The Industrial Heat Answer

    Quote from Eric Walker


    It looks like a hilarious ploy to try to get a modicum of plausible deniability in there. If they had put "Johnson Matthey Platinum Sponges," I suppose they would have left themselves open to an action from Johnson Matthey, or one of false representation from IH. As it stands, JMP just look (really) foolish. It is the case that "Johnson" is the last name of the lawyer who is JMP's CEO; now they just need to explain to the jury where the "Matthew" comes from (as well as the part about the platinum sponges). ("Matthew" was the name of a character in my son's favorite childhood story, or something.)


    Yeah we are on the same page then. I also think they tried to muddy up the waters with Johnson (lawyer) as tying into the name...and the Matthew switch is priceless. The irony is that all of it is wrapped directly around a LAWYER!

    Quote

    Rossi is SO transparent lol.

    There is a theory that holds that such apparent incompetence actually helps scammers find the lowest common denominator marks-- the ones least likely to think their way out of the con.


    Something like this:

    Quote

    Levitt and Dubner explain the genius behind such an obvious scam in terms of "false positives," referring to email recipients who engage with the scammers but don't ultimately pay. Reaching out to scores of potential victims isn't much work, thanks to the ease of email, but with each reply from a gullible target, the scammers are required to put forth a little more effort.


    Therefore, it's in the scammers' best interest to minimize the number of false positives who cost them effort but never send them cash. By sending an initial email that's obvious in its shortcomings, the scammers are isolating the most gullible targets. If you trash their email, that's fine. They don't want you, someone from whom there's virtually no chance of receiving any money. They want people who, faced with a ridiculous email, still don't recognize its illegitimacy.


    http://www.businessinsider.com…emails-are-obvious-2014-5


    I am not suggesting that Rossi does this consciously but I have always thought choosing the best possible marks was his main real talent. (It certainly isn't technology or workmanship) I think Rossi applies the above concept instinctively.

    @Eric Walker
    "I believe there was a name change for JMP that was registered at some point, and one of the names you identified was the earlier name and another was the new name."


    Yes, there was something like that, a document, that was altered/changed with crossed out/pencil stripe.
    (My English is not the best, I know that :)
    I looked that up in my download folder, but could not find it.
    Can somebody be helpful with that?

    @stephenrenzz
    "Rossi is SO transparent lol."


    At JONP you can read so many suspicious postings.
    And they NEVER EVER link to any source, just questions, that are, hmmm, made up to let Mr. Rossi put an "obvious" answer to it.
    At e-catworld.com. there is IMHO no female account. (Orphelia ... does not count)
    At JONP there are "many" and reading the postings and the answers gets me just to one conclusion:
    They are FAKE!


    HAHA I was just thinking the same thing as I read 2 female posts on JONP and in a row even haha. Magically Rossi pulls in the chicks on his site...but Lenr-Forum and E-Scat World are just not cool enough for the ladies. HAHA priceless!

    • Official Post
    Quote from Deleo

    Jones Day would not be putting their name on this claim without doing their homework. We are talking months of research and getting to the bottom of JM Products. They know what they are doing. The only thing left is conspiracy theories. But isn't that where everything ends?



    Deleo,


    As they likely have that proof, then it may be all over for Rossi:


    From IH's counterclaim:
    Fourth Defense 4. Plaintiffs’ equitable claims are barred, in whole or in part, by reason of Plaintiffs’ unclean hands.

    unclean hands- a legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, if a defendant can show the plaintiff had "unclean hands," the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment. Unclean hands is a common "affirmative defense" pleaded by defendants, which must be proved by the defendant.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Sounds like IH did their homework on this JMP. I would not hold out much hope they are legitimate.


    I tend to agree. The evidence is stacking up. This will likely not play in Rossi's favor as it goes to credibility. That said, I still think IH have an improved version of the E-cat that they now claim as their own. The evidence for that is also quite apparent. And the evidence for the E-cat working as claimed also is momentous. But the customer, which really is starting to look like one big ruse, is going to hurt. Leonardo/Rossi may as well come clean, and the sooner the better.

    • Official Post

    I still can't believe how lucky Rossi was. If you read IH's counterclaim, Ferrara, and Lugano were both pivotal, at two critical decision junctures, when IH seemed ready to walk, but did not almost solely because these distinguished Swedish professors (what is it about those Swedes? :) ) test conclusions gave IH the green light, and confidence, to continue on with Rossi.


    Why did Rossi let Levi (what is it about those Italians? :) ), assemble the team to test his device? So risky. If I took a toaster, or coffeemaker, and gave it too Levi and team, to establish it's overunity, it would come back negative....for sure. Well, the Ecat *appears* to be a glorified heater, but two times they determined it could potentially be the salvation of mankind.


    What are the odds?

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    But the customer, which really is starting to look like one big ruse, is going to hurt. Leonardo/Rossi may as well come clean, and the sooner the better.


    The company sounds like something you would see in a Coen brothers film. But if one wants to get meta, the question arises, was the company intended to be readily identified as a ruse? Some fun food for thought: (1) Perhaps Rossi sought to buy time to get a working product through some crazy yearlong delay tactic; (2) perhaps Rossi wanted to scare away all of the hobbyists who are now hot on his trail; (3) perhaps Rossi wanted to scare IH out of their contract, in a manner similar to what he did with HydroFusion a few years ago.


    I don't take this kind of speculation too seriously, but there's something about this whole case that defies ready explanation, no matter from which angle one comes at it.

    Quote from Eric Walker


    The company sounds like something you would see in a Coen brothers film. But if one wants to get meta, the question arises, was the company intended to be readily identified as a ruse? Some fun food for thought: (1) Perhaps Rossi sought to buy time to get a working product through some crazy yearlong delay tactic; (2) perhaps Rossi wanted to scare away all of the hobbyists who are now hot on his trail; (3) perhaps Rossi wanted to scare IH out of their contract, in a manner similar to what he did with HydroFusion a few years ago.


    I don't take this kind of speculation too seriously, but there's something about this whole case that defies ready explanation, no matter from which angle one comes at it.


    Patrick Ellul
    August 7, 2016 at 5:20 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    In a world of science and law, without proof or witness, no one will believe that the customer plant was making real use of the heat.
    If this becomes an issue in court, will you be able to exhibit proof or witness of what the customer was using the heat for?
    Best regards


    Andrea Rossi
    August 7, 2016 at 5:31 PM
    Patrick Ellul:
    Obviously.
    Talking of proof and witness: in all the 66 pages of the countercomplaints there is not a single countercomplaint of which we will not be able to give evidence of its total falsity.
    The slanders that compound the substance of all the 66 pages will be duly processed by our Attorney.
    Obviously, I cannot enter in particulars and answer to issues to be discussed in Court.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Official Post
    Quote from IH Fanboy

    That said, I still think IH have an improved version of the E-cat that they now claim as their own. The evidence for that is also quite apparent. And the evidence for the E-cat working as claimed also is momentous.



    Well IHFB, IH still seems baffled as to whether Rossi had something, or not. So if they are still confused, maybe there is still some hope? No hope though for Rossi BTW...the guy is trash. But there is a chance his claims were greatly inflated...the Ecat actually produced COP in a narrow, small range, and unreliable as LENR researchers usually experience, and tried to cover it's lack of robustness up to make a ton of money.


    However it turns out, there is no doubt after reading those documents that Rossi does not give a crap about humanity. He cares about himself only. Just think about his promise to help the kids with cancer. In light of what we know now, it just makes one sick to the stomach what he said. And his using Mats Lewan the way he did, and so many others. A true sociopath. Sick.


    Disgusting.

    Quote

    I am an electrician. That toolbox looks genuine.


    Oh, it is. And it was used by a nanogenarian nonagenarian to assemble the original ecats-- the guy was in his nineties and has since passed away.

    the heading here was :


    Quote from Wyttenbach


    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.


    No one knows who wrote that? It's a freakin email, attributed. [edited. Actually, this is a document that may have been snail-mailed or sent as an attachment. Answer Paragraph 78 attributes this to Joe Murray. To be used as evidence, if I'm correct, documents will need to be attested, an entry under oath that they are true copies, or the like. There is nothing suspicious here in this regard.]


    First of all, Wyttenbach is confused. Exhibit 15 has notthing to do with this. He means Exhibit 5. Now if anyone is checking what he writes, they would notice this. He has a claque of upvoters, who obviously upvote him because they like "where he's coming from," but they don't actually read carefully, or they would see this and point it out and he would correct it.


    Wyttenbach has a quoted statement. His post was pretending to quote me and I did not say that -- at least not there! (But I don't recall writing that anywhere). Again, what is clear is carelessness, sloppiness. And then others will often repeat what they read. Even if it is later shown to be misleading! This is how information cascades operate, among people who trust each other without actually being careful. Nothing wrong with trust, but trust and verify.


    Quote

    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.


    Yes, it could be lower. However, what is the pressure elsewhere in the system? There must be a differential pressure or there will be no flow. Basic physics. However, "how much pressure" is another matter. This has been discussed at great length here.


    Again, Murray was asking questions of Penon in Exhibit 5, and instead of answering them, Penon apparently stonewalled. So is it then a wonder that IH did not accept the Penon report? And is counterclaiming against Penon?


    I will say this much. This has been called a closed system. If there is a closed system, with initial pressure at atmospheric, and you raise the temperature of the system such that water boils inside the system, the system pressure will rise above atmospheric. How much it will rise will depend on conditions, and could be a complex matter. There are check valves to prevent backflow, we think. So the pressure will be higher in the pipe leading out of the reactor, and lower at the inlet. The point is that the question was reasonable, and Penon was hired by IH and Rossi for his alleged expertise. They would get to ask questions, even stupid ones, if they were stupid. I don't think they were stupid, but Wyttenbach, who has a PhD in what?, thinks they are. Which means what?


    Quote

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


    This is Exhibit 5, not 15.


    Quote

    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...


    I am not sure of the exact placement of the meter. What side of the pump was it on? Again, this was a reasonable question from Murray. If there was an answer, Penon could have given it. The issue is important because if there is air or steam mixed with the water, the flow meter will overstate flow, and this is compounded by the meter being operated below the minimum flow specification. Another has pointed out that a meter under those conditions may actually oscillate (as did the Defkalion meter). I don't know if this meter can do that. My understanding is that IH is testing these meters.


    Quote

    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!

    Nobody who has access to information really GAF about what Wyttenbach wants to see. Again, Exhibit 5, not 15. Exhibit C, in this case, could only refer to the Complaint exhibits, and Exhibit C was a copy of the 1st Amendment to the Agreement, irrelevant here, so this post upvoted by some is incomprehensible.


    Quote

    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.


    Exhibit 5. That is m^3 per hour, by the way.


    Quote

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


    A "cheap shot" is an off-the-cuff remark made without any caution. Exhibit 5 specifies that the pump is an Apator PoWoGaz MWN130-80-NC.


    Instead of linking to the manual, Wyttenbach attempts to put up images, which are incomprehensible and don't show what he is claiming. This is a catalog page for the meter from the manufacturer: http://www.apator.com/uploads/…30-NC/karta-mwn-nc130.pdf


    page 3 shows data for the 80-NC model as 1.6 m^3/hr, nominal 40 m^3/hr, maximum 80 m^3/hr. So this was a cheap shot. Basically, make it up. Possibly, read a page incorrectly. Don't take the time to be careful, just like taking no care to correctly cite the Exhibit being discussed and anything else, so that people can verify.


    Quote

    Final conclusions:


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


    knew.
    Actually, what Exhibit 18 shows is some reports from Johnson. They do not show "between .75 and 1 MW," they show either 0.75 or 1 MW, exactly, for so many days per month. These are obviously not measurements, but some kind of ridiculously rough estimate, or just plain made up. If Johnson had actual figures, wouldn't he just report them? So what IH "knew" from those reports was that Johnson was bullshitting. And, yes, paying accordingly. So why would he do that? Why would Johnson fake power delivery reports?


    Gee, let me think.... he is the President of Leonardo Corporation, Rossi's company. Which stands to make $89 million if they can pull this off. But, surely, a fine upstanding real estate attorney would not be a party to fraud, would he? He' be risking his whole career.


    Yes, he would be risking that, wouldn't he? Therefore he didn't do that?


    Johnson has some 'splainin' to do.


    I predicted that he would be a counterclaim defendant, mostly because this would allow, ah, better access to him for discovery. I had no idea how bad it was. Johnson Matthew? Really? If his client is actually Johnson Matthey, as he allegedly claimed to IH in a visit to North Carolina, surely he will be able to establish that. If he was doing business, there will be records which can be shown. If he had employees, as Rossi claimed, tax records, etc. And WTF is James Bass? Football Player for Johnson Matthey in England, apparently works there. What was he doing in Florida? Basically, if Johnson can show that he actually does represent the real company, Johnson Matthey, he might be okay. There might still be a problem with those cheesy power reports.


    From Exhibit 5: We know now that IH is simply cheating the jury...[/quote]Wyttenbach has a weird idea of what it takes to "know" something.


    Quote

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

    There was no "simple blunde." Why are we bothering to reply to Wyttenbach with this utter nonsense? I don't know.


    Because it's there?


    Quote

    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...


    Ah. "Everybody is cheating." Great view of life, there.


    And the APCO trope. There is no significant evidence at all of APCO involvement. A single email sent to them isn't significant. I know a number of the people who are supposedly APCO ops. They aren't. I'm a real person, with a real reputation to suffer if I lie, unlike these trolls, who can generate endless confusion and then walk away.

    Quote from stephenrenzz

    I also think they tried to muddy up the waters with Johnson (lawyer) as tying into the name...and the Matthew switch is priceless. The irony is that all of it is wrapped directly around a LAWYER!

    There is another aspect to this. Rossi obviously added Cherokee as a defendant because that's where the money is. Good chance that Johnson has money as well. The prospect of IH getting some of their money back just went up.


    I don't know if they want a refund on the License. That's a strategic issue, I have no opinion on it. However, there is the megawatt plant and a lot of money they have spent chasing ghosts. They paid Fabiani over $100,000. Etc. If I'm correct, if IH can show there was a conspiracy, they all can become individually liable for the total loss.


    That is what Rossi was attempting by going after Cherokee and Darden and Vaughn individually. They have money, whereas IH -- due to Rossi's behavior -- doesn't. Rather, IH is dependent at this point, if I"m correct, on IHHI for any operating support. IHHI owns IH, but will cheerfully say goodbye if IH suffers an $89 million judgment. (The fraud counts against IH have no chance at all, my opinion). (The judgement would then be an attachment against the value of the license, probably.)

    My thoughts on the customer have shifted from giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt to my belief that it was probably a ruse. What perplexes me is why. Why did Rossi feel the need? If the technology works as claimed, the whole JMC situation could have been entirely left out without jeopardizing the agreements that were in place with IH. It seems like an over-the-top unnecessary ploy. Rossi better have some rock-solid proof that JMC was legitimate in the next court filing, or simply come clean and openly admit it was a ploy to get the 1 MW plant setup in Florida, a more convenient location for him to complete the guaranteed performance test.


    IH also have some coming clean to do. At what point did they realize the JMC situation was a ploy? Certainly it should not have been any later than July 1, 2015 (the date of the "Johnson Matthew" letterhead). Is video going to surface that shows Darden meeting with potential investors at the 1 MW plant after this date? Why didn't they publicly distance themselves from Rossi at that time in a "noisy withdrawal" from the relationship?

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    My thoughts on the customer have shifted from giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt to my belief that it was probably a ruse. What perplexes me is why. Why did Rossi feel the need?


    He is a self destructive person. He has gotten into trouble with people and with the law repeatedly, seemingly for no reason. In this case, however, it is clear that he was committing fraud, hoping to collect $89 million. There is too much damning evidence to dismiss this as a mistake. The shenanigans with the flow meter and other instruments, and the inept attempt to claim there was heat in the pretend customer site point to fraud. I am afraid it is case closed.


    I.H. has not revealed evidence that there was no heat from the pretend customer site, but I am confident they have proof of that.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    IH also have some coming clean to do. At what point did they realize the JMC situation was a ploy?


    They do not need to come clean. This has no bearing on any lawsuit. Unless you are an investor or stockholder, this is none of your business.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Is video going to surface that shows Darden meeting with potential investors at the 1 MW plant after this date? Why didn't they publicly distance themselves from Rossi at that time in a "noisy withdrawal" from the relationship?


    Again, unless you are an investor or stockholder, this is none of your business. There is no law against distancing or not distancing, noisily or quietly. This has no bearing on the lawsuit. Their decision to distance or not distance is purely internal policy, with no public or legal ramifications.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Again, unless you are an investor or stockholder, this is none of your business.


    Well, given the nature of the importance of LENR to humanity, I think it is my business, and yours, and that of everyone. And if IH participated in a fraud in any way, then it would be a matter of public concern as well. I think the video evidence in this case is going to be very interesting, assuming it comes to light.

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.