The Industrial Heat Answer

    • Official Post

    Para,


    Later on they say the following:


    Despite Rossi’s presence and participation in the testing in North Carolina, the ECat testing in North Carolina was never able reliably or credibly to reproduce the COP of 10.85 as reported by Penon (or even reach the lowest COP threshold identified in the License Agreement, which was a COP of 4.0).




  • Quote

    92. However, after numerous attempts, both with and without Rossi’sinvolvement, Counter-Plaintiffs have been unable, using the transferred E-Cat IP, to replicate the results included in the Evaluation Report purportedly certifying that Validation was achieved from April 30 to May 1, 2013, or otherwise generate measureable excess energy.


    Ie. COP ~11



    This document is all about what they are not writing. And some things they are very careful to not write...


    As an example they carefulle ignore discussing what the actual ERV report says ... And it is not included as an exhibit... Why is that, when it was supposed to be such trash ... go figure ...

  • A comment from "Jeff" on JoNP has some certain similarities in syntax to another person .... sigh...


    "Dr Andrea Rossi:
    What do you think of the counterclaims made by IH deposited today ? It seems to me that they shoot at their feet, because they collected millions of dollars based on the reports made by the ERV during the first nine months of the test ! I think they made heavy slanders, you should not have difficulty to defend your position.
    How do you comment ?
    Jeff"

    This is how Rossi comments without commenting, very likely. He will answer, I predict, that he can't say anything on strict orders from his attorney. Which would, in fact, be sane. As I predicted, some of what he wrote on JONP is now being used against him. Rossi probably would not know that this is not slander. It is, if anything, libel, but not actionable, useful only for blabbing on a blog. The arguments are pure Planet Rossi.


    By the way, it appears that IH not only did not accept the Florida rental as the test for the Agreement, they explicitly objected. Rossi's case for Count 1 depends on estoppel, and if they never accepted that as the GPT, and it looks like they did not, the estoppel fails and the entire case falls apart. Except, of course, for the counterclaims!


    Rossi presented the rental in Florida, not as the GPT, but as an opportunity to make money from the unit. He seemed to imagine that he could make a GPT without the consent of IH. The Second Amendment was actually explicit, so even if the Amendment was accepted, which is not clear, explicit written agreement from all parties was needed to start the GPT.


    This drives Planet Rossi crazy, because it makes the result of that "test" moot for purposes of payment to Rossi. IH has, however, noted problems with the "ERV report," but the summary is that they are claiming collusion with Rossi in a fraud, and reaching back to the Validation Test for that.


    In this question, which does indeed look like Rossi talking, the usual story is told that they obtained investments based on the test being successful. Again, Rossi could, if this were true, elicit testimony. It almost certainly is not true. I think there is an obvious reason why the Woodford investment did not actually go into IH, but in IHHI, in England, which owns IH. It's because IHHI can't be touched, except by Woodford. If Woodford were deceived, I think they'd be all over IH.

  • IH is claiming that JM is a fake chemical products company. That's easily rebutted if it is real.


    The company is fake. I am sure Johnson knew that. He must have been in the building at least a few times. He must have seen there was no massive piece of equipment consuming 1 MW of process heat. I believe I.H. has solid proof of that. I did not see any proof in this filing, but I am sure they have it. I guess there will be more to follow? I do not know how lawsuits work.


    Ah, the company name is Johnson Matthey. The term with "Matthew" comes up empty on Google.


    That's hilarious.

  • The company is fake. I am sure Johnson knew that. He must have been in the building at least a few times. He must have seen there was no massive piece of equipment consuming 1 MW of process heat. I believe I.H. has solid proof of that. I did not see any proof in this filing, but I am sure they have it. I guess there will be more to follow?


    It might be. But we still have very little evidence either way. The best evidence we have so far is a fuzzy picture showing what appears to be a large plant of some kind on the "other" side of a partially completed wall. This tends to support there being an actual going concern. Plenty of allegations that appear not to be substantiated in the counter-complaint. Clearly some discovery is in order. Can't seem to shake that word: substantiated. Forever emblazoned on the LENR movement.

  • You do not have harm the state to be charged with criminal fraud. Bernie Madoff only took money from private individuals. He caused no harm to the state. But he was sentenced to 150 years in prison.


    If you believe IH was criminally harmed, then maybe IH could press the state to file charges. But this appears to be more of a dog-eat-dog contract dispute to me. I think it will be left to fester and ultimately be resolved civilly. But who knows for sure at this point. IH have clearly put some points on the board.

  • I have been looking at various suggested papers and reports for five years as leisure time and breaks permit. I have never seen anything which is, to me, convincing of excess heat. The low level papers are poorly or not replicated, many are very hard to understand, many use faulty methods, and in general I just steer clear of low level studies in which I have neither interest nor ability.


    Oh bullshit. The papers by Fleischmann, Miles, McKubre, Storms and many others are masterpieces. They are irrefutable. They survived the harshest peer-review in modern history, at the journals and internally at LANL and elsewhere. They are not all "low level." Some report power ranging from 10 to 100 W. They are replicated. As McKubre shows, he and ENEA got the same results with the same cathodes.


    As you say, you have not made the effort to read these papers carefully. That is reasonable. You are not interested in the subject, and the papers are difficult to read. They are boring. I have read hundreds, and I agree with that! BUT for you to say that based on your non-reading and non-understanding of papers you have no interest in, you conclude that the results are invalid . . . well, that's outrageous. You have no business reaching any conclusions. You should say only: "I don't know. I have not studied the literature. I cannot judge." Why not say that? No one would blame you for ignoring the subject. There are far too many scientific studies for one person to read about.

  • What Rossi might have in the Plant for COP is toast due to measurement problems.
    As for the rest of the versions, one might try and read into it that might have been something >COP 1 in Raleigh, go for it.
    IH has said the contrary several times already...
    Without success, 9. Counter-Plaintiffs were unable to replicate any of Leonardo and Rossi’s claimed results or otherwise generate measurable excess energy.


    1. Defendants deny that the energy catalyzer (“E-Cat”) technology “generates a low
    energy nuclear reaction resulting in an exothermic release of energy” along the lines claimed by
    Plaintiffs – which is that a reactor using the E-Cat technology produces more than 50 times the
    energy it consumes. Compl. ¶ 71. Such claims are not scientifically verifiable or reproducible.
    See e.g., U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), “Non-Final Rejection,” dated January
    11, 2016 as to Patent App. No. 12/736,193 (attached hereto as Exhibit 1); discussions of third
    party testing infra. In addition, the procedures and mechanisms which Plaintiffs have used in
    their experiments and testing of the E-Cat technology are flawed and unreliable in many
    respects
    . See e.g. id.; response to Paragraph 72 infra. Lastly, the E-Cat technology has never
    been independently validated by a scientifically reliable methodology to produce the energy
    levels Plaintiffs now claim, and has failed to produce any commercially viable product. Indeed,
    using the E-Cat technology Plaintiffs directly provided them, Industrial Heat and IPH have been
    unable to produce any measurable excess energy.


    31. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
    allegations concerning the number of years Rossi has purportedly spent working, or the nature of
    the work Rossi has purportedly performed, on the E-Cat. Defendants deny that the E-Cat
    produces energy substantially in excess of the amount of energy input into the reaction at a cost
    substantially below that of more traditional energy sources; see Ex. 1.1 Indeed, using the E-Cat
    technology Plaintiffs directly provided them, Industrial Heat and IPH have been unable to
    produce any measurable excess energy.


    58. Following the Validation testing, a process was undertaken for Leonardo and
    Rossi to assemble for transfer to Counter-Plaintiffs all E-Cat IP. On June 9, 2013, the escrow
    agent released the $10 million to Leonardo. In exchange, Leonardo and Rossi purportedly
    transferred all E-Cat IP to Counter-Plaintiffs
    . In fact, on the same day that the $10 million
    payment was released (June 9, 2013), Rossi met with Darden to provide him personally with the
    last piece of the E-Cat IP to be transferred – the formula for the E-Cat Fuel required to enable an
    E-Cat reactor to produce the high COP claimed by Leonardo and Rossi.


    76. In mid-2015, Industrial Heat hired Joseph Murray (“Murray”) to serve as Vice
    President of Engineering, and empowered him to assemble a team of engineers and scientists to
    elevate the level of Industrial Heat’s testing and evaluation of LENR technology. Among other
    things, one of the projects undertaken by that team was rigorous testing of the E-Cat IP. That
    testing demonstrated quite clearly that the results previously claimed by Leonardo, Rossi, and
    Penon simply could not be replicated using the E-Cat IP that Leonardo and Rossi had provided to
    Counter-Plaintiffs.

  • If you believe IH was criminally harmed, then maybe IH could press the state to file charges.


    I.H. cannot "press" the state to do anything. State investigators decide whether to press charges.


    In some states, for some types of crime, victims have a legal responsibility to report the crime to the police. I do not know about fraud in Florida.

  • Mary Yugo,


    I just read the "Excess Heat" book from Charles G. Beaudette, which gives a nice overview of the work done mostly in Palladium experiments and focuses mostly on the excess heat effect. I'd recommend it, even though it's fairly old now.


    He writes a good argumentation on sceptics vs critics and your latest post here demonstrates perfectly his points. Practically to the letter :)
    ------------
    You wrote: " I have never seen anything which is, to me, convincing of excess heat."


    What would, in your view, be a convincing piece of evidence?


    In my view, a simple (Q = m' * Cp (T_out - T_in)) / (Electrical P_in) test setup would be sufficient for me to show convincing evidence of excess heat and especially is Q is 2 times larger or more than P for an extended period of many hours or days.
    -------------
    You wrote: "Why would I do experiments myself?"


    If you don't any experiments yourself, then how can you provide any meaningful critique of the quality on other peoples work on the subject?
    -----------
    You wrote: "What experiments would you suggest and why?"


    How about the experiments you critique? You can clearly provide critique, but it might have even more backbone if you actually tried replicating the experiment yourself. Maybe you would get a similar result, if you really tried. But you probably have better things to do, such as providing meaningful critique on this forum ;)
    -----------
    You are clearly no stranger to ad hominem attacks. May I ask what is your professional background, if you don't mind me asking?


  • This is all very cleverly crafted language intended to evoke one message while hiding another. Not too hard to decipher. What they are saying, essentially, is that Rossi's claims have not been substantiated (oh, no, not again!). They are repeating that stance with some additional words. What they are not saying outright is more interesting than what they say outright.

  • For a little context, New Vortex is Abd's Yahoo! list, created several years ago around the time he was banned from Vortex by Bill Beaty after an extended altercation with Vortex member Jojo Jaro (who was also banned at that time). In the altercation, Jojo Jaro saw the need to repeatedly bring up theological and historical details pertaining to Islam as a topic of discussion.


    For some further clarification, Jojo Jaro had caused enormous disruption on Vortex-l. The Islam stuff he brought up was simply intended to provoke me; I was more concerned about his constant pointing to the "birther" myth about Obama, so I researched it and answered his stuff ... and this is an issue where people, believing gross misinformation, have gone to jail.. So I also asked Bill to intervene, and it took him quite some time. I actually phoned him. He then blamed me for having "fed the troll." But others had been directly provocative and insulting. I had written longer messages, and long messages irritate a moderator who wants to make quick, knee-jerk judgments. It's always been that way.


    It was becoming obvious that Bill was not minding the store. Vortex-l had gone down numerous times due to problems with the host, eskimo.com. Then this mess with Jojo. Bill, when he did show up, shut down newvortex while he figured out what to do, then banned Jojo and me.


    I am not the only moderator of newvortex, but I have used it as a place to write commentary on cold fusion since 2013. I am probably going to move this elsewhere, because yahoo changed the interface in ways that make it less attractive (and that appears to damage display of some old posts, and new ones until I figured out what was happening).


    Newvortex was announced on Vortex-l January 3, 2013: https://www.mail-archive.com/v…0eskimo.com/msg75169.html


    Newvortex was started before I was banned on January 9, 2013. See this message on newvortex: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g…/conversations/messages/6 I did not expect to be banned. However, that a moderator of a list that was seen as the moderator's plaything for years might ban someone who sets up a moderated version, as I did, simply would not be surprising. (We would have been happy to welcome Bill as a moderator.)


    Beatty had refused to name other owners or moderators. So ... predictable: if something happens to Beatty, Vortex-l goes down. As it is, the archive may stay up as long as Mail-Archive stays in business. I see that they are selling advertising, so it might last. But it will become impossible to post there.


    The other purpose for newvortex was as a place for Vorticians to post files, and it has been used for that. Thus using it for the Rossi v. Darden case files is an extension of the existing use.

  • It might be. But we still have very little evidence either way.


    I am confident that I.H. has tons of evidence. With $267 million at stake, they will leave no stone unturned. I believe they have lots more evidence that the company is fake. I do not know why it was no included in this filing. They have other evidence about other aspects of this which were not included, such as the ERV. I do not know how these lawsuits are conducted, or why everything was not submitted.


    The best evidence we have so far is a fuzzy picture showing what appears to be a large plant of some kind on the "other" side of a partially completed wall.


    I do not know where that photo was taken, but I am sure there was no "partial wall" separating the reactor room and the pretend customer site in Florida. It was a solid wall. With a locked door. Only Rossi was seen going in there. He had a key. The heat from the customer site did not come directly into the reactor room, and you could not look up and see the ventilation equipment in the customer site. If you could have, there would be no dispute. Rossi would not have been able to hide anything. If the gigantic 70-foot machine exists, I.H. would have seen it.


    As I said before, as a practical matter, a wall of that height could not hide anything from someone like me. I would have climbed chair or climbed the door of the shipping container and looked over. Rossi could not have stopped me for one second. I would have either seen the 1 MW equipment, or not seen it. Many of the people who visited the reactor are as fit as I am and would do this without a second thought.