Posts by IH Fanboy

    So the expected is ~39.5 l/h at 0.5 bar back pressure, and observed is ~32.3 l/h at ~0.54 bar back pressure, which means that our prominent pump is operating at ~80% of expected (plus or minus a couple of percent). Did Alan S. send the adjustable back pressure valve over? Seems like that would be a good next thing to try, so that we test against the spec up to 2 bar.

    And btw, if ad hominem is not permitted, why is it that everything is allowed when it comes to Rossi? Or the people (italians and swedes usually) supporting him? Tell me? Why the different standards?

    I must agree with Siff on this point. It is open season here on Rossi--you can say pretty much anything and have it go unpunished, no matter how libelous it is, so long as it is directed squarely at Mr. Andreas Rossi.

    That "list" of provisionals (and some undefined) goes back to 2010, and if ANY of them was ever converted to a real non-provisional (US or EU), those non-provisional would be searchable as well as the provisional reference.

    Not if Rossi elected "non-publication" on his non-provisionals, which based on his granted patent, it would seem that is what he favors. You will never have access to any information from the USPTO unless the patent is eventually granted. Nothing. No non-provisional application numbers. No inventor information. No titles. Nothing.

    Any "do not publish" requests do not make the application number, inventor, and other data "invisible" in the USPTO database. Also, he could not file a given patent application in other countries with a "do not publish" status (what's the wizard's grand plan on that, not very smart it would seem).

    As to your first point, if the application has not published, there is absolutely no way to find out the application number, inventor, or any other data from the USPTO database, unless you are the inventor, the applicant, or the inventor/applicant's attorney.

    As to your second point, even the largest and most successful companies are highly selective when it comes to filing a PCT application and pursuing foreign patent protection on an invention. Such an effort can cost $100k or more when all is said and done, and that would only cover about half of the developed world at that cost. That Rossi has pursued foreign filing on a select few would be about what is expected for a startup, and indeed, more than what most startups would do.


    Also to your first point, to be more specific, any potential pre-grant damages would go back to the date the party was specifically made aware by some means from the applicant that there was a pending application.

    You ought not to try and deflect. What you said was flat out wrong. Best to say something like "I stand corrected" and move on. That approach is more classy and actually increases your cred. Yes, you must give actual notice to have a chance at recovering pre-grant damages. But the pre-grant damages do not ever date back to the filing date.


    I see no problem with LDM tying the deposition evidence, Mat's interview, E48's statements, etc., into a coherent post about the recirculator pump as it might relate to the prominent pumps. Even Dewey has said that there are emails between Rossi and Bass at the beginning discussing the recirculator pump. The purpose of this thread is to test the prominent, yes, but nothing happens in a vacuum (edit: except for a bunch of quantum weirdness). The discussion about what is on the public record relating to the pumps involved at Doral provide context to the tests that Alan F. is performing.

    Per your note above, if those were actually filed as non-provisional, any potential damages could possibly go all the way back to the filing date of the first provisional, and the patent, and related patents protected to that date.

    To be clear, that isn't per my note above. Any pre-grant damages don't go all the way back to the filing date. They only go back to the publishing date. But yes, they are somewhat "theoretical" as they are hard to get.


    If the "unknown" Rossi-applications were non-provisionals, they would be on record at the patent office and public record, even if abandoned. And the patent numbers would still be available even if "do not publish" status was requested (which would be stupid because this dis-allows submitting the application in other countries). So, either bad record-keeping or just more Rossiganda.

    Rossi's granted U.S. patent never published as an application, which means he requested the "do not publish" option. That he did it here means he probably has done it with other pending non-provisionals. There is also the possibility that secrecy orders have been slapped on one or more of his applications.

    Next Ethereum ICO: quatloos, with ticker QTS. The QTS token will be used as a decentralized application token redeemable for either e-Cat units of heat energy or IH-Cat units of heat energy: your pick. No expectation of profits in either Leonardo or IH is associated with the QTS token, and therefore, it doesn't run afoul of the Howey test, i.e., it isn't a security. And since it does not represent any ownership in either company, it doesn't represent equity either. So, it is compliant with U.S. law (and that of most developed nations). Expected ICO raise: $30 million of ETH. Ready?

    (This might seem like jumble bumble to some of you, but I'm sure at least Dewey gets it, and perhaps more of you than I think.)

    Rossi has nothing other than a single granted "Water-Heater" patent, all the hand-waving over the above provisionals, non-granted applications as "invaluable IP" are worth nothing until/when/if pursued and granted.

    While I agree with you that a series of provisionals for the same invention is a poor strategy, I disagree that pending patent applications are worth nothing. Most startups will not get funding until they have at least one patent pending. The rights haven't fully matured in a pending patent application, but there are some semblance of rights that exist, including the priority date that has been secured, and the possibility of pre-grant damages reaching as far back to the date the patent application publishes. You'll notice in the long list of patent applications provided in the court exhibit, many show the application number as "unknown." The unknown ones might be the non-provisionals.

    If we are to use Penon's report as more authoritative than Barry, then perhaps Barry misspoke, or the court reporter maybe messed up his sentence. It doesn't really make sense to be directing the condensate to both the internal and the external tanks, so Penon's schematic seems more believable than Barry's statement. Hence, I think we can probably rule out gravity providing a head of pressure to the BFs given that the internal tank is at the foot of the stack of BF units.

    The question remains whether a recirculator pump provides such inlet pressure. Dewey recently alluded to a round of emails between Rossi and Bass near the start of the test regarding the recirculator pump. Dewey suggested that the recirculator pump belongs in the same category as the heat exchanger. However, given that there are any emails at all discussing such a recirculator pump at the beginning (at least according to Dewey) suggests to me that it was a serious consideration, and probably put in place.

    This statement from Barry is confusing to me:

    "Everything came back into a smaller tank that was inside the unit, and the larger tank, which originally was going to be condensate return tank, and then we were going to pump the water back into the units."

    Looking at the photos re-posted by BL (thanks by the way), it looks to me like the external tank is situated higher than the internal tank, but the angle of the photographs makes it pretty hard to determine exactly how much higher. Barry suggested that the condensate water returns back into the smaller tank and the larger tank. But some here are guessing that the larger tank was only used to start the system up or to replace water that might have leaked. So which is it?

    As I'm sure you know there is no evidence for a phase change, and Rossi has a past history of claiming phase change when in fact none (or only 1%) of this exists.

    I'm sure you know that there is evidence for a phase change: the state inspector testified that there was steam leaking from one of the pipes.

    Okay, here is a hint from Barry:

    207-61, pp. 88-89

    A. Yeah, well, everything that came back as

    23 condensate needed a vessel to flow into, and that was

    24 done away with altogether. Everything came back into a

    25 smaller tank that was inside the unit, and the larger

    Page 89

    1 tank, which originally was going to be condensate

    2 return tank, and then we were going to pump the water

    3 back into the units. That ended up being -- we built a

    4 big stand a little taller than this table, really heavy

    5 duty stand out of wood to support that large tank full

    6 of water, which this thing held, I forget how many

    7 gallons, 55-gallon drums, it probably held 6, 800

    8 gallons or more, maybe a thousand gallons of water,

    9 which is substantially heavy. But it had to be up so

    10 gravity could allow it to flow into the system.

    11 So Dave Perry come down one time to check

    12 us out and then help with the design or that stand, if

    13 you will, and then we just attached a rubber hose into

    14 the water fill inside and allowed gravity to feed it.

    15 This was based on Andrea.

    So it sounds like the head of pressure to the pump inlets was due to gravity.


    The small blue arrows you have drawn in are wrong way around. The water for the Big Frankies comes from the internal reservoir sitting on the floor of the E-Cat plant.

    Yes, I stand corrected on that point. My inlet lines were going the wrong direction, which means my assumption about head pressure due to gravity is also incorrect. Corrected image embedded here. But I still think the flow shown in yellow is wrong, because it makes it look like the pumps are just re-circulating water, which is not what is happening (as can be seen by the upper most rack of pumps, which clearly shows the pumped water entering the BF box behind the pumps. So, we are back to the question of whether there was a head of pressure from the reservoir to the inlets of the pumps.

    Not sure who posted the original with the yellow lines added, but I think they are either mistaken or purposely misleading. In light of Alan F.'s findings so far, I decided to inspect this image more closely. I believe the correct flow is shown in blue. If right, this means that the pumps have at least inches in head inlet pressure and in some cases multiple feet.

    So based on this single data point (of course, more needed), our prominent pump is running at ~80% the flow rate that would be expected.

    Okay, now I might make a few people mad, but bear with me as it's a simple conjecture at this point: Using a correction factor of 1.2 (i.e., 80% of expected flow rate), then at a slight 4in. head inlet pressure, one might expect to see ~56+ l/h (47 * 1.2), which would be ~90% of what Penon measured.

    Rossi could file all those patents today. 20 years from now they expire, and the big dogs start carrying that technology forward without paying a dime in royalties. In fact, a lot of LENR patents have already expired.

    This is an instructive point for all LENR startups (and any startup for that matter): 20 years from filing is when the patent expires, so the clock starts ticking when the application is filed. Rossi has already been at this (publicly) for going on 7 years already. Once you file a patent, there needs to be an immediate push into the marketplace, otherwise you risk losing any advantage your IP investment might otherwise yield.

    Except we're now at 47+ l/h with a very small head pressure and back pressure. Add a little more head pressure, and my guess is Alan F. is going to see more. I care little about what the product manager says. What matters is what the pump does.

    Edit: I would, however, be quite interested to read what they put in their affidavit.

    Penon was in the Doral facility on Oct 12-14, 2015 and measured the flow of electrical current to 3 of the Big Frankies. He only measured 3 of the Big Frankies because, according to his deposition (207-10 page 193, lines 14-16) " ... they were working". About the existence of a functioning 4th Big Frankie he continues ... "I ignore how many other units were not working. It was not of my interest, so I didn't need it."

    So when Penon was there in October 2015 only 3 of the Big Frankie units was working. I think it was BF4 (the bottom of the Big Frankies standing in the rack in Doral) that was shut down. Judging from the entries in the daily log kept by Fabiani (beginning of 207-55), this unit was permanently shut down because of water leaks, on Aug 18 2015 and never restarted. And I think its pumps never rerouted to the other Big Frankies. Certainly in the photo below taken at the Doral plant one can see that the bottom Big Frankie is dry (the sight glass is empty) and its plumbing had been rearranged such that the output of the pumps could not enter any of the other BF units .

    Now we're talking. Thanks for backing up your assertions with some actual citations to evidence. That is a skill that is sorely lacking on this forum.

    Unfortunately, I think you have made some unwarranted assumptions, and I'd have to take issue with nearly every one of your conclusions.


    Judging from the entries in the daily log kept by Fabiani (beginning of 207-55), this unit was permanently shut down because of water leaks, on Aug 18 2015 and never restarted.

    I think you are making an unsupported assumption here. Google translate gave the following for Fabiani's note for Aug. 18, 2015: "Isolated reactive 4 power delivered to 750kWh / h (Short-circuit heating plates)." That is a far cry from "this unit was permanently shut down because of water leaks and never restarted." I have no idea how you get from one (Fabiani's language) to the other (your assumption). And the total measured flow actually increased from there going forward.


    Certainly in the photo below taken at the Doral plant one can see that the bottom Big Frankie is dry (the sight glass is empty) and its plumbing had been rearranged such that the output of the pumps could not enter any of the other BF units.

    Again, I'm not so sure such certainty is called for. If you look at the bottom row of pumps, they are all on. And it is hard to tell whether the sight glass is empty or has water in it--at best inconclusive. The tubes are all rusty indicating flow. I don't know what you mean by the plumbing is rearranged--maybe you could expound on that for me.


    About the existence of a functioning 4th Big Frankie he continues ... "I ignore how many other units were not working. It was not of my interest, so I didn't need it."

    I'll concede that is pretty good evidence that the 4th BF unit might not have been working on the day of Penon's visit. But even then we can't be certain. He doesn't outright say "the 4th BF unit was not working." It is a much less direct statement... like, I don't know, I just ignored whatever was not working and took the measurements that you see here.

    IH's attorney makes a leading question (that is objected to) of "So at the plant you do not recall there being four units of this type, only three?." Penon answers that he does not know. The IH rephrases his question: "There were three of these collections of E-Cats working?" Penon then begins to respond: "We verified the function of . . . " and then wouldn't you know, the deposition is cut off at that page (an unfortunate and frequent occurrence just as we were about to get some additional clarification). My guess is that he was going to confirm that he verified the measurement of three BF units, and did not have knowledge of the status (whether working or not) of any of the other units. So, there seems to be at least some uncertainty whether the fourth BF was working or not when Penon was there.

    Eric ,

    You should know me pretty well by now, and I you. I have little tolerance for fact-less assertions dolled up with pretended certainty. The pump FUD is but one example of many. Oldguy, for example, was completely put out by my suggestion that the pump rate might actually be significantly above 32 l/h under certain conditions, and suggested that I buy one and test it. I'm grateful that he poked me a little, because I basically told him okay maybe I will. I don't think he expected that answer. (Haven't heard much from oldguy lately.)

    Alan F. was already going down a similar track and we were able to join forces on finding some pump answers. At the end of the day, claims need to be tested. I'm not saying that Rossi's pumps actually pumped 72 l/h, as he told Mats. What I'm saying is that it now appears to be within the realm of possibility. And therefore, we are back to a position of uncertainty. And I'm quite comfortable in that place. Because I think that is exactly where the e-Cat's mysteries will remain until (and if) it hits the market.


    I think you are right. The 60 l/h figure I thought came from Rossi, but it looks like an approximation of what is needed to meet the 36,000 l/day value. That said, you ought to appreciate by now that going from ~47 l/h to ~62 l/h seems well within the realm of possibility now, and we'll probably see it soon. This was anathema, impossible, no-way, totally outside of specs, just a few short weeks ago.

    As for one of the Big Frankies allegedly being turned off while there being 36,000 l/day that same day, I've yet to see good evidence for this in terms of a direct time correlation. I'm not saying this didn't happen, I'm just saying that Jed has repeated this so often that I think people just believe it without doing any kind of diligence. I will also say this: Rossi often says things on this blog, and it is hard to draw firm conclusions as to the specific timing of those events. For example, he might say "one of the systems down," and you might assume he means at that moment, but that is not necessarily the case. He talks of robotized factories, and critics jump on that and howl that there are no such factories, even when if you look closely at Rossi's statements, it appears he is talking about a future time. And so forth.

    So with the slightest of head pressure, we are at 47+ l/h. Seems like Rossi's 60 l/h is just a short skip and a hop from here. I don't want to minimize all of your efforts Alan F. by highlighting this fact, but it does appear to be the case.

    Rossi will have to wait to go down in the annals with the likes of Bernie,, which indeed would have been the case if his bold attempt to extract another $89M by suing the folks that he'd already extracted $11M from had succeeded. Too bad he tucked his tail and ran like a scalded ECat when his bluff was called, people would have liked to have seen that proceed in court. But, NOW we are informed by the Brethren, that Rossi's grand ingenious plot all along was simply to get his Water Heater IP back, and be free to work on the QuackX. So now humanity must wait with bated breath for the opening of the QuackX Show, and to disconnect from the grid for a fraction of the energy prices they're paying now with a Quackx, made by the millions in invisible robotic factories, humming away in the closet, zero emissions and waste....while plasma-glowing fluorescent pigs and unicorns dart through the sky.

    Yep, you've convinced me. I guess it's time to pack up my marbles and go home. ;)