Posts by Alan Fletcher

Back to the court case. *I am NOT a lawyer! *

It is currently in the evidence-gathering/disclosure/deposition stage. Rossi is required to give IH everything they ask for (Since there have been no recent filings, I presume Rossi has delivered on this) , but he is not required to file anything with the court.

Next up, one of the parties (most likely IH) may file for Summary Judgement : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment#United_States

They could file just against Rossi's Claim 1 ($93M), OR for their counter-claim, or both. To do this the moving party has a "heavy burden" and must prove there is no "no genuine issue of material fact", interpreted in the most favorable way to the other party. They could:

a) Lay out their entire case in writing (Dangerous if they lose the summary judgement)

b) Just attack the weakest point (Was this the GPT? Was there excess heat?)

In either case the other party has only a "light burden" and need only produce "favourable facts and interpretations of law".

This is a court case, not an experiment.

As Mats said in a recent interview (*) , the data filed so far is the tip of the iceberg. Both Rossi and IH have filed close to the minimum required to keep the case alive, so it can reach the jury. Rossi is under no legal obligation (and would be unwise) to present any defense at this stage except to answer the counter-complaint "deny and demand strict proof thereof").

Rossi is correct in declining to answer any questions relating to the case.

I still don't understand why deep-insider Dewey is leaking/signalling information about the case, which may or may not be true, and may or may not be presented in the case.

* Mats recent article is from October, and so doesn't even take into account recent court filings.

And I accidentally came across this question by Paradignoia , also May 4, 2016

Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

Quote

What are the facts that DW has brought to the table? Just to summarize.

I only recall one item (unsubstantiated).

That the 1MW unit has two padlocks on it.

I may have missed some others.

Display More

Answer :

Quote

100.1C

Mat Lewan Meets Rossi in Sweden, Rossi Bidding on Factory For QuarkX Production

Quote

Thomas - the outlet temp was 100.1C for every day the test was running. Rossi forgot to adjust his cut and paste data for the days that he claims his system was down for maintenance or inspection. I'm telling you this is some kind of special machine.

A forum search of "dewey investor" is interesting.

He was certainly happy to let everyone think he was just an aggrieved investor (and friend of Darden). And yes, I do think it's important whether he is an investor, or a paid insider.

Here's Abd asking him a direct question Jun 7, 2016:

Industrial Heat Files Motion to Dismiss Rossi Lawsuit

Quote

Dewey, back up. Correct me if I'm wrong -- if you can, I fully understand that there are things you cannot disclose. You are an investor (in Cherokee Partners?) -- something like that. As such you may have some access to inside information. But you are not an officer of IH or of Cherokee and do not represent them, and may not know every detail.

and his answer :

Industrial Heat Files Motion to Dismiss Rossi Lawsuit

Quote

Abd - I hate to keep repeating this but I can only share so much detail at this stage of the legal battle with Rossi. First of all, Cherokee and IH are separate legal entities. Second, I'm a shareholder in IH, not Cherokee. Third, I've been involved in investing with Darden for over 16 years and know the man very well. He is an incredible visionary, a great leader and a cause-oriented investor. He puts everything that he has into solving big problems.

OK ... he didn't actually lie .... because Abd didn't ask the right question.

Here's THHuxley (or whoever) on May 4, 2016

Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

Quote

Well Dewey claims to be an investor and therefore privy to more info than us - but not an IH super-insider. And his very imperfectness, for me, is plausible. Take what he says with a pinch of salt as always, and ignore his speculation, as always. But while you can make a story for the facts he has brought to the table being lies the simplest case (usually true) is that they are more or less true.

.. but not an IH super-insider ..

Happy to let that slide by, too. He IS an IH super-insider.

The legal case may have no relation to whether the ecat works or does not work, or even whether Rossi lies or does not lie.

I knew an attorney who won a major infringement case for Intel by asking one question: "Is there any possibility that you may have seen the microcode".

I have long wondered why Weaver has leaked so much information (or hints of information)., compared to Rossi's "In pursue of precise directions from my Attorneys, I cannot comment on issues that will find due evidence in Court."

143 makes it clear he is not just an aggrieved investor, but a paid operator, and thus posts with the full authority and support of IH, Jones Day and Apco. Appendix B (IH/DRV contract) is a bit weak on non-disclosure, but section R indicates that company approval is required for "dissemination" of company information.

I still don't see the reason for all Weaver's FUD : the jury won't see it.

Edit: it's a bit ironic that with all IH's complaints about Rossi submitting un/incompletely-signed documents, Appendix B itself is not signed by IH.

143 Certainly connects a lot of dots.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@DNI

I personally think the agreement was poorly drafted. It was destined to end up in a lawsuit. The interests of Rossi and IH were not properly aligned.

Absolutely. I wouldn't have signed it for either IH or Rossi.

For example the Acceptance test gave IH the right to observe and discuss the test with the ERV. The Guaranteed Performance Test did not: as written, if it was the GPT then the ERV's sign-off is all that's needed for the $89M.

Quote from JedRothwell

Three consecutive days are impossible.

If the system had only the 24 metered pumps each of 2% "repeatability" and set to 36,500 kg/day then the array gives 0.4% variation or 36,500 +- 146 and is likely not to cross the 1,000 mark very often (if at all) in 365 days.

(The actual variation for a running pump is probably much smaller than the repeatability).

Quote from oldguy

Alan, where did that quote come from? Was it directed at Penon or Rossi. I understood that Penon sent measurement devices to the manufactures to be examined. Did he really get the devices or was he given devices by Rossior who ever that quote was directed to? I am thinking chain of evidence or was the quote to Rossi and he remove them to spoil the evidence chain.

My quotes were from Exhibit 5, Murray to Penon

Murray may have been there while the plant was running :

Quote

As reflected in the images shown in the last two exhibits, the system was altered after you and we left the location on February 16. The water level in the reservoir tank is clearly different as between (a) late in the afternoon of February 16, after you had instructed that the system be shut down, and (b) on the morning of February 17, when you continued to conduct your measurements and you collected your measurement equipment. See Exhibit D.

but didn't comment on the pipe splashing.

Since Jed has seen photos of the reservoir I presume he's seen the entire report and its Exhibit D.

[ The new software has a different quoting method .... I'm too lazy to edit the HTML ]

Jed said : You can confirm it from the photos of the reservoir. The reservoir is a large, heavy plastic container reinforced with metal.

I don't believe I have seen a photo of the reservoir in Doral ... only from the 1MW in Bologna. (Customer test, and photos with Darden).

Jed said : Yes, Murray and anyone else looking at the machine could see the pipe was half-empty and the water was splashing into an open tank.

Murray didn't say he saw the plant running. I think your sentence should read :

Yes, Murray and anyone else looking at the machine COULD HAVE SEEN WHETHER the pipe was half-empty and WHETHER the water was splashing into an open tank.

But many other IH people and customers have been at the site while it was in operation. None of them seemed to notice that. (Stellar!). And what about "Barry West" ... has he been deposed as a witness? Did he participate in taking the daily readings?

Also, back to Murray Exhibit 5 : https://drive.google.com/drive…ZV0oKQafY4bHhOZHlBZFZ4MG8 (IH filed the letter, but not the attachments).

Quote

3. The number of reactor units in operation varied substantially over time.

As discussed on February 16, 2016 while at the location, 21 of the 64 units in the 4 large reactors had clearly been disabled, leaving only 43 of those 64 units that may have been operational. Also, all 51 of the smaller units were disabled. See Exhibit C (examples).

Similarly, at the time you completed the MW1-USA electrical measurement chart on October 13, 2015, out of operation were all 51 of the smaller units, one of the large reactors (containing 16 units), and 17 of the 48 units in the remaining 3 large reactors. That means only 31 units were operational. In contrast, according to your February 2015 report, 111 units were operational at the beginning of the test.

Your reports do not account for these substantial variations. There is no explanation as to how the energy output at times increased or stayed constant during periods when a substantial number of the units were inoperable and/or the average power supply into the system was decreased. There is also no explanation as to how other variables, such as the flow rate, were not impacted in an expected manner by changes in the number of operating units.

Actually, looking at Oct 13 we can see that the input power almost doubled from Oct 1 when one Tiger was turned back on (clearly out of operation in September -- reduced flow and input power, higher COP). Did Murray mean September?

Quote from Malcolm Lear

Hi Alan, here is the update with the COP graph added.

However when adding the produced energy graphic it became obvious the produced energy was simply the effective flowed water multipled by 564.75. I'm obviously mistaken and made a big error somewhere (its getting late) so would be grateful for someone to look it over.

I guess that does relate directly to the steam produced, but wasn't expecting that method of calculation.

Thanks again!

Raising the water to boiling the water takes (for 7/31/15) 40kW. Boiling it takes 940kW and super-heating it to 103 takes only 3 kW (all for an hour).

Your calculation gives 134.6 COP, the complete value gives 143.5 (without de-rating the flow from 36,000 kg/day).
using the full calculator for boiling only gives COP 137.

Close enough for gummint work!

Interesting that the highest COP is consistently when it was running at "750kW"

Following up on a thread at ecat world:

Suppose we just heat the water from 76.8 to the reported 103 .. with ZERO steam quality (for 7/31/15).

I ran this through my steam calculator, set the quality to 0.0 and then raised the pressure until I reached the reported 103.0 temperature.

This requires a pressure of 1.127 and requires 41.31 kWh for one hour .. which still gives a COP of 7

http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc…&et1=76.8&ep2=1.127&er2=2

Raising it just to boiling point at 1 atmosphere (99.6C) needs 35.9kWh, with a COP of 6.2 .. which is just at the minimum required COP.

Quote from Malcolm Lear

The Excel version of the Final Report is now complete with all data. .....

Thanks for your work on this.

Minor request : the blank rows in the spreadsheet makes the charts look as if there were gaps in the eCat operation. I wonder if you could take them out and add a chart for COP.

(Yeah, yeah, garbage in garbage out but still interesting).

Quote from Paradigmnoia

September is fascinating, The COP makes a massive surge when that one Tiger goes dead.

That makes sense. Suppose 3 tigers are performing at 250 kW, but one drops to zero, still drawing input power of 5kW each: That will drag the COP down to 750/20 = 37.5. Take it off-line, COP has a massive surge to 750/15 = 50. (Numbers for illustration only)

Quote from THHuxleynew

Alan, it is always good to do calculations. Also good to recognise GIGO.

The only evidence of excess heat is the assumption of phase change. There is zero evidence here for phase change, even if you believe these figures.

IF the water flow is 36K kg/day AND the pressure is 1 atm (0 gauge) AND the steam temperature is 103 THEN there IS a 100% phase change AND some super-heating.

Quote from zeus46

Alan, are you sure?

The electricity bill suggests an average of 293 kWh/day were supplied, and on the slackest day in December, Penton reports 198kWh/day going into the shipping container.

The green line (FPL) dips below the red line (Penon) between the interval marked "Nov 2015" and "Dec 2015" ... so I guess I should have said "second half of Nov 2105". Penon's power for that period varies between 266 and 274, where FLP drops to 200.

But going back to July 2015, even if I set the input power to 400 kWh .. above FPL's maximum daily for the month, I still get a COP of over 50.

fwiw, here's my steam calculator for 7/31/15 (page 13), using the reduced water flow:

http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc…p0=1&et1=69.7&ep2=1&er2=2

Note that this calculation is normalized to 1 hour, so the daily electric input of 151kWh gives 6.291kW input.

This gives a COP of 143.5 vs Penon's 134.6 -- ISTR Penon reduced the water flow AND didn't take into account the tank temperature.

Setting the inlet to boiling (99.6) gives a COP of 136, essentially the same as Penon.

I'm not saying it's true, just that his numbers are consistent with his calculation.

129-01 : the second half of December shows that FPL delivered less power than Penon reported.