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

Quote

I can't imagine anyone paying $89M for a "Penon says" validation.

You can be certain that IH will contest any positive assertions from Penon in court. Vigorously contest with appropriate experts and demands for further evidence and tests. Penon has obvious conflicts of interest and highly questionable integrity and competence so getting the judge to require more information should be easy.

Quote from Alan Smith

The rust never leaves the 'wet phase' of the boiler. Those pumps pump water, not steam. A dry boiler is a dead boiler.

My first thought: right. Unless there is a return loop somewhere, the rust would accumulate in the boiler. The water in the pumps, coming ostensibly from the condenser and the return to the Plant, would be clear, purified.

So this could indicate that water is being recirculated without going through the customer loop. I.e., there is a return somewhere, which then indicates that not all the pumped water is boiled, there is another exit for water than through the steam outlet.

If that is possible, there is no clean information about COP from flow rate, even if the steam were dry. Wet steam will carry some dissolved solids.

My second thought: the rust could come from steam contact with steel in the customer side condenser. The problem with this is that it would not accumulate. That water is pure as it enters the customer condenser, and should keep it clean.

Quote from Engineer48

Guys,
IH item 5 talks about 5 example images A - E that are not shown in Abd's downloaded PDF of item 5.
Anyone know if they can they be obtained as they should be VERY interesting images.

They are not included in Exhibit 5, which I have mentioned. You can check with the Googledrive version. To see them, ask Industrial Heat. Nicely. And they might not respond.

Penon would have a copy, I assume, and probably Rossi. My opinion is that any of these could release those photos but do remember that I'm not a lawyer!

Quote

At the moment the case pivots on the ERV report, unless it is SUCESSFULLY challenged. The outcome of any 'potential' challenge will be a matter of opinion, particularly the opinion of the Jury. The Jury will react (IMHO) to such challenges in a similar manner to the way we on this forum react to Abd's monologues, with suspicion, boredom and disagreement, even though on occasions Abd makes very valid points.

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. The court will want to know if the ecats work, and if IH got what Rossi promised overall. Little will depend on the specific consideration of Penon's report. Neither IH nor the courts are that stupid or narrow. And Jones Day will not let such a thing happen. Since Penon's report is nothing but fraud (the claimed effect is way too large and way too "perfect" to be an error), then not only will Rossi crash and burn but he may be subjecting himself to a counterclaim against the original $11.5M, legal fees, and even, perhaps, criminal charges which would also include Penon and perhaps others.

It would be simply shocking if the court only considered the obviously flawed contract and if it took the obviously phony Penon report as fact. It is exceedingly doubtful that such a thing will happen although courts are unpredictable and some have done equally dumb things.

About the rust briefly: All of Rossi's contraptions have been awkward and most have been rusty. The original ecats look like fugitives from a surplus toilet pipe store. Any rust in the so-called plant probably occurred because Rossi was too negligent and sloppy to bother with filters and preventive measures and because he used the cheapest materials he could get.

As a joke. I once posted (on ecatnews.com IIRC) an image of the neat, orderly and shiny APU from an Osprey aircraft at an airshow and claimed it was a secret photo of Rossi's plant. It was hilarious that some believed it. But in fact, that is what a real fusion reactor should look like -- stainless steel, titanium and perhaps teflon and ceramics. Not rusty old iron or plain steel junk like Rossi likes to use.

Quote from frankwtu

At the moment the case pivots on the ERV report, unless it is SUCESSFULLY challenged. The outcome of any 'potential' challenge will be a matter of opinion, particularly the opinion of the Jury. The Jury will react (IMHO) to such challenges in a similar manner to the way we on this forum react to Abd's monologues, with suspicion, boredom and disagreement, even though on occasions Abd makes very valid points.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

There is an attorney reading most of what I write, and telling me my understanding is comprehensive. However, YMMV. Maybe he's being nice, though he is quite blunt when he doesn't like something I say.

I have listed the stages of defense. The primary defense is that there was no Guaranteed Performance Test as described in the Agreement (and/or Second Amendment), therefore no ERV, therefore no ERV report. There is a report of Penon of the performance of the Doral plant. That Rossi and/or Penon claimed he was an ERV does not make him one, and this is clear, so far: Rossi has alleged nothing that would create a GPT. Explicit written agreement was required, which could be bypassed by estoppel, but estoppel must be specifically pleaded, and it hasn't been, and the evidence would need to be clear such that it could substitute for a written agreement.

IF the GPT did not take place, there is no Rossi case, it entirely falls apart. This is clear and simple and easy to present to a jury if necessary, but it might not reach that stage.

And then there are other layers of defense, plus, of course, the counterclaims.

Quote from Mary Yugo

You can be certain that IH will contest any positive assertions from Penon in court. Vigorously contest with appropriate experts and demands for further evidence and tests. Penon has obvious conflicts of interest and highly questionable integrity and competence so getting the judge to require more information should be easy.

There is a misconception of the court process here, a bit surprising for Mary Yugo, perhaps. The judge is not going to "require more information" based on some conception of what needs to be shown. If there is a subpoena to be issued, and if this is contested, that goes to the magistrate, if I'm correct, who will decide on legal grounds. The probity of the ERV and his report would be an issue for a jury, not the judge. It is up to the attorneys to put enough information in front of the jury to allow them to make a decision.

If this case gets that far, which I think fairly unlikely. My lawyer friend referred to my ideas about Summary Judgment as "jailhouse lawyer." Hmmphh! But he also says that I do understand this case well. I've done some reading on Summary Judgement. Meh.

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.

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.