Rossi responds

1st Official Post

    Frank Acland
    July 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM
    Dear Andrea Rossi:


    There are some accusations apparently coming from the IH group regarding the 1 MW plant test.


    a) The flow meter used in the test was not fit for purpose
    b) 1 MW plant did not have the required legal authorizations to work
    c) JM Products did not have any employees
    d) IH had proposed another customer to you, but you refused them
    e) JM did not use the heat you produced in any manufacturing process, and the only heat supplied by your plant was 20kW, not 1MW


    Can you respond to any of these points?


    Thank you,


    Frank Acland


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Andrea Rossi
    July 3, 2016 at 2:03 PM
    Frank Acland:
    Independently from who is the imbecile that wrote such things, please find hereunder my answers, confined within the limits allowed not to touch issues that have to be discussed exclusively in Court, with due evidence.
    a) The flowmeter used in the test is property of the ERV. The ERV has chosen that instrument based on his experience. It is, by the way, a very common flowmeter, that everybody can buy, even if it is quite expensive. The flowmeter has been certified and after the test the ERV has retrieved it and sent it to make a certification of its margin of error after the test of 1 year, specifically with a flow of water with the same temperature and the same flows of water that we had during the test, minimum, maximum, average. So the ERV told us he was going to do when he retrieved his flowmeter after the shut down of the plant at the end of the test.
    b) Obviously it is false, otherwise the plant would have been closed after the inspections
    c) False
    d) Tragicomic: Leonardo Corporation delivered, as per contract, the plant on August 2013, and we were ready to start immediately the test, as a continuation of the preliminar test made in Ferrara two months before with IH. IH had 1 year of time to start the 1 year test, but they always delayed with the excuse that they did not have the authorization from the Healthcare Office of North Carolina, due to the fact that there was the “nuclear reactions” issue. I have been able to get such permission in Florida and therefore I proposed the Customer, that has been accepted by IH. Evidence of it is the contract that IH made with JM. Since the plant was property of IH and it was in the factory of IH, obviously they could choose the Customer they wanted, if they had one.
    e) When you have not the burden to give evidence of what you say, you can say every stupidity. This is exactly the case. Anyway, what counts related to the contract is the energy produced by the 1 MW E-Cat, and such energy gets evidence from the report of the ERV.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    It's a shame E-Scat Frank didn't ask him about the flow meter serial numbers...other than than the first answer ends in a super fishy way. "So the ERV told us he was going to do when he retrieved his flowmeter after the shut down of the plant at the end of the test." That completely sounds to me like he is trying to pass the buck...the good doctor is so easy to read. Odd answer to the second question as no one can find any safety/regulation/certification documentation of any kind related to the circus. Excellent detailed answer for question 3 lol. And the good doctors last answer is a complete tap dance around the question. All in all pretty much what one would expect from a standard Rossi-Says steaming pile of manure he is so good at creating. Nothing to see here...

    Another example of problem of word against word and in this case as mats002 says oppositions of extreme.


    If ERV is paid liar here then Rossi does not technically lie much on instrument part, but puts all sins on Penon to bear. Instead if Rossi speaks absolute truth here, many postings in this site are pure lies.


    Only time will tell.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Mats002

    One will fall, I would be surprised if they settle.


    Matts,


    Not too sure about that. If the MTD fails, IH may find it better to settle than risk a jury trial. In his suit, Rossi petitioned for a jury trial instead of a "bench (Judge) trial" for the reasons the following explains well:



    Why a Trial by Jury is Usually a Better Choice for most plaintiffs,

    First, the standard of proof in a civil case is much lower than in a criminal one. While judges have a firmer grasp on the burden of proof and how that burden can shift based on proofs and defenses made throughout the course of a case, juries usually do not. The burden that they usually understand and adhere to is that of a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., that something is more likely than not).


    As a result, the vast majority of juries will find plaintiff's have shown a preponderance of the evidence in favor of their position in any case that has survived to the point of going to trial. That makes a plaintiff's job much easier, and allows one to focus more on maximizing the available recovery than dealing with the legal intricacies of every possible defense that might need to be overcome.


    Juries also tend to be much easier audiences than judges. Communicating with a jury is more about telling a compelling story. Juries tend to be more interested in assessing fault more as one would analyze the story of a good play or book. They listen to the drama unfold through the arguments and testimony, then decide the case based on who they believe should win under the circumstances. Judges, on the other hand, are much less swayed by the emotional appeal of a case, and tend to decide based on legal nuances and subtler understandings of the law than would ever occur to the average juror. Thus, they may render a totally different verdict than a jury simply because they analyze the case not as a normal lay person, but as a highly trained and experienced legal professional.


    Finally, the biggest advantage to a jury trial is the amount that juries tend to award. Juries are much more ruled by their passions than judges, so a particularly compelling story about how a victim suffered injury or harm at the hands of the defendant can lead to a much heftier award than a dispassionate judge would grant. Thus, it is no surprise that the biggest verdicts in US history have all come from jury trials.

    Quote from Argon

    Another example of problem of word against word and in this case as mats002 says oppositions of extreme.


    If ERV is paid liar here then Rossi does not technically lie much on instrument part, but puts all sins on Penon to bear. Instead if Rossi speaks absolute truth here, many postings in this site are pure lies.


    Only time will tell.



    It is not lying, it is legal posturing. Lying is a lawyer's stock and trade.

    Thinking more about what Rossi said here: "b) Obviously it is false, otherwise the plant would have been closed after the inspections . . ."


    Parsing this, he claims:


    1. There were inspections.
    2. After these inspections, the plant remained open.
    3. Therefore it passed.


    I find this improbable. I think it is extremely unlikely that the state of Florida has a set of procedures to inspect or certify an aneutronic cold fusion nuclear reactor. Most scientists do not think such a thing can exist.


    I suppose that if an inspector from Florida came, made measurements, and determined that the machine was producing far more output heat than the input electricity, he would not merely shrug his shoulders, sign off on the safety certificate, and go back to the office. This would be an unprecedented inspection. It would be unlike anything that has ever happened in Florida, or the U.S. or anywhere in the world. I think the inspector would be at a loss as to what to do. He would report this to his superiors. A Boiler Safety Section inspector would never take full responsibility for certifying such a machine on his own authority. They, in turn would be astounded, and they would take action and do something about it. Public safety officials when confronted by something that sounds very dangerous, with no legal codes to guide them, do not merely turn away and ignore it. Their first instinct would be to close it down and ask the next higher set of officials for guidance. If there was some sort of accident, these officials would lose their jobs and possibly face a jail sentence, so they would take action.


    I find it absolutely impossible to believe that the authorities in the Boiler Safety Section would ignore a nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles, one that is producing dangerous levels of heat in a building not zoned for that. They would not let Rossi go on testing this device in a building with other people, in a crowded neighborhood.


    To be blunt, I think the scenario outlined by Rossi in this one sentence is so utterly improbable that it is either a lie or a lunatic fantasy. I cannot imagine why anyone believes him, or takes this at face value.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    To be blunt, I think the scenario outlined by Rossi in this one sentence is so utterly improbable that it is either a lie or a lunatic fantasy. I cannot imagine why anyone believes him, or takes this at face value.



    May be Rossi meant the customers kitchen boiler... If we really believe, that the email source is Rossi and not some 'public fooling entity' ... to spin the satire further...


    As I stated above, I found that part most interesting as well. There is no doubt he is implying that there were inspections with that statement. I think the good doctor stepped on his tail again with this one....

    • Official Post

    Ih did agree with Rossi's plans for the GPT. They are not the types to have semi-signed off on it, knowing he would be conducting an illegal operation by running an unregulated boiler. Another one of those things that just don't add up.


    This was also brought up during the test period, and I think someone said that as long as a real consumer product (intended for market) were not being made, it was exempt? Just throwing that out there, so go easy on me.

    • Official Post

    Jed,


    If what IH mean't when they claimed Rossi: "departed from the purported test plan" (how many more parenthesis do I have left Alan :) ), was that he went rogue and violated safety regulations, yet they (IH) continued funding and support, then they are equally culpable for not doing their civic duty by stopping Rossi at that point.


    So, I do not believe that is what they mean't. There must be a piece missing from this picture.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Jed,


    If what IH mean't when they claimed Rossi: "departed from the purported test plan" (how many more parenthesis do I have left Alan :) ), was that he went rogue and violated safety regulations, yet they (IH) continued funding and support, then they are equally culpable for not doing their civic duty by stopping Rossi at that point.


    So, I do not believe that is what they mean't. There must be a piece missing from this picture.


    In my opinion. there was no excess heat, so there are no safety regulations violated. If there had been excess heat, that would be a different story. Rossi departed from the test plan logistically and systematically...this is apples and oranges from a safety violation. By deviating from the test plan, Rossi could have manipulated much in the test...and most likely did.

    Quote from Shane D.

    that he went rogue and violated safety regulations, yet they (IH) continued funding and support


    There was no more funding or support by that time. It was all paid up.


    Quote from Shane D.

    then they are equally culpable for not doing their civic duty by stopping Rossi at that point.


    This is a private business arrangement. There was no civic duty. They had no means of stopping him, but on the other hand, they have not paid the $89 million either, have they?


    Quote from Shane D.

    So, I do not believe that is what they mean't.


    It was what they mean. I do not understand why you doubt it. The meaning is clear. What else can it mean?


    Perhaps you are saying you don't believe they are telling the truth. That's different.

    • Official Post

    Jed,


    So are you saying that when IH initially agreed with Rossi's plan for the GPT, that at that time it complied with Florida's boiler regulations, so they went along with it?


    But at some point along the way, Rossi decided to veer off the legal path, but IH was prevented from stopping him because the "funding was all paid up by that time"?


    Look, this is not important. Why don't we wait for further developments? No reason going out on limbs for no reason at this point. As Renzsays, most here, including you and I, think the 1MW was an 20kW space heater, so IH did no harm, so no foul .

    Quote from Shane D.

    So are you saying that when IH initially agreed with Rossi's plan for the GPT, that at that time it complied with Florida's boiler regulations


    I do not know if the plan complied with the boiler regulations. I meant that it was reasonable calorimetry that would have determined whether there is excess heat or not.


    The original plan called for, I think, 10 or 20 kW input, and 6 times output. That would be 60 to 120 kW output, which is below the level of a regulated boiler.


    Still, I think this was a serious issue which both Rossi and I.H. failed to address, because if it really had been a fusion reactor without a theory, it might have been dangerous. It turns out, it was not a fusion reactor and the output is only 20 kW, the same as input. So there is no violation of the safety laws. There might have been, if it worked.


    Quote from Shane D.

    But at some point along the way, Rossi decided to veer off the legal path, but IH was prevented from stopping him because the "funding was all paid up by that time"?


    They could not stop him because he would not listen. He was somehow in control of the situation. I do not know why. The issue was not legal, it was contractual. Although perhaps both sides should have paid more attention to legal, regulatory and safety issues.

    Quote from "Jed"

    Rossi did not do what he agreed to do.No one would agree to the configuration he came up with.


    Well, Jed. IH was obviously exstatic about the MW test when they showed it to Woodford and pocketed $50M cash. Why dont you go spend those dollars on your "friends" instead of ranting about Rossi and nonsense details.


    BTW Jed, is it really worth losing your former LENR credibility on this? You're building youreself up to be the biggest loser instead. How stupid is 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.