The Industrial Heat Answer

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    In any case, it was Murray.



    Show us the proof. You seem to know something we don't. Because what we currently have doesn't seem to indicate that he wrote Exhibit 5.


    Yes, it does. Please read the Answer document more carefully. That is the organizing document for everything else. It says:


    "78. Indeed, when Murray eventually gained access to the Plant in February 2016 and examined the Plant, the methodology being used to operate the Plant, and the methodology being used to measure those operations, he immediately recognized that those methodologies were fatally flawed. Some of the flaws that he was quickly able to identify are explained in Exhibit 5."


    (Please do not quibble that even though the observations were his, but he may not have written it. Perhaps he dictated it and a secretary wrote it.)

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    How does this in any way state that Murray or his secretary wrote it? In fact, given that the Jones Day attorney chose to state it in this fashion, is evidence that Murray didn't write it!


    Stop being tiresome. These are Murray's observations. He wrote it. As noted in the Answer, this document was sent to Penon before the lawsuit was filed. Jones Day had nothing to do with the situation back then. How could a Jones Day lawyer write this when they had not been hired and had no knowledge of the situation? By clairvoyance?


    Furthermore, this is a technical document, discussing technical issues, not legal ones. This was written by an engineer, addressed to another engineer (Penon). The questions are all technical in nature, not legal.

    @Jed


    It appears Abd may also disagree with you:
    "It appears to me that the March 25 presentation may have been a formalization of what was raised in person in February. And, yes, Jones Day may have been involved. Both Jones Day and Annesser (Rossi's attorney) were involved by February (see Exhibit 23)."


    And while I agree that the questions are technical in nature, they are couched in legal language. And that is why Penon did not respond, likely.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    This reaction fits nicely within the very definition of pseudoskepticism. Taking sides because of the filing of a lawsuit and a falling out between an inventor and a licensee. Brilliant!


    I would go so far as to say that many scientists in the field of LENR have done more than accepted Rossi's claims. In fact, they have went so far as to replicate. In this field, replication is the sincerest form of flattery. And, guess what, more replications are on the way.


    Many issues are up in the air right now, but the confirmation that XHE is available from Rossi's fuel combination is solidifying into rock hard reality. You can't argue with self sustain -- infinite COP.

    Quote from THHuxley

    It seems to me that in this debate continually trying to find ways in which IH could be acting improperly is actually spreading Uncertainty and Doubt (not so sure about Fear). Now, I'm not criticising you for that, just saying that it seems an overblown exercise and a more straightforward reading would give IH a good case based on what we now have (which of course is very partial) and the expectation of more in Discovery.


    What most people here are missing is that IH – due to how the license and payment regime are arranged (which is probably Rossi’s work/fault) – did not have a genuine interest in a positive test because that would result in a payment liability of MUSD 89 and not very much in return. If – which seems extremely likely – Rossi staged a customer, IH must been happy as a fiddler because Rossi then provide them with excellent reason not to pay. Similarly, it is not appropriate to give credit to IH concerns over the flow meter (or whatever) because we cannot determine whether this concern is genuine altogether, inflated or artificial. If the underlying suggestion is that IH never would promote artificial concerns to avoid paying significant sums of money, this is in fact arguing that IH:s behavior is different to 99,9 percent of all other businesses.

    Quote

    What most people here are missing is that IH – due to how the license and payment regime are arranged (which is probably Rossi’s work/fault) – did not have a genuine interest in a positive test because that would result in a payment liability of MUSD 89 and not very much in return.


    Well I agree - but that only because Rossi's stuff did not work. Had they been able to get it to work then the $89M would be peanuts and well worth paying to keep Rossi on board. To process this you also need to realise that IH could not know whether Rossi's stuff worked, or not, initially. They could hope. And as time continued they became increasingly sure that it did not work. Even now, they cannot be certain it does not work - that is the nature of proof - but they can be pretty sure given their 100% lack of ability to get anything to work and the now known flakiness of all Rossi's recent tests.

    Two things.


    MUSD 89 is never peanuts. No director can order the payment of that sum without an underlying contractual obligation. *


    You speak with certainty about IH not getting it to work. What you basis for that certainty. That it is likely is another thing.


    * And also. It is a misconception to think that it worth anything to IH to have Rossi on boards for the sake of it. The friendliest interpretation of Rossi is that he is a loose canon. In relation to potential investors, customers, goverment bodies etc. it is a good thing if IH can operate independently of Rossi and Rossi's own know-how.

    Quote from JedRothwell


    History is also full of criminals and frauds whose families abandoned them. That probably happens more often than heroes being abandoned. So, being abandoned by one's family is no indication that Rossi is right, or that he is a hero. If that's what you are thinking.


    The best indication of Rossi being "right" about his unique effect being capable of generating kW levels of XHE is the repeated replications by experimentalists. Everyone can argue about the year long test until Hillary Clinton divorces Bill and becomes Donald Trumps side girlfriend. But confirmation from third parties trumps (pun intended) any data Rossi can offer from his own experiments.


    Rossi is not a hero by any means. But the continued production of XHE utilizing LAH provides evidence that his systems can work. Whether or not the monstrosity (which is not a negative term because I crave Godzilla movies) in Doral, Florida produced *documentable* excess heat up to the rigorous Sigma 6 standard of IH a totally different issue.

    Quote from MrSelfSustain

    I would go so far as to say that many scientists in the field of LENR have done more than accepted Rossi's claims. In fact, they have went so far as to replicate. In this field, replication is the sincerest form of flattery. And, guess what, more replications are on the way.


    My sense is that LENR scientists of the kind whose papers are available on lenr-canr.org and in JCMNS are generally quite pessimistic about Rossi and his demos at this point, Parkhomov and Songsheng Jiang notwithstanding.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    This reaction fits nicely within the very definition of pseudoskepticism. Taking sides because of the filing of a lawsuit and a falling out between an inventor and a licensee. Brilliant!


    No. These are scientists who recognized, in 2011, that Rossi claims were not being independently confirmed. That condition continued. Scientists continued to look at specific claims. Parkhomov attracted attention, even though Parkhomov himself called his work a confirmation of Rossi. That claim was recognized as naive. Parkhomov's work was privately criticised, but Parkhomov himself mostly stonewalled, not answering serious questions. I think he was overwhelmed, and, overwhelmed, made some mistakes.


    However, the association of Rossi with Industrial Heat generated an impression that the work was, at least privately, being independently confirmed. With the filing of the lawsuit, that fell apart, and scientists returned to the skeptical default, now intensified because it was understood that Industrial Heat had not only made serious investment in Rossi technology, but had actively attempted independent verification and had failed. This took the Rossi Effect into N-ray and polywater territory. Actual negative evidence.


    Is NiH heat possible? Most think so. It is simply not confirmed as well as PdD. The Rossi claims vastly confused the field.


    Industrial Heat was not merely a licensee, interested in profit. They had decided to invest in LENR because they saw the potential, scientifically as well as economically. It appears that they gave Rossi more than ample opportunity to show them how to create the effect. His response? He blamed them and developed as story that it was all a ruse to steal his technology from the start. Rossi fully displayed the pathology that was suspected.


    This is not pseudoskepticism, that rejects without evidence. This is the normal process of judgment and arriving at tentative conclusions. This is not Steve Krivit and Mary Yugo. Were they right about Rossi being a fraud?


    Yes, apparently. Certainly Rossi set up conditions to make it appear so, strongly. I don't know how anyone could miss that without massive denial. However, there is a difference between being a fraud and being convicted of it. The question here about Rossi is not the legal one, which will play out in the courts. Industrial Heat saw the situation in 2012. They were certainly aware of the possibility of fraud. What Krivit and Yugo don't understand is why then went ahead anyway.


    Why would someone spend time and money -- a lot of money! -- to investigate pseudoscientific bullshit? The willingness to do that at personal expense is precisely what separates classic skepticism from pseudoskepticism. Nobody is required to do this. If people are skeptical about cold fusion, they are free to not investigate it, and this is all completely proper. It is the impossibility arguments that attempt to dissuade others from investigating based on ad hominem judgments unrelated to the scientific issues that distinguish pseudoskepticism from genuine and normal and even necessary skepticism.


    Truzzi did not become a "believer" by investigating paranormal claims. He showed healthy skepticism, and was, in fact, respected by parapsychologists and believers for that. And he regretted that CSICOP became a den of sarcastic debunkers.

    Jed,


    That's your opinion. I don't know how extensively you have studied some of the less discussed replications. However, my opinion is that the fact that all of the alleged "black swans" combined provide robust and strong evidence for the "Rossi Effect" being real -- despite the characterization of the parameters needed to initialize the effect being almost non-existent. A simple combination of nickel powder and LiAlH4 seems to be capable of sporadically producing excess heat -- sometimes with no pre-processing of the fuel and no exotic electromagnetic stimulation. What makes many experiments totally unsuccessful is unknown. It's easy to proclaim that the nickel needs to be cleaned of oxides in order to absorb hydrogen, the nickel needs to be pre-heated to create microcavities, or a special waveform should be used. But excess heat has been reported without any of these.


    If the excess heat reported by several teams of replicators is legitimate when we have little to no clue about the conditions required to trigger it, then I can only imagine the level of success that could be obtained if we knew what was actually important. The only thing preventing us from gathering that information is a lack of continued and on going testing. To me, it makes sense that two of the highest strung, work-a-holics who performed the most tests would figure it out, Me356 and Andrea Rossi.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The replications I know of are questionable at best. Some of them are making progress but they are still not solid confirmations, in my opinion.

    In the echo chamber that is Rossi's blog, we have, today:


    I was skeptical at first when I saw claims here that Rossi was creating sock puppets to ask leading questions, to say what he wanted to say, as if it was someone else asking. Then I saw stuff like this over and over. Very few women are interested in LENR, and comment on the blogs. And some of those that do are not women, such as Mary Yugo. The name here is very unlikely, "Bee" would be a very unusual middle name, though not impossible. "Candace" shows high knowledge of claims in the field, as do the other blatant socks. The name comes up empty with Google (which is fairly unusual for someone who would even find the JONP blog), unless, of course, that is not a real name. I.e., someone else could be feeding dottore Rossi this stuff. Others have pointed out clues in usage that point to Rossi himself, but he could have collaboration.


    Cold fusion research has always been afflicted by the file drawer effect. That is, negative experimental findings will often not be reported, but positive ones are more likely to be reported. If enough people are investigating an effect, even if it is not real, there will be artifacts and thus a certain level of positive claims, and it can then appear that there is wide confirmation.


    Thus in studying cold fusion, we look for repeatability and when there is a serious claim, we look for independent confirmation with an exact replication, not merely something that resembles the original claim. The state of affairs with NiH is that there is some level of confirmation, but also exact replication attempts that failed. The general sense of researchers is that NiH reactions may be possible and are worth investigating.


    What the IH experience shows is that a seriously motivated and highly cautious independent company made major efforts to confirm, not "NiH," but the specific Rossi technology, and failed. And at the same time, Rossi set up a phony customer for a phony sale of power, as an excuse to claim this as a contractually allowed Guaranteed Performance Test, used the same expert to "validate" it as had been used to trigger the payment of $10 million in 2013, the expert stonewalled IH when questioned, Rossi excluded the IH engineer, violating the agreement with the "customer," the expert vanished with the most important instrument used (the flow meter) -- that is called "spoliation of evidence." And then is sitting in his blog, feeding himself press releases and pretending he cannot comment.


    And his fans sail on, happy to be part of the Rosy Rossi Future, convinced that the only objections are coming from "puppets," and other snakes and clowns.


    This is an end game. HIstorically, at something like this point, the inventor disappears. Sometimes he dies, leaving fans to carry on conspiracy theories for generations. Keely. Papp. Here, because of the involvement of IH, we are getting far more evidence than usual.

    Quote from selfsus

    However, my opinion is that the fact that all of the alleged "black swans" combined provide robust and strong evidence for the "Rossi Effect" being real -- despite the characterization of the parameters needed to initialize the effect being almost non-existent. A simple combination of nickel powder and LiAlH4 seems to be capable of sporadically producing excess heat


    Well - quantity does not make up for quality in this area. Just one claim well supported by a careful experiment would be highly interesting, and lead to replications. If real it would be headline news within 6 months.


    Look at the MFMP signal. They thought that was real proof of nucelar activity: and had it been so they would have been able to replicate it and, again, headline news.


    Quote from zuffhaus

    MUSD 89 is never peanuts. No director can order the payment of that sum without an underlying contractual obligation. You speak with certainty about IH not getting it to work. What you basis for that certainty. That it is likely is another thing.


    And also. It is a misconception to think that it worth anything to IH to have Rossi on boards for the sake of it. The friendliest interpretation of Rossi is that he is a loose canon. In relation to potential investors, customers, goverment bodies etc. it is a good thing if IH can operate independently of Rossi and Rossi's own know-how.


    Well nothing in this world is certain, but IH say categorically that they cannot get it to work, and the other evidence all points the same direction (Rossi continually and egregiously having major errors in his test setups, even when $89M rest on them). So this is a fair working truth when posting here and speculating about this and that.


    $89M is peanuts in comparison with the value of the technology. Therefore even though Rossi's involvement may be of limited use given his technical ineptitude, it would be well worth it to prevent legal issues. Indeed for them not to follow this license if Rossi's stuff did work would be negligent.


    Regards, THH

    Quote from THHuxley

    Well, one reason for doing this experiment properly would be


    I suggest it is a waste of resources to replicate an experiments which have generally been done properly. Of course it's easy to pretend there are defects in individual experiments. But when ALL of them demonstrate that there is helium when there is excess heat then you must demonstrate that ALL of them are defective.


    There's a good chance that any new experiment will also be defective (probably in minor details). It's all very well wishing for greater precision but unless you have concrete proposals to make at a reasonable cost, then this wishful think lacks any substance. Calorimetry is by its very nature imprecise when it comes to analysing multiple nuclear reactions. Whatever precise result is measured, whether 23.8 MeV or not, will add very little information to what we already know.


    There is no such thing as an "expected" ratio. I challenge anyone to reference a theory which predicts this.

    Mr. Lomax,


    I have no clue what will happen to Rossi in the future. The IH filings that have been posted paint a very convoluted and odd picture of Andrea Rossi and his team. After reading the "Answer" it would be easy to think the absolute worst of him. But I've learned that there are two sides to every story. All we can do is wait and see how he responds.


    But the basic core technology, the combination of nickel, lithium, and hydrogen that is capable of producing excess heat, will live on regardless what happens to Andrea Rossi. Either IH will further develop the technology, third party replicators will do so on their own, or a combination of both. There are multiple teams actively testing this fuel combination, and I am hoping that instead of only achieving sporadic results they will gain insight into what is required for the reactions to take place.


    There is a such thing as a file drawer effect. But at the same time, one black swan proves that not all swans are white. A single test showing excess heat from nickel and lithium aluminum hydride shows that the combination can induce table top fusion. Of course there can be arguments about any one test; for example, some tests can have huge errors or problems. But the number of tests showing excess heat has convinced me a black E-Cat exists. I expect that it is likely in the coming months more black E-Cats will emerge. They will have only minimal bearing on the court case, of course. The case isn't focused primarily on the reality of the technology, but the performance of the one megawatt plant and many other issues. For example, the reality of the customer and that manufacturing took place behind the, "wall."


    If this LENR phenomenon was a virus, I'd say we are barely out of the incubation period with only the occasional grunt and sneeze.

    Quote from Hermes

    I suggest it is a waste of resources to replicate an experiments which have generally been done properly. Of course it's easy to pretend there are defects in individual experiments. But when ALL of them demonstrate that there is helium when there is excess heat then you must demonstrate that ALL of them are defective.


    That would indeed be a proper argument, but I disagree with your premises. None of the He experiments, individually, demonstrate a direct He causal link with excess heat. And indirect link exists without any LENR mechanism, so correlation is not enough. And I'm not suggesting replication, I'm suggesting the same setup with additional instrumentation and/or additional control data to make the results robust.

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.