Analyzing E-Cat Plant Pump Photos Indicate COP>1 (Engineer48)

  • Quote

    I have seen no evidence filed or alleged by Rossi that would avoid summary judgment on the issue of there being a valid, agreed-upon GPT


    That is true - and the legal case looks strong regardless of the technical one. However, for IH to claim much money from Rossi for fraudulent practice it may be that technical matters remain important. After all a fake customer is not needed for the GPT, so it is not clear that Rossi's deception there injures IH.

  • Mary


    Frank, I think we've been through this discussion before. The ERV report is referenced by a contract. That contract contains a lot of claims and assumes a lot more. If the claims are false and the contract was obtained by fraud, it is void.


    Yes, we have been though this before and to a certain extent I agree with you.


    If what Rossi claims, or more to the point, what he claimed when entering into the contract, turns out to be 'fraudulent' then the contract will be deemed 'illusory'. So will the IP and the patents. It will therefore make no sense for either side to rely on the wording of an illegal contract. Since IH are relying on technical terms the contracts small print for much of their case, I doubt they will go for the full Monty, i.e. an illegal contract based on fraud, particularly if they feel some of the IP has worth.


    So that will be the thing to watch out for, is it 'an illegal contract? or is it 'breach of (a legal) contract?


    If it is breach of a legal contract, then it is not fraud in the sense we understand it but just a technical error. IH may well win and keep the IP, now wouldn't that be interesting.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Would it be interesting? Not sure what you mean. I think perhaps not so interesting because I am pretty sure there is no IP. Methods for sleight of hand in measurement and sampling and gaming results by improper measuring methods don't qualify, IMO, as IP!


    A breach of contract decision would mean IH might not have to pay some or all of the $89M but it would probably not get them back the $11.5M they already paid Rossi and you can bet that at this point, they want it back, along with their probably astronomical legal costs to the extent that they can squeeze anything at all out of what Rossi will have left. Think: condos? mortgaged!

  • After all a fake customer is not needed for the GPT, so it is not clear that Rossi's deception there injures IH.


    Even if the GPT is decided by the court not to be a thing, IH have alleged other damages, including having covered various costs for expenses in Florida under an incorrect understanding of what was going on.


  • Not sure if this is relevant but while I searched information about Rydberg matter for Axil in the other thread I noticed (more precisely: recalled) that the leading author Holmlid uses iron oxide catalysts for its production.

  • So, we have possibly hydrogen-rich water running in a closed loop, a known catalyst dissolved in visible quantities within it and examples of LENR using it. Maybe one could "hide" LENR in the cooling system. I wanted to arrive to this since post #3.


    This doesn't invalidate the very good observation that if steam production occurred 24/7 in full force the boiler would probably have got clogged soon, even more so if metals were dissolved in water on purpose. I think either steam production was inconstant, or there was a return path for dirty water as previously suggested.


    All hypotheses are considered. While having fun in the process of course.

  • This doesn't invalidate the very good observation that if steam production occurred 24/7 in full force the boiler would probably have got clogged soon, even more so if metals were dissolved in water on purpose. I think either steam production was inconstant, or there was a return path for dirty water as previously suggested.


    Much of the discussion on E-Catworld is focused on finding ways to rationalize heat production or "prove it."


    This is not science, it's politics. In the context of massive rationalization, it is an historical aspect of my character to notice what is not being considered or said.


    That the water in the transparent pump lines was brown indicates, as noted, substantial dissolved iron. The hypothesized steam loop would have this effect:


    1. If the boiler generates superheated steam, dissolved solids could not leave it. Wet steam carries liquid, which would be a sample of the boiler contents, and could carry dissolved solids, as iron.
    2. Overflow water would, of course, do the same at higher levels.
    3. Some dissolution of iron into the condensed water would occur on the "customer side," and this would flow back to the Plant. The rate of dissolution from steel would be low, compared to the volume of coolant, Basically, the coolant would be continually cleaning the customer condenser loop.
    4. Dissolved solids would accumulate in the boiler. Water going into the boiler would appear clean.
    5. For these solids to appear in the pump lines, then, indicates recirculation of water (not steam).


    How could substantial iron get back to the pumps? Well, perhaps there is a cleaning process, perhaps, periodically, the boilers are flushed. This could be done by shutting off the heat and just pumping water at maximum rate. This, then would explain why most of the pumps in the photo shown were at 100%.


    Further, what appears to be substantial iron at the pumps might not be substantial, it might be a thin film of iron deposited on the walls of the tubes.


    I'm going to return to a basic principle, not much appreciated; I began to assert this as far back as 2011, I'm not sure. Once fraud is on the table as a possibility, "demonstrations" could be magic shows, where a magician manipulates attention and controls what is seen. To avoid this, standard practice is to seek independent confirmation, where testing is fully independent. In normal science, the entire reported effect is independently reproduced, but a "secret device" can be tested, considering it as a black box. The inputs and outputs from the black box, including all control activities, must be fully independent. If there is any inventor intervention, it would be no-touch, no-presence, fully documented.


    And then we come to the possibility that some specific sequence of actions by an "inventor" might be necessary; this would indicate an effect that is not understood and certainly not documented. The Defkalion fiasco demonstrated how this could occur.


    One of the tragedies of Lugano is that it was Rossi who set up the alleged reaction, not an independent representative from IH, perhaps in communication with Rossi. Rossi's basic job at the beginning of the Agreement was to teach IH how to create devices that work. He failed. Or he had nothing in the first place. Contrary to ruminations on E-Catworld, IH maintains, in the lawsuit, alternate explanations, and one of them is an undisclosed secret.

  • Abd, please read more cautiously. I said "getting the judge to... etc." meaning that the attorneys for IH will persuade the judge that such additional information is necessary and the court will authorize the appropriate parties to get the information. There will be discovery if this goes to trial. And many people will be deposed including experts from both sides who have tested and probably will retest the claimed reactors. I am not too interested in the fine distinctions between judge and magistrate. This whole discussion has gone into totally unimportant and inordinate detail. Perhaps we should sit back more and wait to see what happens in responses and in court.


    I do read cautiously and what you state here confirms my impressions. If there is a Motion for Summary Judgment, the Judge will need to decide if there is enough on file to make a decision. Otherwise the rule of a judge is quite passive. Discovery, as well, precedes trial (and commonly a motion for Summary Judgment, and there is a lot of controversy over this, because Discovery is very expensive, and one of the goals of Summary Judgment is to avoid all that expense if it is not necessary.)


    IH counsel will create additional information by demanding it in discovery. Routinely, the judge won't intervene; only if a party protests will there be judicial intervention (which will then be the magistrate, because the parties agreed to that).


    The judge is not reading the case materials at this point, very likely. She is not going to look at it and say "more information is needed." Ever. Unless *maybe* in handling a Motion for Summary Judgment. I do not expect Rossi to file for Summary Judgment, it's possible from one of the new parties -- which would for them be a Motion to Dismiss, not particularly unusual or unexpected -- But Cherokee, Darden, and Vaughn might, as well as IH on different issues.


    The actual decision is complex. The scuttlebutt on legal fora is that Summary Judgment should not be attempted unless it is open and shut. IH is close to that, at least, one some issues. That might change as more evidence appears.


    It would be amusing to see arguments, as on the Vortex-l list, from one who has long been involved with LENR, swallowing and accepting uncritically the claims of Planet Rossi, repeating them as fact, or highly misleading arguments as if cogent. Would be, but it's tragic. Consider this thread: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg111595.html


    I don't necessarily agree that a cheesy business card, obviously home-made, with what is effectively a stock image, proves anything. However, follow the arguments and positions.


    One point is brought out there, by Eric Walker:
    https://www.mail-archive.com/v…eskimo.com/msg111634.html


    Basically, all this flap about this or that aspect of the test, flow meter, customer area, heat dissipation, blah, blah, going on and on endlessly, is likely to be (not simply possibly) moot legally.


    We may not like that as people interested in LENR, but if the Doral plant was not a Guaranteed Performance Test as defined in the Agreement and Second Amendment, Rossi has no case, none. It 's toast. And so far, Rossi has only alleged weak circumstantial evidence of the acceptance that was clearly required, nothing direct. Because of how crucial this was to his claim, I'd think he'd have mentioned it. What he mentions are discussions or other issues that he might claim were acceptance, and that kind of unclarity is exactly why the Agreement required all parties to sign off on changes.


    This is a very simple legal issue. To understand it simply, was there a signed agreement establishing the Doral test as a GPT? Failing that, there is the possibility of estoppel, but simply allowing a Doral sale of power -- with full Rossi control! -- and allowing Rossi's choice to monitor power, even paying for that, would not establish agreement on a GPT, because of the obvious alternate motivation: providing an opportunity for Rossi to show some results, and collecting money from the presumed sale of power, and they did, we think, collect up to $1000 per day, based on the Johnson reports of power used, which were, however, obviously not measured, but inferred from Rossi reports.


    In all his Blog Bluster, Rossi has not addressed this fundamental issue with simple facts. He keeps proposing arguments like "If the Plant didn't work, how come IH got $50 million from Woodford?" -- which is obviously conclusory, not fact, i.e., the idea that the Woodford investment was based on "plant working" is simply invented by Rossi.

  • How could substantial iron get back to the pumps? Well, perhaps there is a cleaning process, perhaps, periodically, the boilers are flushed. This could be done by shutting off the heat and just pumping water at maximum rate. This, then would explain why most of the pumps in the photo shown were at 100%.


    Further, what appears to be substantial iron at the pumps might not be substantial, it might be a thin film of iron deposited on the walls of the tubes.


    You might well be right about the 'thin layer' - I have noticed that silicon tubing is extremely prone to attracting rusty stains from contaminated water. However, there is reason to suppose that rust particles could form in any part of the system and they can certainly be carried in steam - one only has to look at the dribbled rust-stains on pictures the hot parts of old steam locomotives to see that. The phenomenon is called 'carry-over' and is something boiler designers strive to avoid, since the iron oxide particles are extremely abrasive and in a 'fast steam' environment like a locomotive intake/exhaust system (NOT one we see in Doral) the oxide particles have been known to abrade copper steam pipes into holes.


    I would not be surprised to find that inadvertent electrolysis-assisted formation of iron oxide sludge occurred in both the boiler and the condenser and the pipes between. I suspect that lack of an experienced designer with experience in stationary boilers means there was no provision for a proper 'blow-down' system. This is where hot water from a depression/sludge-trap (located in a quiet corner of each boiler) could be vented under pressure and replaced with clean and treated 'make-up' water. The absence of any visible water-treatment system (they tend to be very visible) is also a factor suggesting that 'bad' feed water was used.


    Attached is a close-up photograph of a portable (container size) water treatment plant for 50k/gl per 24 hours from a Dutch company I did some business with- much bigger than Doral would require of course, but they don't come much smaller than about 2 cubic yards/meters.

  • Mary


    I think perhaps not so interesting because I am pretty sure there is no IP


    Well if that is the case then you are right. But this is of course why we have a court case; because judgement according to planet Rossi, planet Mary Yugo or anyone else's closed mindset will not be the criteria. The criteria is the law and the opinion of the Jury.


    So we do need to consider you, me and many others may be wrong. In consideration of that there are possibilities that Rossi may loose on technicalities but IH may keep and make good use of the IP which may have value.


    In order to discount that possibility the court must find Rossi's claims 'unfounded' and that this was instrumental in the contract becoming 'unlawful', in otherwise 'fraudulent'.


    Whilst I don't discount your hypothesis of fraud on the part of Rossi I think IH are unlikely to press for this. Why, well for one thing they would like Rossi to be worth something so they can re coup some of their investment. If he is found to be a fraud, he will go bankrupt, find himself in jail and IH will loose their chance of recuperating any losses.


    IH have an interest in Rossi continuing with his inventions and new investments, after all, they own the licences (and the IP) to everything he invents (if they win).


    So Mary, you are way off target with this old chestnut.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    This is all kibbitzing. So far, I have seen no evidence filed or alleged by Rossi that would avoid summary judgment on the issue of there being a valid, agreed-upon GPT. It seems unlikely that it exists, but Rossi might have something.


    If there was no GPT why was IH ready to let Rossi continue with it and why did they participate, making amendments and using the interim results allegedly for fund raising. My take on this is that while there appear to be technical errors and inconsistences in the wording to the contract, IH took 'ownership' of it and that will be how the court will interpret it IMHO.


    I disagree with you when you propose "It seems unlikely that it exists". Let me give you an example: If you use a bus service, pay for a ticket at point 'A' but the bus breaks down and you do not arrive at your destination 'B'. You ask for your money back and it appears the conductor gave you the wrong ticket (for his laundry the previous day as he fraudulently pocketed the money) this will not invalidate the fact that you had a contract (since he agreed to transport you, you accepted, you paid and you did travel part of the journey - that is a contract - you are entitled to your money back). The difficulty of course will be proving it.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • If there was no GPT why was IH ready to let Rossi continue with it and why did they participate, making amendments and using the interim results allegedly for fund raising.


    Alleged by who? Where did you hear this? As I have pointed out before, this is extremely unlikely. If I.H. deceived investors by claiming Rossi's test was working, those investors would have demanded their money back by now. It is now public knowledge that the test failed and Rossi is a fraud. Yet we have not heard that the investors demanded their money back.


    I suggest you stop repeating this allegation unless you know it came from a valid source and you have a reason to believe it.

  • If there was no GPT why was IH ready to let Rossi continue with it and why did they participate, making amendments and using the interim results allegedly for fund raising. My take on this is that while there appear to be technical errors and inconsistences in the wording to the contract, IH took 'ownership' of it and that will be how the court will interpret it IMHO.


    I think this would be estoppel. IH claim that they let Rossi go to Florida and helped out with expenses because they were led to believe that Rossi was selling power to a customer. Exhibit 16 to the Answer is Rossi's email outlining the case for relocating the 1MW Plant to florida, and the argument is essentially to the effect that it would be great to be seen selling power to an actual customer. Exhibit 17 are the terms under which this relocation took place. Neither Exhibit 16 nor Exhibit 17 make any mention of the word "test," and in particular "Guaranteed Performance Test." The Second Amendment (which IH dispute is applicable, and which discussed the Six Cylinder Unit and not the 1MW Plant) was dated October 2013. Rossi's email, Exhibit 16, was dated July 5, 2014. Exhibit 17, the term sheet, was dated August 13(?), 2014. If you are arguing that estoppel will require the court to consider the interim reports from Penon and the visit by investors to be evidence that IH assented to the conducting of the Guaranteed Performance Test, are you aware of any document dated later than Exhibits 16 or 17 that would show that IH was not simply going along with Rossi's claim about a customer paying for power? Have you seen evidence that there was no objection on IH's part to construing the whole business in Doral, Florida, as a "Guaranteed Performance Test"?

  • Eric


    No I haven't, except for the contract. The contract is a very powerful piece of evidence in itself. The court may not require evidence to come to the conclusion that Rossi is owed $89 million on the culmination of a positive ERV report.


    If you take my example of the contract between a traveler and a bus company where the evidence for a contract is a laundry ticket, that in itself will not be taken as proof that there was no contract, I grant you this may be difficult and IH have the advantage with Jones Day but I don't think it is 'game over' as many do.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Jed


    It is now public knowledge that the test failed and Rossi is a fraud.


    I suggest you stop repeating this allegation unless you know it came from a valid source and you have incontrovertible evidence.


    A valid source would be an independent test by a nuclear expert agreed upon by both Rossi and IH. Or an official refutation of such a report accepted as such by a court of law, preferably a 'patent court'.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • No I haven't, except for the contract. The contract is a very powerful piece of evidence in itself. The court may not require evidence to come to the conclusion that Rossi is owed $89 million on the culmination of a positive ERV report.


    Section 5 of the License Agreement outlines the Guaranteed Performance Test in general terms and sets a deadline of 400 days after delivery of the 1 MW Plant to show that the plant satisfies the conditions of the test. Hopefully we can all agree that the 400 day deadline was not met. If the court allowed section 5 of the License Agreement to be the primary piece of evidence for concluding that what was going on in Doral, Florida, some three years later, was the GPT, presumably an appeals court would say that this is making a mockery of contract law. Don't you think that more concrete evidence of IH's assenting to a new Guaranteed Performance Test, above and beyond the 2012 License Agreement, will be needed, even to allege estoppel, let alone establish that there was a renegotiated set of terms for the GPT?

  • Eric


    I don't know. I do know that there is much more to establishing the merit of a contract than what it actually says in the small print. If Rossi can somehow convince a jury that the contract was 'jointly owned' it will be valid.


    But anything could happen, I suspect the old saying' 'you aint seen nothin yet' applies.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • I suggest you stop repeating this allegation unless you know it came from a valid source and you have incontrovertible evidence.


    See Exhibit 5 and the photos of the warehouse. There is only a broken fan hanging from the vent. That is all anyone ever saw there, yet the room was not hot. It is not possible any device produced 1 MW of heat there. Even 100 kW is ruled out. Even Rossi admits this now. In response, he said there is an endothermic machine that swallows up the 1 MW of heat. That is impossible, and even if there were, it would not work 24/7 as claimed.


    Note also that Rossi's data shows the reactor was working and producing a full 1 MW on days when Rossi himself said it was half turned off, or fully turned off. Eyewitnesses confirmed it was off. That is impossible. If you do not see that is fraud, nothing will convince you. Evidence does not get any more incontrovertible than this!


    A valid source would be an independent test by a nuclear expert agreed upon by both Rossi and IH.


    This does not take a nuclear expert. This is simple HVAC calorimetry. Anyone who so much as glances a the ceiling in that room can see there was no 1 MW reaction. Anyone who looks at Rossi's data can see it is fake.