It is a signature trait of Rossi believers that they think that the burden of proof is on those who don't think Rossi's device works.
Absolutely no.
There is quite a long list of test done by other people. Even in this trial Rossi was running the reactor wile Penon was taking his own measures with his own test equipment.
Your is pure FUD and disinformation.
It is a signature trait of Rossi believers that they think that the burden of proof is on those who don't think Rossi's device works. Sorry, but something that makes no technical sense, violates known laws of science, has been the subject of endless lies, flip-flops, and forgotten promises . . .
Amen. What is even more infuriating is that if the device actually work, with proper instruments and techniques you could prove that in an hour, using just one reactor cell from the 1 MW reactor. Tests with textbook ASME techniques and instruments would instantly convince hundreds of thousands of professional engineers, and many scientists as well.
I am sure such tests would have convinced I.H. Given such tests plus IP transfer, I.H. would have paid the $89 million immediately, without a 1-year test. Rossi was the one who insisted on the test. The people at I.H. told me they didn't want a long-term test, and they would be happy to pay without it. Given the potential value of the invention, if it is real, I am sure they would be happy to pay. From the business point of view it would be crazy not to pay.
IH accused Rossi of being the cause of the test delay and this delay is one of the excuses they use for not having paid for it. Moreover IH often says that Rossi wanted to test at Doral to be far from their eyes, while he found an alternative seat just to start the test, since IH took time.
Not sure about that. Do you have a reference? I seem to recall that they did set up the six cylinder device (the one required by the agreement ) and started testing but Rossi could not transfer to IH for the technology to work in NC. The work in FL was after that and not part of the GPT.
I am still uncertain that Penon even officially (like with a sworn deposition or a signed copy) said yes that is my report and these are the results. And the data the report that we do have had its data destroyed. It will be interesting if Penon does show for the trial to testify and verify the report is actually his.
If Penon does come to court to testify, the one question I would ask him (if I could) would be: How did you measure the flow of the heated fluid, that is the steam, out of the Six Cylinder device as was specified in the agreement terms?
Notice that he was required to measure the flow of the heated fluid out of the device not the flow into it or the flow of the fluid after it was chilled by the "customer". He was to measure the flow of the heated steam out of the device.
Rossc and Rossele continue the posting swarm pattern. Are they related?
Oldguy nails it! There is no way that Penon or Rossi can answer the hot fluid side requirement truthfully (not that that has ever mattered to the R'meister). Perhaps the R'ster is going to try a new instantiation of his patented heat exchanger mirage trick lie trick.
QuoteIt will be IH that will have to prove that it has never worked, if that's what they believe.
What interested observer and Jed Rothwell said. How could anyone prove it *never* worked? Best you can do is to demonstrate that Rossi's explanation is absurd and it is extremely unlikely to work. But all IH has to do is to say that * they * never saw it work. And that they were unable to make it work despite diligence in trying. It is then up to Rossi to prove them wrong if he can. The most straightforward way is to demonstrate that it does work as Rossi claims. Lots of luck with that! I suppose Rossi may try to rely on the reports he and his motley crew of misfits and liars manufactured for cheating IH but again, lots of luck with that!
"It will be IH that will have to prove"
NO, In the USA it is the plaintiff that must prove the defendant guilty. The defendant doesn't not have to prove his innocence.
BTW - how do you feel about Rossi essentially not having an expert to support his "story" for the trial?
Less concerned about Rossi's expert than IH using LENR know-nothings (and possibly LENR-hostiles) as their experts. Does IH even still hold itself out as a LENR-friendly company?
For example, they think that any temperature over 100 deg C means there must be steam, and any steam leaking out of the pipe means there must be steam inside the pipe. They never learned that water can be pressurized to prevent boiling. This is taught in third grade. Rossi's lawyers never learned this either.
Murray testified that it would be steam at 0 bar, no matter how you define 0 bar.
IHFB - so you think this trial is going to be about determining whether LENR works or not?
Notice that he was required to measure the flow of the heated fluid out of the device not the flow into it or the flow of the fluid after it was chilled by the "customer". He was to measure the flow of the heated steam out of the device.
You seem to be reading the word "directly" into the language. Such a term is not in the contractual language. One can measure the flow of the heated fluid out of the device by measuring the intake of water into the device, the temperature of the steam out of the device, and the pressure.
Less concerned about Rossi's expert than IH using LENR know-nothings (and possibly LENR-hostiles) as their experts.
I bet our experts, can beat up your expert. 
IHFB - so you think this trial is going to be about determining whether LENR works or not?
It might play a role. At least the head judge seems to think so.
And it is really all I care about. Rest well. me356 MFMP verification begins now.
I doubt that the jury will have Penon's testimony - likely only his deposition. My guess is that Penon will not testify at the trial.
Old guy,
If he testifies, then he must be prepared to be cross examined, and I don't think he wants any part of that.
You seem to be reading the word "directly" into the language. Such a term is not in the contractual language. One can measure the flow of the heated fluid out of the device by measuring the intake of water into the device, the temperature of the steam out of the device, and the pressure.
The agreement says the heated fluid... You are forcing a reading of "indirectly" into the agreement. The agreement was mostly penned by Rossi so under contract law, if there is ambiguity, the non- primary writer of the contract's interpretation cannot be denied since it is assumed that the primary writer wrote it to their advantage and would have specified any alternative views.
It says the ERV shall measure the flow of the heat fluid out of the device. .
Measuring the fluid from the customer's side may or may not be the same as what flows out of the system. Unless you can examine (which was not permitted) the entire flow system then it is just a big assumption that that the outlet and inlet are the same.
This is especially true since the pressure sensor read consistently less than the barometric pressure of the Miami area.
For example, how could it be proven that the customer did not introduce some other fluid into the system near the time of the daily data acquisition and then changed during back during other times. Not likely, but you cannot rule such things out with only measuring the flow into the system and not the flow out of the system. Also, you assumption of measuring flow into the system would not be valid if their where alternative plumbing pathways that bypassed some of the flow and redirected to some other path that would allow only a fraction of the fluid to go past the heat/pressure sensors. (that is you only heated a fraction of the fluid flowing. Again, since Rossi destroyed parts of the plumbing just measuring input would not be sufficient. That is likely why the ERV was required to measure the heated fluid out of the system.
Your interpretation may be right IF and only IF the system was a closed loop. This is not in evidence and such assumption cannot be now proven since Rossi destroyed part of the flow system.
I would assume that Rossi's lawyers also would worry about Penon getting on the stand to testify.
It is quite wonderful how folks like ele argue that there is "quite a long list" of people who have corroborated Rossi's work. People like Penon and Levi. Giants in the world of science with tremendous reputations. Well, no. Buddies of Rossi's who do his bidding. But that is quite good enough for the faithful, I suppose.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the determined Rossi believers will go to their graves positive that the e-cat is real regardless of what ever happens.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the determined Rossi believers will go to their graves positive that the e-cat is real regardless of what ever happens.
The loyal Rossi followers will keep believing Rossi, regardless how many times Rossi has deceived them before.
For example, from Rossi's sworn depositions it is obvious that there was no "industrial customer", that there is no "new partner" and no ongoing production of 1MW plants.
Here just a couple of contrary statements Rossi wrote on JONP in reply to his loyal fans:
QuoteDisplay MoreAndrea Rossi, February 14th, 2015 at 8:08 AM
Joya del Sol:
It is not true that several years ago we were testing a 1 MW plant in the premises of an industrial Customer. I never said that.
We are doing it now. The future will depend on the final results of the tests on course. The results could be positive, as we hope, but also negative, as I have to say. This plant is the first commercial plant in operation in the world making thermal energy necessary to an industrial manufacturing concern, inside the premises of the Customer. This plant’s efficiency is not just measured on the base of scientific calculations, as happened up to now, but mainly on the base of the energy costs related to the manufacturing system of the Customer: what counts for the Customer are not the scientific calculations, but the money he makes ( or loses) using the E-Cat instead of a regular plant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi
October 5th, 2015 at 7:01 PM
Gunnar Lindberg:
The Customer was not previously using electricity: he switched to electricity when we proposed him the E-Cat explaining that with the E-Cat his thermal energy was going to cost less, increasing his profits. Your question was clear and well formulated, probably my answer was incomplete.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi, April 14, 2016 at 1:44 PM
Bernie Koppenhofer:
You are too intelligent not to understand that a company cannot be happy of all the blogosphere hurricane around this issue. Our Customer spoke his satisfaction with facts, not words: he ordered 3 units like the one he tested during this year with a company set up specifically for this purpose.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Renzo, April 15, 2016 at 2:39 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi
What’s you estimation of the time it will take for building, shipping and installing the 3 plants at the customer’s facilities? Is it doable before the end of the year or much sooner?
my regards
Renzo
Andrea Rossi, April 15, 2016 at 6:37 AM
Renzo:
I foresee 180 working days.
Warm Regards,
A.R,
Frank Acland, April 25, 2016 at 4:16 PM
Dear Andrea,
What can you tell us about the status of the Leonardo Corp’s E-Cat production facility?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Andrea Rossi, April 25, 2016 at 6:03 PM
Frank Acland:
In this period I am working on three threads:
1- the R&D upon the QuarkX, that is continuing to be very promising
2- the preparation of the massive production facility.
3- the manufacturing of the plants that have been ordered
For all these items I will give information only when they will be operative and all the problems still in front of us will have been resolved.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bernie Koppenhofer, June 17, 2016 at 8:26 AM
Dr. Rossi: Can you bring us up to date on the number of 50 COP E-Cats from the year long test you have sold.
Thanks.
Andrea Rossi, June 17, 2016 at 8:47 AM
Bernie Koppenhofer:
Several units like the ones used during the 1 year long test have been ordered.
Warm Regards,
A.R
Frank Acland, July 23, 2016 at 1:04 PM
Dear Andrea,
Can you give us an update on the status of your work on the different versions of the E-Cat.
a) How is work going with the 1MW E-Cat plants?
b) Do you have multiple customers with orders in for the 1MW E-Cat plants (low temperature)?
c) How is work going with the QuarkX?
d) Is the QuarkX mature enough to be incorporated into industrial plants?
e) Do you have any customers with orders in for QuarkX plants?
f) What is the status of having a factory or factories ready to produce your products?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Andrea Rossi, July 23, 2016 at 3:27 PM
Frank Acland:
a) Well
b) Yes
c) still very promising
d) not yet
e) pre orders
f) in the USA we are producing industrial; in Sweden we are preparing the factory
Warm Regards
A.R.
Frank Acland, August 1, 2016 at 6:50 PM
Dear Andrea,
You say that ‘production has started’ on the 1 MW E-Cat Plants. Congratulations! Some questions if you don’t mind.
1. These are low-temperature E-Cat plants?
2. The design has been finalized for these plants?
3. How many plants are currently ordered?
4. Can you build more than one at a time?
5. When do you expect the first of these plants will be completed?
6. When do you expect the frist of these plants will be installed?
7. How many workers are involved in building these plants?
8. Are you personally involved in production process, or have you delegated this task to others?
Thank you,
Frank Acland
Andrea Rossi, August 1, 2016 at 7:42 PM
Frank Acland:
1- yes, so far
2- not exclusively
3- confidential
4- yes
5- I prefer to reserve the answer
6- I will give information of it when it will be working
7- enough
8- I am personally involved
Warm Regards
I would like to remind members that this thread is intended for discussion of the trial and the events leading up to it. Discussions of 'faith and belief' are not directly related to the thread topic, and may in future be moved to the Playground thread. Or you could save the mods trouble by posting them there in the first place.
