The Industrial Heat Answer

  • Nothing has changed since MTD. This is what the IH case is depending on - and this argument has already been dismissed by the court ... Thin ice it is.

    Quote from "counterFUD"

    62. Defendants admit that Industrial Heat and Rossi executed the proposed Second Amendment to the License Agreement (the “Proposed Second Amendment”), which is dated “October __, 2013.” However, the Proposed Second Amendment was not executed by Leonardo, IPH, or AEG. Defendants state that the Proposed Second Amendment speaks for itself, and therefore deny any allegations in Paragraph 62 inconsistent therewith. Defendants admit that a copy of the Proposed Second Amendment is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D. Defendants deny that the Proposed Second Amendment was valid to amend the License Agreement. In any event, the Proposed Second Amendment addressed the testing of “a six cylinder Hot Cat unit” (the “Six Cylinder Unit”), not the E-Cat Unit that was the subject of the License Agreement and the First Amendment. The Six Cylinder Unit in the Proposed Second Amendment is separate and distinct from the E-Cat Unit or Plant as referenced in the License Agreement, the First Amendment, and the Complaint. Photographs accurately depicting the Six Cylinder Unit are attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The Six Cylinder Unit remains in North Carolina

    Worth noting is that even if the amendment is ruled valid, IH is stating it was the wrong type of plant that was tested (eh?). And considering that they state that the ERV COP~50 report "speaks for itself" they have carefully made is sound as if the test failed, while actually acknowledge that it worked...

    Quote from "counterFUD"

    72. Defendants deny that the test referenced in Paragraph 72 was the Guaranteed Performance to be performed under the License Agreement. Defendants admit that on March 29, 2016, Penon sent his final report regarding the operation of the Plant to Darden and Rossi. Defendants state that this report speaks for itself, and therefore deny any allegations in Paragraph 72 inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny that the Plant satisfied all of the performance requirements imposed by the License Agreement; see Ex. 5. Defendants also deny Plaintiffs’ allegations in Paragraph 72 regarding the amount of energy produced by the Plant during the testing period; see Ex. 1. Defendants deny the remaining llegations in Paragraph 72.

    Interesting to note here is that their arguments against the test is
    ** the Murray flow meter FUD in ex. 5 (which nowhere close is able to explain a factor of 50).
    ** the USPTO comment on the patent in ex. 1 ... They are as I wrote about long time ago (see link below) going down the total anti LENR track ... not scientifically proved/independently confirmed ... they simply do not care if it really works ... totally disregarding the ERV report even though it "speaks for itself", which they know is valid..…to-ditch-lenr-completely/
    Worth saying again. This counterFUD is a goldmine of information strengthening many of my ( hypothesis considerably

    This kind of blatant inconsistencies in arguing leads to the obvious conclusion that IH/Darden/Cherokee et al are panicing and decided to go all in and thereby likely are comitting a complete business suicide exiting as fools.

  • A selection of the invoices is attached hereto as Exhibit 18.

    Did You read Exhibit 18? There is no copy of any invoice there. Thus they are dirt cheap lying!

    What's in there is simple: Rossis laywer confirms that they (JM) got energy...and thus, may be, IH could send an invoice...Rossis laywer also confirms that during a long period they could only deliver .75 MW.

    This whole story is cheaper than any Hollywood soap.

    If IH did never send an invoice as requested, then the mother of all cheats is IH!

  • It is striking to me that IH even holds out the possibility of the E-Cat IP having commercial value after such a trashing of it.

    Maybe you should look at the wider picture. As an engineer, Rossi merely increased the scale of the Ni-H devices which Piantelli pioneered in the 90s. Rossi obtained Piantelli's know-how via the late Sergio Focardi. Lacking any scientific understanding of a complex phenomenon, Rossi was unable to reliably achieve excess heat. So whilst IH may believe that the Ni-H system works they don't seem to believe that Rossi's has any proprietary working know-how. Nevertheless it maybe they hope that having acquired Rossi's non working IP there maybe an sales advantage in excluding him from their exclusive territories. In the real world even rights to "trashed" IP has value because it removes commercial uncertainty.

    If the E-Cat IP had any commercial value by now there would be working devices on the market. Instead we see Rossi reacquired licenses (from Prometeon, Hydro Fusion etc.). We all make our own conclusions.

    I hasten to add that all this is merely speculation. I rely on public and not on insider information.

  • 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.

    The so called Exhibit 15, "showing that the flowmeter (MWN130-80-NC) did not", work is an other cheap cheat.

    Nobody knows who wrote that accommodation paper... His skill level was about ABD's or that of other FUD'ers of this forum.
    This "writing person" did also have no clou about the physical principe behind a condensation driven steam flow. You really need no presure above atmospheric it could even be lower.

    E15: The visible iron stain waterline marks on the static vanes indicate that the pipe was not continuously full...

    If during a test phase you let the water stay for one or two days, then that's exactly what might happen. The flowmeter was located at the deepest point of the waterflow. Either the whole pipe was empty or...
    Usually you fill a closed circulation with deionized water.. => no marks. If not, then the 1 MW site was sole a test site...

    Further: There was no way to look at the inside of the water tubes... We would like to see a photo of Exhibit C appended to Exhibit 15!

    The really cheap cheat: E 15: The Apator PoWoGaz’s device label clearly states that the unit has a minimum
    operational flow rate of 1.6 m3/hour.

    The manual say's: Minimal flow rate is 0.3 m3. (Greetings to JED)

    Final conclusions:

    From Exhibit 18, we learnd that AR delivered between .75 and 1 MW and IH new this.
    From Exhibit 5: We know now that IH is simply cheating the jury...

    It is therfore easy to guess, if once the judge sees this simple blunder, that he will kick this gang out of the building...

    This will happen even if we know that AR did cheat as everybody is cheating. We just watch, may be, a very poor orchestered APCO/DOD show to make the public claim, everything is running as they should believe...

  • @Wyttenbach


    The really cheap cheat: E 15: The Apator PoWoGaz’s device label clearly states that the unit has a minimum
    operational flow rate of 1.6 m3/hour.

    You I believe have some technical ability. You are not using it wisely here, by jumping to conclusions that careful attention show to be 100% wrong - and on that basis saying nasty things about people (IH) who don't deserve it.

    I too looked up the flowmeter spec. You will see that the minimum flowrate specified is 1.6M^3/hour or 38.4 m^3/day as indeed stated - slightly higher than that actually measured.


    The model is 80NC. The maximum flowrate is 80*24 = 1920 m^3/day. You can see that the setup is being run (if you believe Penon) at only 2% of its maximum specified value. this is very far from manufacturers recommendations, which are for around 30%-50% of maximum value.

    These impellor flowmeters suffer from KNOWN instability at low flowrates where turbulence can make the impellor spin backwards, adding to the apparent flowrate when the real flowrate is very low. This is exactly the error condition that was documented in the DGT (is it - I forget the name) ICCF public demo test. Because they were told about this by one of their clients and ignored advice they are now thoroughly discredited.

    Rossi/Penon would appear to be using out of spec equipment that can have the same (infinite over-reading) error mechanism - by running an impellor flowmeter at very low flowrates. However there are enough other weirdnesses - like the exact 36m^3/day reading - that I would not be certain of anything here except that the test setup is bust and proves nothing other that the professional negligence of whomever is responsible for it.

    Regards, THH

  • Imagine that you invent a device that will crash the petro-dollar, how would You play your hand?

    You get your device independently validated if necessary under NDA. You take out patents. You license your technology to others and provide full disclosure of the your proprietary know how for your own benefit and the benefit to humanity.

    As for petro-dollars, who cares? Justitia fiat, ruat caelum! {let right be done though the heavens may fall) But maybe if a self appointed inventor doesn't believe in his own technology, he refuses independent validation and withdraws licences before negative results can be published. The mad man parades his folly. And greedy sychophants follow in his trail. :(

  • Ahh typical Sifferkoll lol. When his fearless lord Rossi repeats over and over that Johnson Matthey is NOT involved...then they are absolutely not involved. When findings turn up evidence to the contrary...all of a sudden Sifferkoll sings a totally different tune. Classic.

  • External Content
    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 "Renzzie"

    When his fearless lord Rossi repeats over and over that Johnson Matthey is NOT involved...then they are absolutely not involved. When findings turn up evidence to the contrary...all of a sudden Sifferkoll sings a totally different tune.

    What are you hallucinating on?

    I've known for ages that there was a connection, allthough not the exact kind, which has now sort of surfaced. I suppose Rossi has promised them to deny their involvement in some kind of NDA or whatever, as part of the deal. They did not, and still do not, like to go public about it I suspect.

  • If I had such device, my first priority would be to prevent being assassinated.
    These people have no scruples and are not concerned about the subtleties of moral judgment.
    You make my point for me.
    We are lucky it is Rossi (if he has the goods) and not you.
    Is my impression correct that you are from a good, solid family?

  • From Exhibit 18, we learnd that AR delivered between .75 and 1 MW and IH new this.

    This is hilarious. Those were not invoices, that is correct. They were reports of power delivered, by Johnson, writing not as "Rossi's lawyer" -- though he was, and did IH know that at that point? -- but as the President of JM Products. Now, how did he know what power to report? The complaint here is that they used the wrong word. Those bastards, how dare they lie like that?

    If they had shown the invoices, as being their own invoices, it would show nothing other than a request to pay. I presume they did invoice, and there is no indication that they did not, and Rossi alleged the payment. So Wyttenbach is running his standard Something is Wrong with IH number.

    See Complaint, paragraphs 17, 22, 64.

    17. IH admits entering into a contract in Florida.
    22. is denied. I'm not sure why. If they invoiced, they had revenue, but they also had substantial expenses. This could amount to Rossi covering the expenses through JM Products.


    64. Defendants deny that the “test” referenced in Paragraph 64 – meaning the operation of the Plant in Doral, Florida in 2015 and early 2016 – was the “Guaranteed Performance” to be performed under the License Agreement. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 64 as to Plaintiffs locating a customer in Miami, Florida who agreed to allow its facility to be used for a “Guaranteed Performance” test. The company Plaintiffs “located” for the test referenced in Paragraph 64 was a company closely affiliated with Plaintiffs (J.M. Products, Inc.) that had no actual use for the steam produced by the Plant, and thus was not a “customer” for the steam power to be produced by the Plant. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 64.

    Now, those reports. There is a pattern, see Exhibit 18:

    Jun 2015 1 MW 26 days, 750 MW 4 days
    Jul 2015 1 MW 26 days, 750 MW 4 days (what happened to the extra day?)
    Aug 2015 1 MW 15 days, 750 MW 16 days
    Sep 2015 1 MW 15 days, 750 MW 15 days
    Dec 2015 1 MW 20 days, 750 MW 11 days

    These were not measured power figures, that's obvious. This would simply be what Rossi told Johnson to report. How else would he know if it were not measured? Measured power will not come out as even multiples of 250 kW!

    250 kW would be a difference of $250 per day. Presumably, there would be power data from the plant side, or JM Products could measure it themselves. They did not measure it, so this aspect of the "test" -- a customer measuring and paying for power, the whole point Rossi made in his email requesting the agreement with JM Chemicals, was a sham.

    Who was paying the bill? Yes, it would go through JM Products, but where did the money come from? Most likely: from Rossi. However, rabbit out of the hat: a real JM Products shows up. Maybe it really is Johnson Matthey. And maybe Johnson Matthey simply did not care about a $250 per day difference and as long as their process worked this was, for them, chicken feed.

    By the way, there was no requirement in the GPT specifications, if this were the GPT, for any specific level of power, only for COP.

    One of the strong reasons for including Johnson as a cross-complaint defendant is that he is then subject to deposition without using up the number of supoenas that can be issued, and these are the kinds of questions he will be asked, under penalty of perjury. He is operating a Florida company, and possibly impersonating as a representative of a well-known UK company. As a defendant, he can lose big if he stonewalls. I have suggested that Johnson is best off by simply coming clean. Otherwise, he is up to his ears in deep manure. Or more. Maybe it's wet.

    And if the truth is that he represents Johnson Matthey, great! Fantastic news!

    If the device actually delivered 1 MW, I would be seriously thrilled, and I'm quite sure Jed would be as well. However, it has been five years that I and many others have been looking for independent confirmation of the Rossi claims. Because it was so secret, we could not count on IH support as being a confirmation, but it looked like it might be.

    How does it look now?

  • "84. Furthermore, Fabiani and USQL have refused and continue to refuse to provide records, 'tests and results' and other information relating to their engagement under the USQL Agreement to Industrial Heat, even though they agreed that such information is the property of Industrial Heat. Id. § 6.They have so refused because they are aware that such information demonstrates that the Plant was not performing at levels claims by Leonardo, Rossi and Penon.

    85. As just one example, in late February 2016, shortly after the conclusion of the purported Guaranteed Performance test, USQL and Fabiani committed to send certain data and a report by the end of March 2016 that would 'bring to light all the flaws and functional deficiencies of the system' and identify 'the plant stop periods (total or partial).'"

    IH and Joney Day are masters at evoking one message while the underlying reality is somewhat different. When I first read the answer these two paragraphs indicated to me that Fabiani had more or less deemed the plant to be deficient, flawed, and not performing at levels claimed. Seems Fabiani didn't believe the plant worked.

    But, as with many sections of the answer, when you take a closer look at the evidence, an entirely different reality emerges. What did Fabiani actually say in context?

    "Then I will work on my official report to bring to light all of the flaws and functional deficiencies of the system in order to have sufficient information to replicate a system with lower costs and with greater reliability."

    So Fabiani was actually wanting to assist IH in solidifying and improving the plant in preparation for a more marketable, lower cost, and more reliable plant!

  • Okay guys, what if...

    what if project Blue Beam is part of the October Suprise? false alien invasion etc
    what if the cold fusion bombs in Independence Day : Resurgence were really a plant to announce this breakthrough technology, which will be weaponized as soon as it's publicly revealed?
    what if it's all a clever ploy to discredit LENR ("oh man we can't use that tech to fuel civilian gear remember the ET war we can't have such powerful stuff powering our cars")

  • Nothing has changed since MTD. This is what the IH case is depending on - and this argument has already been dismissed by the court ... Thin ice it is.

    The argument has not been dismissed by the Court.

    Sifferkoll has not shown an ability to read evidence and documents for anything but finding "proof" of conspiracy, etc. The judge found sufficient allegation of estoppel to allow Count 1 to continue. The judge was not deciding fact, and merely considered that a Motion to Dismiss on this basis was not to be granted, because Rossi might successfully show estoppel. And that is going to be an issue, because IH denies that they consented to the GPT being performed in Doral.

    It's fascinating, actually. Rossi seems to have believe that by putting together elements of the GPT, he could unilaterally arrange it without their consent. It's a 1 MW reactor, even if it's not the original one described in the Agreement. Check. It has an ERV, the same ERV as Rossi selected (with IH consent) for the Validation Test. Check. It even has a measurement protocol arranged with IH consent (though I haven't seen proof of that). Check.

    Therefore it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck!

    But the Agreement was rigorously specific that written consent was required, and I wrote, back when considering the Motion to Dismiss, and the Rossi Memorandum, that the actual communications between Rossi and IH might show something different. And it does. This is still a factual issue, but if Rossi does not come up with more evidence, at least alleged, for substantial estoppel, not merely some vague implication, the whole case could vanish with a Motion for Summary Judgment, leaving behind only some smoke and a bad smell.

    Ah, except for those counter-claims. Did Rossi's lawyer (Annesser) know the full story, or did he just do what Rossi Said?

    Why does Sifferkoll continue arguing with the obvious, presenting as if it were fact what is Planet Rossi Trope (and then what he says is followed and repeated by many others as fact)?

    He is presumably not stupid. It's obvious: he has an agenda he is promoting, i.e., what he is accusing many others of, is really about him. No, I don't think he is being paid by Rossi. I think he is looking for Rossi to demolish the oil market, his original interest.

    Sifferkoll picked up on the mention of a James Bass who works for Johnson Matthey on E-Cat world, and repeated it. Until I saw that it came from ECW, I was about to congratulate him on a nice piece of research. All this, however, will come out in the wash. Someone will interview Mr. Bass, if they have not already. I do assume that IH contacted Johnson Matthey and has a denial. They wrote that they searched for him, without success, and so I would assume, ab initio, that they checked with Johnson Matthey and maybe this same-named person who allegedly appeared in Florida.

    The kind of conspiracy alleged by Sifferkoll gets really complicated. Because I came into contact with a conspiracy theory researcher in my 20s, who had an amazing theory about the assassination of JFK, with amazing evidence, I came to this conclusion: claims of governmental-level conspiracy could not be disproven, they are like pseudoscience, because any contrary evidence can be explained away by some new ad hoc explanation based on the tremendous power of governments.

    There are real conspiracies. However, what we see with Sifferkoll is based on thin fact wih vague implications. An IH email in March 2016 cc'd to an address at APCO) was converted into a huge story, with known people, with established reputations (like myself and Jed) therefore becoming "paid operatives." Operatives to do what?

    Why, comment on blogs, of course. Really? You can get paid to do that? I've really been missing out! Yet to set up such a "team" would require communicating with people who just might be totally outraged. There are lots of people involved with LENR who would indeed be outraged. I would. I'm 72 and very aware that I'm going to die in not very long, and what I have is the future of my children. I'd compromise that for what someone would be willing to pay for friggin blog comments? That mean nothing, that will have little or no real-world effect, and where the truth is on its way, like a freight train coming, in Rossi v. Darden?

    In a word, No.

    All this is *completely irrelevant* to Rossi v. Darden. All it does is to increase a sense of outrage on Planet Rossi, with no effect on the case.

  • If this James Bass was playing soccer in England how is it possible that he was playing director of Engineering in Florida with a pathetically unrealistic visiting card? impersonation?

    It's possible. Johnson decides that he needs someone to play the role of Engineer for JM Products. So he hires Mr. Bass to come to Florida and show up. Only once. Not a big deal.

    Or Bass really does represent Johnson Matthey. That cannot be said to be impossible with what we know. I assume that IH checked. But even if they did, Johnson Matthey might have lied to them. It could happen.

    What I find interesting here is that before the Answer appeared, someone, I think it was Jed, mentioned an "actor," an impersonator. And was dismissed as nuts. Now the allegation is in a Court pleading, and is plausible enough to be there.

    If anyone on Planet Rossi is interested in coming in out of the cold, I suggest reading back and seeing, based on what comes out, who has been truthful and cogent and who has not. In some cases the matter is still ambiguous. However, patterns are appearing that can be recognized. Rossi v. Darden has provided far more accurate information about Rossi's behavior than anything we had before. It has largely blown open the IH involvement with Rossi.

    And simply by existing, Rossi v. Darden serves as a major cautionary tale for anyone considering investing in Rossi. This is how he treats them. This is how he treated his Italian licensee, and his Swedish investors. And, as soon as he was challenged and confronted, Industrial Heat. Knee-jerk, immediate lawsuit, claiming fraud and attempting to pierce the major protection of investors: the corporate veil. As to Hydro fusion, shameless manipulation of a test, on the one hand, or shameless lying about a test failure as being deliberate.

    Whether Rossi has a real effect or not has become moot. He is utterly untrustworthy, and one does not need to think Industrial Heat is blameless to notice this. It is massively obvious from direct evidence. If I'm wrong, this will come out fairly quickly. The real customer will show up. Johnson will testify under oath -- and those depositions can be private, to protect a need for secrecy. Penon will not evade court process and will show that his work was valid. Rossi's failure to establish the legal conditions for the GPT, a likely finding at trial if it gets that far, will return the situtation with the Agreement to status quo ante. Except for the counterclaims, which might be negotiated away.

    Rossi is not getting the $89 million, that's totally obvious. In order to raise that, IH had to be able to make devices that would pass independent testing, and Rossi has not shown (and likely cannot show) that this "failure" was disengenuous. So if it was their falure, we have to say that Rossi allowed his customer to fail, and suffers the loss from that: his customer goes bankrupt. That is even if he can show that he satisfied the IP transfer agreement, which is going to be very difficult.