Then this must be the second buildup...
Yes. That is the one, along with a bunch of other photos, that Rossi said were taken in NC.
The Blue Box seems to have been replaced altogether.
In the contract for heat with JMP, there is a line saying that the Plant belongs to IH (I forget which Exhibit).
So this is their (IH's) Plant, even though heavily modified from the earlier version.
Jed,
You are acting shifty, by answering to one question, while ignoring the other that may implicate...like Hillary is famous for (remember you dumped on Trump) 
. IH also said, as I alluded to:
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).
Well?
So based on his experience, I tend to believe IH's response took that into consideration and did not commit for a reason
It is a lot of work to prove a COP of 1.
Probably way easier to show a COP of at least 0.9
using the E-Cat technology Plaintiffs directly provided them
Jed: You can repeat this as often You like. But this is no proof. Everybody knows, IH people (who? no employees..) were unskilled at the beginning, but after learning how to do it, they were successful! (We just don't now how well they performed...)
IH states nothing else than that their first attempt failed. Basta! They never repeat any such claim later on in their answer ...
Your statement would imply that all people at IH are full con's, since they knew this since 4 years.., as they reference the 2012 tests.
It is a lot of work to prove a COP of 1.
Probably way easier to show a COP of at least 0.9
Even better yet, how about 0.8%! Hey I am not a scientist, so it all sounds good to me.
Seriously, proving COP 1 is not hard at all in the context of LENR...as opposed to heat pump + COP's. IH could have come out and made that distinction along with being very clear if they saw none. Left no doubt whatsoever. But that is not what they did...right?
Here is another gem.
QuoteIndustrial Heat would not have entered into the Term Sheet agreement had it known that JMP was not a real operating company, that JMP actually had no commercial use for the steam power generated by the Plant, or that JMP was created solely as a ruse to induce Industrial Heat to ship the Plant to Florida. 75. JMP’s role in the scheme magnified when JMP started sending falsified invoices to Industrial Heat stating the amount of energy or steam JMP was purportedly receiving and using from the Plant during a given month. A selection of the invoices is attached hereto as Exhibit 18. JMP’s unconscionable and deceptive practices are further evidence that the testing in Miami was nothing but a sham designed to create the illusion that the Plant performed at levels that could satisfy Guaranteed Performance (and further to confirm the results of the prior Validation testing).
The fact that he is willing to gamble $11 million and his reputation and not take the course of action any sane con artist would take, is cause for optimism. Either
1. He actually believes he has this in the bag or
2. His Ego is pathologically inflated and fragile.
Seriously, proving COP 1 is not hard at all in the context of LENR...as opposed to heat pump + COP's.
Actually, it is hard. You have to account for waste heat and unmeasured heat, which you have not measured (by definition). Scientists attempt to estimate this, but engineers never do. So with a conventional electrically fired boiler they never report a COP of 1.0. It is always less than that.
The fact that he is willing to gamble $11 million and his reputation and not take the course of action any sane con artist would take, is cause for optimism. Either
1. He actually believes he has this in the bag or
2. His Ego is pathologically inflated and fragile.
Arthur,
The literature is loaded with examples of dumb criminals. Yes, white collar crime is usually reserved for the more intelligent, but not necessarily so. In Rossi's case though, we have to accept he is very bright, or maybe even exceptionally so, although diabolical, whether he has something, or not (most likely). He probably gets off on fooling people. i.e. us. It makes him tick.
But you can be very smart, and insane. Ask Dr. Lector about that!
Jed,
IH clearly admits that they raised money based on all of this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seemed pretty convinced before that the money raised by IH was not connected to Rossi's / Leonardo's efforts.
No, they do not admit that they raised money based on Rossi IP. They actually deny it. Rossi has been saying this over and over, so you believe it? I think I'm the one that pointed out how it was unlikely that Woodford (the $50 million, invested in May, 2015) was told that the Rossi IP was working, more likely they were told the opposite. The Woodford money is being invested, it appears, in real LENR research. Like, science stuff.
Here is another gem.
Industrial Heat would not have entered into the Term Sheet agreement had it known that JMP was not a real operating company, . . . A selection of the invoices is attached hereto as Exhibit 18.
Exhibit 18 is a gem beyond compare. Look at the first letter. The letterhead says:
"Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthew Platinum Sponges"
Uh . . . do you think they meant Johnson Matthey? You don't suppose they were pretending to have some connection to Johnson Matthey, do you?!? Oh my. See I.H.'s complaint, p. 44:
Quote. . . During this meeting, Rossi and Johnson made a number of false representations to Industrial Heat, most notably that JMP (at the time called J.M. Chemical Products, Inc.) was a confidential subsidiary of Johnson Matthey p.l.c. (“Johnson Matthey”), and that Johnson Matthey was interested in using the E-Cat technology in connection with a confidential manufacturing process it wanted to operate in Florida. In fact, in August 2014 Johnson on behalf of JMP even warranted in writing that JMP “[was] owned by an entity formed in the United Kingdom, and none of Leonardo, Dr. Andrea Rossi, Henry W. Johnson nor any of their respective subsidiaries, directors, officers, agents, employees, affiliates, significant others, or relatives by blood or marriage [had] any ownership interest” in JMP. See Compl. Ex. B. (last page of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit). JMP, however, has never been a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey, was not operating or planning to operate any manufacturing process in Florida, and was in fact owned by persons whom Johnson represented in writing did not have any ownership interest in JMP.
Actually, it is hard. You have to account for waste heat and unmeasured heat, which you have not measured (by definition). Scientists attempt to estimate this, but engineers never do. So with a conventional electrically fired boiler they never report a COP of 1.0. It is always less than that.
Well in that case Jed, you have just contradicted everything you claimed today in your argument against MY. How many "picograms", BTW, are engineers now capable of discerning? And how can they not tell a COP 1 from that? In other areas you also flip flop depending on the argument.
Sorry Jed, but you sometimes come across as more into winning an argument, than getting to the truth. Maybe IH is not the only one conflicted?
Well in that case Jed, you have just contradicted everything you claimed today in your argument against MY. How many "picograms", BTW, are engineers now capable of discerning? And how can they not tell a COP 1 from that?
Engineers do not measure picowatts or picograms. Unless they are working on NASA space based particle detectors, which do, in fact, measure particle mass by picowatt calorimetry.
Scientists specify the calorimeter recovery rate, which they can make very high with some instruments. Such as 95% or 99.5%. That missing 0.5% is "heat unaccounted for." Engineers working with kilowatt devices don't try to measure that.
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 believe what Rossi said about this?
If the flowmeter went back to the manufacturer, they would certify that it was in proper operating condition. This would not provide any calibration at the below-rated flow. This meter was operated out of the device specifications, such that the rotor was turning lower than the design rate for accuracy.
However, it gets worse. The meter apparently showed signs that it was operated when not full of water. This would cause a higher than correct flow indication, and it could be much higher than correct. And, again, the factory calibration would not reveal this.
IH has not yet pulled out the Big Gun. Infrared survey of the building, showing that power dissipation in the building could not possibly have been 1 MW, nor even 100 kW. (Assuming that Dewey has told the truth about that.)
So far, what Dewey has said is confirmed by the Answer (beyond what has not been mentioned, such as IR imaging).
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.
They were quiet clear that they were unable to verify Rossi's claims showing any excess energy at all, they say that three times. How many more times do you want them to say it?
What you have done is take certain statements about the contractual requirements which were not explicit about "no energy," and then interpet them favorably to indicate "maybe there was some energy." This is generally true with many of these tests, when Rossi was involved. They were inconclusive. What can be said later was not that "there was no energy," because generally the measurements were not accurate enough to be able to assert that, but rather "there wasn't the claimed energy."
Engineers do not measure picowatts or picograms. Unless they are working on NASA space based particle detectors, which do, in fact, measure particle mass by picowatt calorimetry.
Well, you just took MY to task for expecting 10's or 100''s of Ws as proof of LENR, and argued that picos are now the standard, and now you are equivocating when I mention the disparity. I give.
You are simply impossible to argue with. You just argue to argue. Except in the one case of Mizuno when you had no other option.
So far, what Dewey has said is confirmed by the Answer (beyond what has not been mentioned, such as IR imaging).
What this means to me is that most of the Answer Exhibits have been ready for a fair while. We probably haven't seen any of the detailed stuff yet.
Here is another gem.
Wondering what Sifferkoll and Co. are thinking about this gem on planet Rossi. Sure appears to align perfectly with what we have all been predicting the whole time about the fake customer outside the cold cold planet. Matthew, Matthey, Mathow, Mitthey this is awesome!
Well, you just took MY to task for expecting 10's or 100''s of Ws as proof of LENR, and argued that picos are now the standard, and now you are equivocating when I mention the disparity. I give.
(were you being sarcastic?)
It is all a matter of scale. In mW systems, maybe you can get picowatts. In kW systems, I highly doubt it.
99.9999 % gold (four nines) gold is really pure. Getting that to five nines or better is ridiculously hard. Unless you only need a few mg of it.
What you have done is take certain statements about the contractual requirements which were not explicit about "no energy," and then interpet them favorably to indicate "maybe there was some energy." This is generally true with many of these tests, when Rossi was involved. They were inconclusive. What can be said later was not that "there was no energy," because generally the measurements were not accurate enough to be able to assert that, but rather "there wasn't the claimed energy."
Well Abd, this very paragraph sums up the inconsistencies quite well...thank you, and you wrote it. Like Jed unwittingly did.
IH was not clear on the issue. And I do not like Rossi (as another reminder) as everyone hopefully knows by now? Yet, I know what I read, and no one can tell me otherwise. It is what it is. IH, as Siffer says, is careful, too careful, in their wording which makes one wonder why. They did not need to do that.
