The Industrial Heat Answer

    • Official Post
    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Actually, no. Rossi was creative, taking advantage of accidents.



    I should have said that e-mail "could be construed to support the narrative that Rossi has something". He just as easily could have been making the best of a bad situation (being creative as you say), by pawning the "failure" off as him rigging it to be a failure to get rid of Hydro Fusion.


    Who knows, the guy is a pathological liar. No telling what goes on in that mind of his....although maybe "Guest731" looks as if he could. :)


    Thanks for the links BTW. I credited Siffer, but see he got them from you.

    Quote from nuclearNut

    How do they know that? As I understand it, the only equipment mounted was Penon's and Rossi's.


    Other equipment could easily be used, and it is not difficult to check the performance of instruments such as thermometers and flow meters. Even when instruments are wrong, you can measure the error and estimate the correct answer.

    Jed,


    Your issue with the flow meter would be answered in the calibration data for the flow meter, done after the test.


    One would expect that calibration data is available for the flow rates during the test, even if they are under the rated range.

    You are right, I am a little bit confused.


    So if noone hacked the flow meter, any error was added during data crunching after the test or as a result of using a flow meter rated for larger flow rates than actually used. Is that what you are saying?


    We are talking a factor of 50 here...


    I will still think that the answer to the flow rate issue is found in the calibration data, which should be in the ERV report.

    Quote from nuclearNut

    So if noone hacked the flow meter, any error was added during data crunching after the test or as a result of using a flow meter rated for larger flow rates than actually used. Is that what you are saying?


    Please read Exhibit 5. Also read my summary of it:


    Flow meter used in 1-MW test

    Quote from nuclearNut

    One would expect that calibration data is available for the flow rates during the test, even if they are under the rated range.


    One who knew Rossi would not expect any such thing.

    I have read what the post you made and I have answered on the basis of that, I don't have access to the yahoo group.


    As I understand it, your issue is with the flow rate being under the rated range for the meter, hence the meter being rated for higher flow rates and maybe giving a wrong value as a result thereof.


    Again, your answer is in the flow meter calibration data.


    It is not about Rossi, it is Penon's flow meter and his flow meter data that counts. And he is obligated by the agreement to have the flow meters calibrated before and after the test.

    Quote from Shane D.

    The good: He may actually have something! Or at least IH never claimed he did not. In fact, they make it a point throughout the document to say that they alone, nor with Rossi assisting, could ever show anything as good as the lowest performance parameter (COP 4). They never say it did not produce overunity.


    Actually, they do. Read again. That sometimes they refer to the contractual value doesn't negate that.


    Quote

    1. [...]using the E-Cat technology Plaintiffs directly provided them, Industrial Heat and IPH have been unable to produce any measurable excess energy.


    And no, this does not mean that they used an "improved version" of Rossi technology. They are working with other researchers, who have shown XE, using different approaches. They are not talking about that, only about Rossi IP.


    Section 31 repeats this.


    The counter-complaint has this:


    Quote

    9. During the same time period, Counter-Plaintiffs continued their own efforts to replicate Rossi’s purported results using the E-Cat IP that Leonardo and Rossi had provided them when they received the $10 million payment. Counter-Plaintiffs were unable to replicate any of Leonardo and Rossi’s claimed results or otherwise generate measurable excess energy. This led Counter-Plaintiffs to realize that there were only three possible conclusions: 1) Leonardo and Rossi’s claimed results, including the purported results from the Validation, were fabricated; 2) Leonardo and Rossi did not provide all of the E-Cat IP to Counter-Plaintiffs as was required under the License Agreement in exchange for the $10 million payment; or 3) both.

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Jed, I am tiring of killing this dead horse. I have NO OPINION on tests producing low levels of energy, especially at low COP's (wrong term as always) and short times.


    Okay, so you have no opinion as to whether cold fusion exists or not.


    Plus, you arbitrarily designate 10 to 100 W as "low levels of energy" even though modern instruments can detect picowatts with confidence.


    You mean to say "power." You want to avoid energy, because many cold fusion experiments have produce 50 to 300 MJ, which is enough energy to drive a car a good long distance, and it is 10,000 to 100,000 times more than chemical fuel of the same mass could produced. You need to pretend you never heard this.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    The second unit had a military grade quality build up, that was far out of the reach of Rossis engineers.


    That photo seems to go back to 11-2011.
    You can see it here: http://energycatalyzer3.com/ne…hind-e-cat-com-identified


    and here: (there are also some other familiar characters to see in Rossi's secret factory)


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Other equipment could easily be used, and it is not difficult to check the performance of instruments such as thermometers and flow meters. Even when instruments are wrong, you can measure the error and estimate the correct answer.



    Jed: Are You talking of the version 1 or version 2 "1 MW" E-cat ???


    As far as I know, there is only 1 version of the 1 MW reactor. I have sample data for only one. The flow meter in question was attached to the one I know about. If there is another, I have no knowledge of it.


    The response from I.H. mentions some other reactors but I have no information about them.

    Quote from nuclearNut

    I don't have access to the yahoo group.

    You have access if you create it. You need a yahoo account, which is free. then you need to join the list. It's free, and if you don't want to receive emails, you can easily set it that way.


    Those who get emails from the list, got the first indication that the Answer existed, because the file upload was automatically notified to them.


    (While anyone else could get the files from PACER, it seems few are willing to set up an account. The account is free, but you need to provide a credit card, and it's ten cents per page, with basically no charge unless it is at least $15 per quarter. Pacermonitor, which provides a free docket, is delayed. (there is still no listing for the files, I just looked). Pacemonitor sells files, they are more expensive than PACER itself.)

    • Official Post

    Abd,


    I do not want to overly complicate this. After my careful reading of the document you so graciously provided, and fueled by three cups of full strength coffee, my general impression is that Rossi is a real scumbag...which the anti- Rossi forces will agree with me about, and alternatively that IH did NOT lay to rest the question of overunity in their own R/D program based on the IP...which the pro-Rossi forces will rightfully agree with me.


    In other words, IH put out contradictory statements. I do not know why they did. All I can say is that in their shoes, had I not seen anything at all, COP's of 1 each and every time attempted, I would have made that very, very clear. But they did not, and because of that they have left the door open for Rossi supporters to carry on the fight.

    Quote from Shane D.

    alternatively that IH did NOT lay to rest the question of overunity in their own R/D program based on the IP...which the pro-Rossi forces will rightfully agree with me.


    In other words, IH put out contradictory statements. I do not know why they did.


    Maybe you need another cuppa java. Let me say this clearly: I.H. definitely, with 100% certainty did say they got no heat from any Rossi reactor. None. Zero. Bupkis. Okay, it is kind of hard to read these legal documents, but that is what they said, and what they meant.


    It is possible their measurements are incorrect, and their analysis of Rossi's data is incorrect. But they think there is no excess heat. I believe they said there is no "significant excess heat." That is the scientifically correct way to express the idea. They don't mean the COP was less than 6, or less than 4, as some people have speculated. They mean it was 1 (including waste heat).

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Shane D. wrote:
    Gameover,


    While that first e-mail shows Rossi to be a sleazebag, it also supports the narrative that he has something.
    Actually, no. Rossi was creative, taking advantage of accidents.


    Abd, it is worse than just creatively taking advantage of accidents. He is either lying to Darden and Vaughn or he lied to his licensee.


    He says in the email:


    "The only way out was to invite them to a test, ask them to bring with them their consultant. I made the test abort, maintaining the temperatures below the starting limit. Then I made up some discussions, I said they made a wrong test, they escaped, I am free."


    There is no alternative interpretation. He was scamming one (Hydrofusion) or the other (IH). He goes on to brag about his lying PR over the whole affair.

    • Official Post

    Jed,


    Well prove your point. Yes, they (IH) showed in a couple areas they with: "100% certainty did say they got no heat from any Rossi reactor". But you have to also be honest and show where it was not so equivocal. As I say, and you tacitly admit when you state: "these legal documents are hard to read, but that is what they *mean't*", there were some conflicting signals open to interpretation. Is yours the correct interpretation?


    In IHs shoes, like I said, if I never got anything out of the IP, you would know that in no uncertain terms. David French said specifically that you do not lie in a filing, and that if you did, and got caught, there would be hell to pay. So based on his experience, I tend to believe IH's response took that into consideration and did not commit for a reason.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Well prove your point. Yes, they (IH) showed in a couple areas they with: "100% certainty did say they got no heat from any Rossi reactor". But you have to also be honest and show where it was not so equivocal.


    Where it says: "Indeed, using the E-Cat technology Plaintiffs directly provided them, Industrial Heat and IPH have been unable to produce any measurable excess energy." Elsewhere it says the reactors they themselves made also failed to produce measurable excess energy. "Measurable" is science-speak. It does not mean the COP was less than X or Y as some people claim. It means there was no heat.


    They also said they saw nothing in Rossi's own tests. Please don't quibble about that, or ask for specifics.

    Quote from Shane D.

    . . . but that is what they *mean't*", there were some conflicting signals open to interpretation. Is yours the correct interpretation?


    Yes, I am certain I have this right. I have spoken with many people at I.H. this year and I am positive they think there is no anomalous heat from any Rossi reactor. I am not interpreting the legal document so much as reporting what I heard from them, directly.


    They could be wrong, but that's what they think. They told me their reasons for thinking that, and I concur.


    There were no conflicting signals. They, and I, both wish there had been, but there aren't. If there were any hint of excess heat, I think they would have offered Rossi some portion of the $89 million, contingent on transfer of the IP.

    This is very strong as well. I wondered the same thing about the patents. The exact reverse of what AR claimed appears to be the truth (he should not have independently applied for a patent). Amazing how pithy that paragraph is as to AR's misconduct. Of course that would all have to be proven (the patent part is self-evident).


    Quote

    11. In addition to the foregoing breach, as well as Leonardo and Rossi’s continuous efforts to deceive Counter-Plaintiffs, Leonardo and Rossi breached the License Agreement by, Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2016 Page 27 of 66 - 27 - among other things: 1) improperly disclosing the E-Cat IP and the terms of the License Agreement to unauthorized third parties without Counter-Plaintiffs’ permission, 2) failing to assign certain patents and/or patent applications to IPH, 3) failing to inform Counter-Plaintiffs of the existence of certain patent applications and failing to fully prosecute patent applications related to the E-Cat IP, 4) participating or having a financial interest in companies that would be Counter-Plaintiffs’ competitors, 5) failing to keep the original Leonardo entity (a New Hampshire corporation) active, and 6) failing to file and/or pay taxes on the payments made under the License Agreement for the Plant and the E-Cat IP.

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.