterous with this setup. Other evidence shows the flow rate must have been far lower. Dewey pointed that out here. I concur.

I apologize for leaving out details and being vague, but I agreed not to reveal anything which has not already been disclosed by Rossi or I.H.

Quote from Steve Savage

Despite my limited background, what I know for sure is that if any machine was producing an output of hot water or steam, that I could compare that volume of hot water or steam to a control set up to output a similar mix of water and steam, it is quite simple to do, yes?

A mixture of water and steam complicates things a great deal. It would be somewhat simple if the correct instruments were installed, and the correct procedures followed. Unfortunately, Rossi's instruments were unsuitable, and his measurements flawed, as I.H. put it in their Motion to Dismiss. His setup did not allow proper calorimetry. The error margins were gigantic. The I.H. expert could have resolved the questions easily by measuring the heat at the heat exchanger in the customer site, and again at the customer site ventilation equipment. That would have been a work-around, overriding the problems in Rossi's own calorimetry without having to install a whole new set of instruments. However, Rossi did not allow this.

Needless to say, if the I.H. expert had gone into the customer site and found only a 15 kW radiator and fan, that would destroy Rossi's claims once and for all. It would be irrefutable proof of fraud. It is easy to identify a 15 kW radiator, and to measure the heat from it. I am pretty confident that is all there is in the customer site. I am also confident that Rossi and Penon know that, and they are covering up fraud by not allowing anyone in.

From my analysis, I can only conclude for sure that 1 MW is impossible -- crazy, really. Something like 3 times input is plausible but unlikely. My guess is that there was no excess at all. I have been told that I.H. was able to make better measurements, and they confirmed there is no excess heat. I have no specific numbers from them, but I know what sort of procedures they used. I would have done those same procedures myself. Again, that gives me confidence in myself. They are experts and do not need my vote of confidence!

As mentioned here, the I.H. people also worked around the problem of not being allowed into the customer site. It turns out you can measure heat from outside. Not with precision, but you can easily detect 1 MW of heat.

Your other questions are more about people, politics, truth and lies. Such issues are never clear-cut, and you cannot answer them with the tools of science. I can do calorimetry but I cannot read minds or understand why some people do self destructive things or reach conclusions that I find preposterous. But I can try:

Quote from Steve Savage

So, my question is, with 3 or 4 highly skilled engineers and testers running around for a year, with strong and agreed upon measurement systems generating data for a year, how is it that not one of those raised an alarm or expressed a concern?

People did raise alarms. They asked Rossi to improve the test methods. As I have said here, I sincerely hoped he would. I expected he would. That's why I signed up for Lewan's symposium. I.H. told me little, but I got a sense that they were hoping for an improved test right to the end. It was only on March 10 that I learned they still disagreed with Rossi's analysis.

Quote from Steve Savage

It should have been as obvious as the nose on my face that it was failing to produce nothing over unity.

It would be more correct to say it was obvious you could not tell with those instruments and that configuration. The answer was somewhere probably down at no excess but possibly 3 or 4 times input. I have done really lousy calorimetry with the wrong kinds of instruments, and gotten equally useless results. The people at Defkalion deliberately set up the equipment to give the wrong answer, and they got the wrong results. That was on the same kilowatt scale as Rossi. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

I will come back to that, below.

Quote from Steve Savage

The only explanation is that they are deliberately perpetuating or covering up a fraud, publicly, in full view of the world, yes? Not only that but, at the end of the test, an experienced validator who, has at stake his entire professional reputation, issues a report that says that the COP > 50.

I cannot image why Penon would do such a thing. It seems inexplicable. It has crossed my mind that perhaps Rossi is promising him millions of dollars if he wins the lawsuit, but that is pure speculation, without any evidence at all.

Quote from Steve Savage

The only explanation is that someone has a bad data set

No, the data is correct. For the most part, these are the numbers shown on the instruments. Some appear to be improbable, and may have been erased and replaced, but for the most part this is what eye-witnesses report. The difference of opinion lies elsewhere. As I.H. said, their experts feel that the wrong kinds of instruments were used, with the wrong methods. That is what happened at Defkalion, only with a different set of technical problems. Defkalion left out the backflow check valve which screwed up the flow meter. Rossi did not do that, but he did similar things, which I cannot discuss in detail.

Let me explain in terms of what Defkalion did. Someone said to me, "you can not manipulate a flow meter to obtain a desired flow value." Here is my response. The specifics here do NOT apply to Rossi:

Quote

Yes, you can obtain a desired flow rate. One method which works with some flowmeters is to induce backflow. Defkalion did this, as described by Gamberale. That method causes the apparent flow rate to fluctuate violently, which looks strange. Mike McKubre was one of the first to notice this.

Here is how you do this in general. Read the manual carefully. It will list various cautions, saying that certain conditions will cause the meter to measure the flow too high, or too low. You find out what makes the meter malfunction, and then you deliberately set up conditions to make it malfunction. The results may look odd but the data will be wrong in the direction you aim for . . .

[Reiterating, because he still didn't get it:]

Not all meters are susceptible to the backflow problem. But suppose your meter is. Read the manual carefully and you will see it says something like: "be sure to install a backflow check valve downstream from the meter to prevent false readings or damage." Manufacturers do not want angry customers, so they are careful to point out all of the failure modes they know of. I am sure they would point out this one.

If you are a nefarious person, you then induce backflow deliberately in order to inflate the flow rate.

Display More