Industrial Heat's James A. Bass: President of Reactance Engineering Inc and Engineer for JM Products

  • Abd wrote:

    It is remarkable that both extreme skeptics and critics, and "believers" in Rossi, think the Agreement was terrible. However, what I see is that IH had adequate protection, they could easily lose $11.5 million, but not the $89 million. They accepted that first risk, it was worth risking that in order to "crush the tests." So what about the other side? What about, for example, the restriction on Rossi disclosing IP, but not on IH?


    It was terible in the sense that it gave all parties perverse motivation. I'm not saying it was not in Rossi's interest (it was, if he could get away with it, as it seems he felt he could) nor that IH was foolish to sign it if they had to do so. But IH would have been in a much stronger position having a contract that aligned Rossi's interests with theirs more clearly, and that is the norm for such VC contracts.


    Quote

    I do know that at least one quite intelligent person, who knew Rossi personally, was devastated to see the Rossi email to Darden about Industrial Heat. Rossi can obviously be very engaging and likable. And then something else is going on. There are hidden dimensions.


    I believe you. But in Rossi's case his blatently bad testing protocols were clear from the start, and became more obvious. They were pointed out. The hidden dimension is how some otherwise sensible people can overlook this when presented with a no doubt charming inventor.


    I don't think this is a typical reaction to Rossi. Plenty of people were not so convinced. But Rossi was careful to control access to those whom he could convince, and for these people he was very good at PR.

  • We were told that Jim Bass does not exist. Has that certitude been rescinded?


    What about JMP...any change in status as non existent?


    Shane, perhaps Axil was referring to:


    They will crush Rossi, Penon, Johnson and even the imaginary Mr. James A. Bass.

    James A. Bass does not exist. I.H. looked for him, and found there is no such person.

    Regarding Mr. Bass, they made a strong effort to find him. He doesn't exist

    Looking for someone named "Bass" is silly. It was a fake name on the business card. If it was his real name and his real occupation, they could have found him easily enough.


    Or... If you prefer the incoherent rantings of a loon:


    James Bass is Domenico Fioravanti.

  • This JMP thing is critical to the case. Rossi and Johnson have stated that JMP was a front for a UK company. IH states very clearly they were not. Rossi/Johnson claim they, nor anyone affiliated with them, was a part of JMP. IH claims they were.


    Watching this case unfold, I see a lot of misunderstanding of what we have. These misunderstandings may not be 'wrong,' but are not founded in what is clearly known.


    There are two kinds of evidence available to us in the case documents. There are pleadings. What is in pleadings are assertions. They might be wrong. They do not have to be proven, and they are not admissible as testimony. So, for example, IH for a time asserted that James A. Bass was not a "real person," which means, with simple translation consistent with what they said about him, he was not as he was represented and perhaps that was not his real name. When they obtained more information, they changed that, and he has appeared in the case, through counsel. We have some evidence indicating that the name is real. (We do not actually know that! But it has become most likely. To understand how the name still might not be real, someone may appear if sued under a pseudonym, as that person, without revealing their real name. They might then be asked in discovery and would be under an obligation to respond truthfully -- or to object to the question. We would not see that question unless they objected. They might also require any responses to be confidential, protected.


    I don't know that Rossi has stated that JMP was a British company, and certainly not as admissible testimony. (Rossi has provided no admissible testimony that we have seen.) Now, the Exhibits in the case may become admissible testimony. I assume that all these documents are authentic, not "fake." That, however, does not make their contents conclusive. Did Rossi deceive Hydrofusion? We only know from the Exhibit, that he claimed to IH that he did. This would be controvertible if Rossi claims the email was fake, not from him. Down that road lies great danger.


    What we have on the ownership of JMP is a document that was submitted by Johnson to IH, apparently during the visit to North Carolina in 2014, about two years after the Agreement was signed. I concluded that this paper was included with the Agreement papers in Rossi's files and was accidentally included with them in showing Exhibit B. In that, Johnson refers to a British "entity" as owner.


    His British cousin? We don't know. IH, however, alleges that the ownership was in the list excluded by Johnson in that document. That is an allegation, presented as fact. They can do that, lawyers do that, it's normal in pleadings. It is correct that Rossi has not Answered on this and many other points. He still has time. Not much.


    What is happening is that these issues are the subject of Discovery, and we are seeing very little of that process. What little we saw, the other day, showed Rossi fishing for evidence, and, only a little asking for specific evidence relating to the specific allegations. To me, this is a sign that he doesn't have what he'd need, so his attorney is looking for something that might be used. He has a right to try. And IH has a right to refuse to answer overbroad questions, like "list all the investors in Cherokee Investment Partners." Rossi is trying to find some smoking gun, based on very weak speculation. Maybe there is an investor called Oil Industry Interest Group or something. Aha! I thought so!


    Consider the questions IH is asking of Rossi, Johnson, Fabiani, and Bass!


    This is the reality of a case like this. If someone thinks they can hide the truth, they may not have considered all the implications. Will they lie under oath? If so, they can convert something that might only have a financial impact, to something where they would see not only financial impact, but total ruin and imprisonment. It happens. People make that choice and ... people also go to jail. But most people won't lie under oath, if they have consulted experienced counsel. Ethical counsel will never advise them to lie, and if it does, it, itself, is subject to sanctions.


    The legal process is far from perfect, but it is much better than many of us, looking only at failures, think.


    The other kind of evidence available to us are the Exhibits. We may easily assume that these will be attested and become, then, admissible evidence of a kind. That is, they show what documents existed. We don't argue about the text of the Agreement, because we assume we have it. Nobody alleges that the Agreement is not what Rossi presented.


    Exhibit 5 is not proof of anything other than what it represents. It is, on the face, a series of questions asked by Murray of Penon. It is a later memorialization of questions Murray asked in February 2016, in person, over the two days of his visit. It includes some recitation of what was in preliminary reports from Penon. Not the "Report" which had not yet been presented. That is, what is presented could be from unedited and erroneous partial reports. Maybe Penon corrected errors, we don't know, and IH has not described the final Report, if I'm correct. Because the Final Report is the trigger for payment if Doral was a GPT, they don't want to easily allow that to come into evidence, this is simply basic sense. Rossi might present the Report as an Exhibit, but might need to request court permission (because of his obligation of confidentiality, often violated but still in place).


    Rothwell is, relatively speaking, an expert. I see the same evidence that Jed sees as "proving" that the test was fake. His conclusion is plausible, even likely, but not proven. However, the evidence might be strong enough to create a preponderance of the evidence if this goes to trial. Rothwell often presents plausible conclusions, from evidence he thinks probative, as "proven." It's a habit. There is a lost performative.


    Proven to whom? The simple answer: to Jed. Maybe to some others. Not for everyone, and, sometimes, not even for all those with knowledge.


    This is a thread about Bass. Jed's assumption is that because Jed would immediately have recognized "fake," then Bass would have recognized it, or Bass was incompetent.


    Incompetent at what? Bass has no history indicating likely expertise with heat flow, calorimetry, or chemical processing. Further, Rossi has a history of influencing people who, we can easily think, should have known better, to tolerate what, to us, would seem intolerable. The Lugano professors, believing their own calculations -- or Levi's calculations -- when the reactor in front of them was *obviously* not at 1400 C. Accepting the lack of a calibration at 900 W input on a pretext that was immediately recognizable as bogus, because someone told them the pretext and they did not challenge it. What would have happened if they had challenged it?


    Rossi created situations like this, did it many times. I think it fairly obvious how he did that, but it requires understanding how people, in the real world, think and make choices. I think I started writing about this in 2011.... it could be fun, perhaps, to go back over what I wrote back then. Most of it was private, on the CMNS list.


    Bass was incompetent to judge this, very possibly! So he didn't. And what was he told? I don't find it difficult to imagine what he was told that would then create what we have evidence about. That is an imagination, a speculation, not fact. I postpone judgment, and may postpone judgment on many questions until I die.

  • What I find, reviewing the history of cold fusion, is general failure of imagination. At any given point, a practically limitless range of possibilities exist. Much of learning is exploring these and restricting them. If we look at the reaction of scientists to the FP announcement and the early events, we see two kinds of scientists: those who considered "it" impossible -- which is a generically defective argument if there is no clear definition of what "it" is, and those who dreamed up ways in which LENR might occur.


    It is the opposite with me. I believe in cold fusion because I lack imagination. As Fleischmann put it, we are painfully conventional people. To dismiss cold fusion, you have to assume that the experimental method failed, hundreds of scientists made inexplicable elementary mistakes, the laws of thermodynamics and much else in physics and chemistry going back to 1800 is wrong, and calorimetry does not work. I don't buy any of that.


    I do not see any limitless range of possibilities here. There are only two: cold fusion is real, or everything in the textbooks going back to 1800 needs to be thrown out and rewritten.


    My clear definition of what "it" is is very simple. Massive excess heat far beyond the limits of chemistry with no chemical changes. Plus it is very likely helium is produced in amounts commensurate with fusion. That's all there is to it. I have no idea why it might occur. I am well aware of the theoretical reasons it should not, but in science, replicated experiments always overrule theory. No exceptions granted, ever. So theory does not count.


    Here, I proposed the possibility -- a possibility only, not a claimed fact -- that Bass did not participate knowingly in a fraud. The response is essentially that this is unimaginable.


    We did not say it is unimaginable. We said it is so unlikely, it is not worth considering, or taking seriously. Anything is imaginable. Some things are not only imaginable, but possible, in the sense that we can imagine a set of real events leading to them. As I said, it is imaginable the I will be elected president in a write in. You could make a comedy movie portraying that event. Someone on Internet suggests people should write in my name today. The idea goes viral. By Tuesday millions of voters who despise Clinton and Trump agree, and I win. It is physically possible, and in the age of the Internet it is at least plausible that such an event would occur. But it is so unlikely no one should bother seriously considering that it might happen.


    Instead of presenting this scenario, I'm going to ask those who seem convinced that Bass must be "guilty," to see if they can imagine it, suggesting that they do not focus on shooting it down!


    Of course I can imagine a convoluted set of circumstances in which Bass is innocent. I could do screen writing for comedy movies. But any "innocent" scenario is so far fetched it should be dismissed without consideration. Thinking up such scenarios is pointless, empty speculation about nothing. It is to


    . . . talk of dreams,
    Which are the children of an idle brain,
    Begot of nothing but vain fantasy,
    Which is as thin of substance as the air
    And more inconstant than the wind, who wooes
    Even now the frozen bosom of the north,
    And, being anger'd, puffs away from thence,
    Turning his face to the dew-dropping south.

  • Rothwell is, relatively speaking, an expert. I see the same evidence that Jed sees as "proving" that the test was fake.


    Everyone sees it. It is right there in Exhibit 5. It does not take an expert to conclude that if the assertions in that Exhibit are true, the test was fake.


    His conclusion is plausible, even likely, but not proven. However, the evidence might be strong enough to create a preponderance of the evidence if this goes to trial. Rothwell often presents plausible conclusions, from evidence he thinks probative, as "proven." It's a habit. There is a lost performative.


    Proven to whom? The simple answer: to Jed. Maybe to some others. Not for everyone, and, sometimes, not even for all those with knowledge.


    The only thing proven "to Jed" here is that Exhibit 5 actually does show Rossi's data. I did not conclude that based on any technical expertise or analysis of the data. Rossi himself reported some of this data to Lewan, including the most damning parts of it. I have other good reasons for thinking it real.


    Assuming it is real, you need only elementary physics and engineering to see that it proves Rossi is wrong. Or, are you suggesting that even assuming the assertions in Exhibit 5 are true, the heat might be real after all? Are you seriously making that case?!?


    Peter Gluck is convinced the Exhibit is a lie. The pipe could not have been half-full. Rossi never said the pressure is 0.0 bar. If Gluck is right and this is fake information then of course I am deceived. I am wrong. What cannot be argued -- and has not been argued, as far as I know -- is that Exhibit 5 is true in all particulars and yet Rossi's claim might be real.


    Perhaps Abd is making that argument. I would find that mind boggling.

  • What cannot be argued -- and has not been argued, as far as I know -- is that Exhibit 5 is true in all particulars and yet Rossi's claim might be real.


    Perhaps Abd is making that argument. I would find that mind boggling.


    Jed's understanding of ontology is poor. What does it mean that "Exhibit 5 is true in all particulars"? Exhibit 5 is a set of questions, which include some observations and some citation of a preliminary report. I assume that Murray actually asked those questions and actually observed what he reported. So Exhibit 5 would be "true" in all particulars.


    However, we may draw false conclusions from Exhibit 5. As an example, a preliminary report, described there, may contain errors, even gross ones. What Jed saw, through his report of what "came from Rossi," would have been preliminary report. Uncorrected, raw. So Jed saw the same data, and that data may have been in error, not carefully reviewed.


    We do not have any record of Penon responding to the questions. We then make assumptions from that. These are inferences, assumptions, and could easily be in error.


    What is "Rossi's claim"? If we look carefully at the lawsuit, his claim is that Penon reported satisfactory performance on the GPT. Did he? If so, his claim is true, i.e., real. Does that mean *actual performance"? No, and obviously not necessarily. By confusing all these things, we then can create explanatory stories that satisfy us, that confirm us in our outrage, especially. Because they confirm our feelings -- which, when activated, dominate -- we are far less skeptical of these stories than we would be if not activated.


    We can see it when pseudoskeptics do it. Can we see it when we do it?


    Yes, I am making a claim of possibility. Not probability. I make different claims about probability. Yes. Mind boggling. It's actually part of my training, to declare what may seem to be impossible, unreasonable, if there is some perceived value. In the training, this is routinely done, and ... usually what was truly seen as impossible does not happen, but something else happens, because the deadly "unreasonable" block was dropped. What actually happens would have been considered unreasonable. That was itself was not actually based on "reason" but on massive assumptions and expectations, difficult to confront in detail, so we simply set charges under all this, blow it up, and then observe the fallout. Life is far more interesting than most of us allow. (We don't blow up anything actually useful and necessary. The amygdala would not allow it.)

  • Funny how every time someone clearly exposes the blatanty biased and hilariously overconfident nonsense Jed or others have written in the past - such as James A. Bass being a "fake name" - the same people immediately band together to drown such post behind walls of redundant text.

  • Of course I can imagine a convoluted set of circumstances in which Bass is innocent.


    Great. You claim you can, but don't demonstrate it.


    But how about a relatively simple story, consistent with what we know about Rossi and what a former Engineering Director with no relevant expertise in the specific field might accept? I'm claiming that it's possible. However, if you are truly attached to it being impossible, you will not be able to do it. So this is a little experiment like I just ran with Shanahan.


    Come on! I think you can do it! It will simply require setting aside for a little while all the outrage about this asshole Rossi. It does not require any truth to Rossi claims, simply known behavior or what is possibly consistent with it and his demonstrated ability to string even some smart people along. It does not require a "stupid, incompetent" Bass, only that he not have sufficient knowledge to immediately see through the fraud. This scenario allows it all to be fraud. What's possible?

  • Quote

    While Rossi probably does not have what he claims, he may -as we all hope, have enough to change the world.


    Oh sure. Anything is, after all, possible? So you expect that a convicted Italian felon who created an environmental disaster as his chief life work, managed to get millions from DOD on the premise of a fake prototype and a pack of obvious lies (the dog ate my homework), then gave one after another deceptive and incorrect demo and experiment of the ecat, performed the classical bait and switch to the hot cat and the beyond absurd QuarkX, never got an independent test, etc. etc. etc. and now is being sued by a company which could become the largest firm in the world if Rossi told the truth--- and you still think, after all that, that he *might*be telling the truth? And that's not stupid? Truly, Shane, you're amazing. Your ineptness knows no bounds. How do you manage to get dressed in the morning?

  • Quote

    Accepting the lack of a calibration at 900 W input on a pretext that was immediately recognizable as bogus, because someone told them the pretext and they did not challenge it. What would have happened if they had challenged it?


    You're right for once. But you don't consider this STUPIDITY on the part of the Swedish scientists and Lewan and Levi (assuming Levi didn't know about the con)?

  • IH said at first that Bass did not exist, but surely they did not mean he was a figment of the imagination as they also noted they physically met Bass. So we can chalk this one up to poor wording on IH's part.


    Was IH's description of James Bass as a John Doe in its reply poor wording on its part? Possibly. It might have been that IH were mistakenly convinced at the time that Bass was a fictitious persona. (And Abd makes the case that the name might still be an alias.) But with more information now available I also wonder whether the description was partly legal strategy/flair: wrong-foot the plaintiffs by using a label that will make them look very bad if the label turns out to be true, giving them an incentive to correct the description and provide enough information for IH to serve Bass process.


    In either case, IH will have proceeded with the knowledge that they could amend their allegations once more information came to light.

  • In either case, IH will have proceeded with the knowledge that they could amend their allegations once more information came to light.


    As well, an allegation that turns out to be baseless may simply not be pursued at trial. Some seem to think that whatever is in the pleadings must be true or a lie. No, it can be speculation, in fact. It can be based on "information and belief." Consider the tax allegations. They were based on rumor, apparently, though from someone who might be expected to know. So? They sure made Annesser go ballistic, probably based on Rossi's reaction.
    It would be an error to make a Claim that one knows has no substance, but the substance need not necessarily be strong, proof. Rossi has no proof alleged that IH never intended to pay him, it is really only a suspicion, but that is the core of his fraud claim. The weakness of that, itself, was not considered sufficient to allow dismissal, because maybe Rossi could find a wabbit in discovery.


    As to "John Doe," that is standard practice when the identity of a defendant is not certain, where there might be some reasonable doubt.

  • THHuxley,


    "I wonder however if you have looked in the precise details of all the early tests. The most celebrated ones have subtle error mechanisms which exactly explain the results. Rossi's ingenuity in putting together such tests, whether deliberate or self-deceptive, is quite unusual."


    Back in the day I reviewed them in detail. Some people correctly pointed out non-trivial flaws in some of the tests. But overall, my opinion was and is that the majority of the tests likely produced high levels of excess heat, even if they were often sloppy. It is easy to point out remotely plausible ways in which a test could be fatally flawed. I read many people state that these possibilities were far more likely than the "impossible unlikeliness" of him producing excess heat via LENR. In my opinion, his tests deserved scrutiny due to them not being nearly as precise and well designed as possible, but the level of extreme skepticism thrown at him was undeserved. In one test a certain virulent naysayer claimed that all of the input power before the official test was started HAD to be included in the efficiency calculation. This was totally and insanely ridiculous, because during that time period (before start up) cooling water was flowing through the reactor ACTIVELY REMOVING HEAT! This hostile cynics accusation was illogical and without merit. Instead, the cynic should have tried to figure out how much heat the flowing water removed from the reactor before the official test began, how much heat was radiated away via black body radiation, and so fourth instead of INSISTING it all be included. I saw multiple examples of cynics trying to throw out entire tests as being hoaxes for issues that were not nearly that severe.


    "Even that does not preclude him working with something real, if you reckon you have strong evidence from elsewhere that he inherited world-beating new technology from Focardi. But it means you cannot view the whole sequence of Rossi tests as an indication of positive technology. We could go over the different clear errors if you like. They have fooled many people (including Jed) - in the sense that at a demo they did not believe there could be a mundane solution when in fact there was."


    I see multiple layers of foundation that the E-Cat is built upon. First, there is the fact that during absorption metals can trap hydrogen in a number of different ways -- including in bubbles, defects, voids, etc -- that when thermally shocked produces ultra high pressures that induce nuclear reactions. This evidence exists before Focardi and Piantelli ever performed their initial tests. Then, Focardi and Piantelli performed long series of tests producing not only excess heat but gamma emissions, neutrons, and transmutations. By that time Rossi came along and performed an in depth analysis of the literature around hydrogen absorption in metals. Although his systems were IMPROVED UPON and CHANGED OVER TIME, I think these were his earliest findings:


    1) To load an adequate amount of hydrogen into nickel, you must first vacuum it extensively to remove trapped gases.
    2) To then maximize hydrogen absorption, utilizing a mixture of reverse spillover catalysts helps accelerate the disassociation of molecular hydrogen to atomic hydrogen. The use of copper and probably palladium powder bypassed the disassociation phase which is the RATE LIMITING STEP in hydrogen absorption.
    3) Multiple cycles of absorption and desorption helped produce a multitude of bubbles inside of the nickel. This could be referred to as letting the nickel, "breathe."
    4) To trigger excess heat, along with rapidly increasing the temperature, varying the pressure of the reactor environment further stimulated reactions. His earliest patent applications describe this.


    All of the above allowed him to produce very high COPs with Focardi in his earliest tests utilizing the crudest of nickel powders and hydrogen from tanks. Later on, he learned additional enhancement methods such as the use of lithium, the use of high surface area nickel powders created by the mond process (carbonyl nickel powder), the refinement of electromagnetic stimulation, the production of atomic hydrogen (although short lived due to rapid recombination to the molecular form) by LiAlH4, etc.


    I'm convinced Rossi has had and continues to have a real, working technology. I'm not saying every test was well done (many were sloppy in a number of different ways) but the sum of the evidence very strongly convinces me that he has the number one LENR technology on the planet -- at least that has been publicly disclosed.


    "You are right. His behaviour in the one year test does not make sense if he has working technology. Nor does the whole one year test contract, which is clearly dysfunctional. I wonder whetehr you think IH insisted on this strange contract? It seems most unlikley to me, the large up-front payment is not what any VC would want to see because it prevents the inventor from having any inducement to help with the technology development."


    NOTHING sounds right to me or makes sense about the contract between IH and Rossi. If I had been EITHER party, it would have been totally unacceptable. From Rossi's point of view, it would have given away far too many "rights" to Industrial Heat while restricting the rights of Leonardo Corporation. From IHs point of view, I don't understand why in the world they let him take the plant to Florida without verifying at least some of his alleged claims (about real manufacturing going to take place and the Johnson Matthey connection). I could go on a LONG time why I think the contract was VERY BAD for both parties. To me, it is all an enigma: Rossi is too possessive of his technology to throw away his rights and IH is too professional to let Andrea Rossi get away with so much.


    To be blunt, if I had been IH, I'd simply ask him to reproduce the 18 hour test witnessed by Dr. Levi in which a reactor seemed to self sustain for long periods of time.

  • mrSS
    To be blunt, if I had been IH, I'd simply ask him to reproduce the 18 hour test witnessed by Dr. Levi in which a reactor seemed to self sustain for long periods of time. ...


    I think if you check you will find that IH suggested and would have been happy with a smaller test. I think that you can even see in the agreement that they wanted something be put together in reasonable time (120 days), have a reasonable high COP (6) and proof of endurance. They did not suggest 1MW. it was Rossi that wanted the year long thing at 1MW. It was Rossi that wanted to "showboat".

  • Funny how every time someone clearly exposes the blatanty biased and hilariously overconfident nonsense Jed or others have written in the past - such as James A. Bass being a "fake name"


    There was nothing biased or overconfident about it. I was reporting what I.H. claimed in the lawsuit. There was confusion about what they meant by non-existent. It just meant they thought he was using a fake name. It turned out they were wrong, and that was the guy's name. So what? It took them a while to find him. Again, so what? That has nothing to do with me. I never heard of the guy before, and I do not know a thing about him.

  • Quote

    In one test a certain virulent naysayer claimed that all of the input power before the official test was started HAD to be included in the efficiency calculation. This was totally and insanely ridiculous, because during that time period (before start up) cooling water was flowing through the reactor ACTIVELY REMOVING HEAT! This hostile cynics accusation was illogical and without merit. Instead, the cynic should have tried to figure out how much heat the flowing water removed from the reactor before the official test began, how much heat was radiated away via black body radiation, and so fourth instead of INSISTING it all be included.


    If you mean the "samovar" test, a large very heavy unit, there was a clear mechanism which explained in detail the temperature readings. It involved separating an inner hot core from the cooled by water part. Further, as is typical for Rossi, the TC siting was bad which meant that there was no information about how much heat was removed by the cooling water.


    So it is not a matter of insisting that this heat be included, merely pointing out that it could reasonably be included and that if so it would explain the experimental results. Other things cohere in this explanation, which has quantitative and qualitative merit. Shall we go through it?


    As an external point, note that this one device with a large heavy internal core that can be heated is the one showing this long SSM, and that the SSM was not demonstrated until the device had been heating up for a long period.


    PS - I find that it does not help the understanding of the analysis here to be concerned about who says what. "Virulent naysayer" is liable to bias the listener just as "craven fawning believer" world.

  • Shane D,



    I don't believe that he "may" have something. I'm totally convinced he DOES have a very powerful LENR technology. The issue of what happened in Doral is separate from the reality of the E-Cat as a whole. I draw upon information that has been publicly posted and privately shared. And this information has guided me to the conclusion that although finicky, the E-Cat is indeed real. I'm actually not as irritated as I used to be about individuals doubting Rossi for ever having anything due to his shannigans during the Doral test. They are absolutely wrong, but I can understand why the situation looks shady on the surface and even less than pristine under the surface.


    When it comes to the manufacturing process, my guesses are as follows.


    1) The volume of finished product couldn't have been extremely high. My guess is the product manufactured could have been easily transported away in the trunk of someone's car on in the back of an SUV quickly and discretely on a daily basis with no one being the wiser. Unless IH had full time surveillance of the plant, they would have likely never witnessed removal of the product. Of course they may have had this; I don't know.


    2) The manufacturing process was probably very highly automated in a manner that would allow them to quickly and easily control all aspects of manufacture. I don't think there would have been excessive hub-bub. James A. Bass was probably given an instruction manual for the equipment and rarely had to perform significant manual labor. My guess is that he would make sure the feedstock and heat were both coming in and then he'd let the plant do its thing. Every so often, he'd package up the product and someone would drive it away in their ordinary vehicle.


    3) It's very possible only one or two stages of a much more complex process was taking place. Rossi could have chose very specific stages that were highly endothermic in nature. This would have minimized complexity.


    If I had to guess, JM Products Inc. probably had a contractual arrangement where they bought chemicals, processed them to a certain extent, and then sold them back. It was likely all very legitimate, in my opinion. What may not have been legitimate and potentially dishonest and misleading is the reporting of excess heat production. Although I'm pretty sure it took place, the level could output could have been much smaller than 1MW. My guess is that the reason was a multitude of malfunctioning reactors due to standard failures: clogs, corrosion, etc. On the other hand, I think he probably watched and monitored the remaining working reactors like a hawk! They were the reason he remained in the plant for many hours every single day for a year!

  • Quote from Shane D.: “IH said at first that Bass did not exist, but surely they did not mean he was a figment of the imagination as they also noted they physically met Bass. So we can chalk this one up to poor wording on IH's part.”
    I think I.H.…


    mrSS
    To be blunt, if I had been IH, I'd simply ask him to reproduce the 18 hour test witnessed by Dr. Levi in which a reactor seemed to self sustain for long periods of time. ...


    I think if you check you will find that IH suggested and would have been…


    I wish that IH would have gotten a hold of me before they ever started talking with Andrea Rossi.


    From the very start of this entire saga, Rossi has specifically stated (repeatedly on the JONP and in PRIVATE conversation) that his reactors (every last darn one of them) can self sustain WITHOUT INPUT for hours a time. This self sustaining operation with ZERO input (zilch, nada, nothing) is at the core of his technology. It's mentioned in his first patent application in Italy, his later patent applications in the USA, fluid heater, and elsewhere. He bragged about it everywhere!


    This would have been my recommendation to I.H.


    "Before you pay one red cent to Andrea Rossi, require him to show you a device operating in self sustaining mode for at least an hour, repeatedly over the course of many hours. If he fails to show you, then take your money elsewhere and cut off all communication with him until he is ready to show such a system."


    According to everything Andrea Rossi has told us, a few of his own tests, and third party tests, this should have been easily doable. Maybe not on the first attempt (a few of his tests have been failures due to mechanical issues) but at least within a week of effort.

  • Quote: “In one test a certain virulent naysayer claimed that all of the input power before the official test was started HAD to be included in the efficiency calculation. This was totally and insanely ridiculous, because during that time period (before…



    I
    honestly do not remember the "name" of the test or the date or where it
    was taking place. I could probably do a quick search and pull it up in
    minutes, but I don't feel like doing so. I'm dividing my time up between
    a few different topics these days, and I don't want to dwell too much
    on previous testing.


    The issue in this case was this individual
    who I called a naysayer (I'm not implying that person is you by the way
    or any other user on this forum) demanded that every bit of applied
    energy to the device be considered as magically "stored" when cooling
    water was running through it. I would obviously admit that some portion
    of the input energy could have been stored. But this individual, who I
    detest more than anyone else in the LENR community, didn't even try to
    calculate or guess what percentage was stored and what percentage was
    removed. He demanded all of it be included. In my opinion, the majority
    of it was obviously removed because the heat content of water is much
    higher than metal.


    My focus in the LENR field, right now, is
    trying to help researchers replicate the Rossi Effect. I'm not saying
    that I'm a huge help, but that's my goal. To do accomplish this, I'm
    trying to focus on the present instead of getting bogged down in
    discussion of previous experiments. If half of the time spent on
    discussing Lugano had been on improving the setups, methods, and
    practices of replicators, there would already be dozens more
    replications of the Rossi Effect, IMO.


    As I've said before,
    whether I'm deluding myself or not, I've came to the conclusion that
    reproducing the Rossi Effect isn't overly complex and is doable with a
    reasonable amount of effort. If we can achieve this and produce what
    "seems" like massive excess heat and self sustaining operation, then I
    will advise the replicators I'm in communication with to test the
    "formula" in ways that will rule out any chemical source of excess heat,
    massive measurement errors, etc.


    BTW, there's only a very, very
    few select skeptics that I have grown to despise. And that's because
    they are not even skeptics or pseudo-skeptics. They push obvious agendas
    and irritate people who both support Andrea Rossi's and who would like
    to see him locked up.