Saturday, May 14, 2016



Image result for bluff quotationsImage result for bluff quotations


More discussions around the truth of IH in their dispute with Rossi and logic

Unfortunately things did not calm down after my pacifist  message regarding the feline nature of the E-cat

a) Dewey Weaver wrote nicely :

"I think that Peter Gluck may have lost the ability to reason and discern between fact and fiction."

I consider this as highly offensive! Not for me, obviously but for the poor facts.
(Let's extend them with "factoids" to have a better insight. 
Dewey, the followings are FACTS or FICTION?

- IH has collaborated with Andrea Rossi and for 3 long years it was silent as a grave regarding the non-value of Rossi's technology?

- during this silent period IH made good business, got investors, tens of millions of dollars including in China - and NOT based on the technologies competitors of Rossi but on the E-Cats?

- IH has merrily applied  for a patent based on Rossi's unsubstantiable process?

- IH has used "stellar" for the 1MW plant to visitors (fact or fiction?)

- the ERV, now in disgrace at IH but paid by them has reported about the results after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months but the negative feedback came only after the start of the trial by Rossi?

- the employees of IH have made all the time parallel measurements regarding the functional parameters of the plant but ha not claimed that something is not OK? (again fact of fiction?);ve

- if IH knew that the test does not show even traces of excess heat, is useless and hopeless why they have NOT asked/told Rossi to stop? Isn't this an act of sadism toward a collaborator?

Dear Dewey- if you wish I accept having a two figures IQ xy not xyz as the smart people, but even so my IQ is offended,  as the facts are,  by your arguments
I sincerely prefer to translate a few Russian and Italian LENR papers than this dispute not generating a iota of excess of intelligence, with you. Let's see a solid condensed, convincing statement from IH- anticipating the opponent.. Official.

b) Jed Rothwell is also polite but firm

In his latest travesty of a blog, Peter Gluck wrote:
"However I think his anger has a deeper cause- he is wanting or being pushed somehow to defend IH's very unnatural, surprising and implausible position so he has to tell difficultly believable things- he also does not know much about IH's real position , arguments and justifications. Do you agree, Jed?"

No, this is completely wrong in every respect, as I have pointed out many times previously:No one is pushing me.

There is nothing unnatural, implausible or unbelievable about I.H.'s claim. Any person who understands calorimetry and examines the data will agree with their analysis. If Rossi and Penon seriously believe there is 50 times output they are both certified idiots (not just Penon).
As I said, several times, I have seen some of the technical data from the calorimetry. Based on that, I am sure I.H. is correct, and Rossi is wrong. I have also seen independent verification of this data from sources outside of I.H., so I am sure it is real.

I know enough about I.H.'s "real position" regarding calorimetry to judge this matter, although I look forward to learning more. I know nothing about business arrangements or contracts.

I know enough information to judge these things with confidence. You, on the other hand, know nothing about them. All you have to go on are Rossi's assertions from his blog. These range from nonsense to impossible. The information he already released in the lawsuit rules out his claims. If the reactor were producing as much heat as he claims, he and the others in the building would be cooked. They would be dead. In fact, it is not producing any excess heat. If and when I.H. becomes free to publish the technical data, everyone will see this, and you will see that Rossi has been playing you for a fool.

My answer

Perhaps it is better Jed is not discontented with IH and it is excellent (see the part marked with red) that he has sufficient data re the calorimetry to have the certainty that calorimetry shows that IH is correct and Rossi is wrong. However his opinion about the ERV is not believable; idiots are jobless or self-employed in the best case.:
The ERV is a nuclear engineer and his expertise is in evaluating the energy production of nuclear plants- what's so special and mysterious with this 1MW plant? It consumes some electric energy and produces thermal energy as steam. Both easily measurable. What is so esoteric, so instable, so vulnerable here?
My bet is that Jed trying to convince us that IH owns the Truth will share with us what he knows with certainty about calorimetry and tell us why the COP was all time less than 1. Not very technically, more in principle than in details,  but those who have performed energy-heat measurements and balances will understand. 
Or what he claims is a bluff, sorry. 
More at this Vortex thread:


1) Congress Is Suddenly Interested in Cold Fusion

2)  From Daniele Passerini
Are you looking for LENR? Then you are! (ITA/EN)

3) LENR IS REAL- a continuing discussion

4) Re The Satellite Cold Fusion Session at Leuwen- Jed Rothwell communicates:
The European Physical Society will hold a cold fusion session if 40 people sign up for it. So sign up if you are interested. The meeting will be on July 9 in Leuven, Belgium
We have already announced this interesting session (classic LENR plus Holmlid) but have not seen this "if"... What will happen?


  1. Jed Said:

    "No, as I told you several times, I pointed to the paper Penon published on the internet. In my opinion, it shows he is an idiot. You can read it yourself. Perhaps you will disagree."

    My issue is the evaluation by IH of what was done before the contract was signed and what was done after it was signed and the reasons for those acts.

    Why was JED who is renowned for his expertise in LENR testing and calorimetry not consulted before the test was contracted? If IH has 89 $million and and additional $billion in licence fees on the line via this contract, why wasn't the top man in the LENR testing field contacted for his opinion about the ERV.

    Why is IH reaching out to all and sundry now after the verdict on the test is in?

    If the ERV is the sole arbiter of the validity of the technology, every warm body including Jed should have be contacted for a recommendation. I can only conclude that this horrendous lack of due diligence can only mean that IH never intended to abide by the judgement of the ERV if that judgement was contrary to their business plan.

    It sounds like IH ask Rossi for his recommendation, and Rossi supplied Penon. This does not make sense to me. If IH intended to meet the terms of this $Billion contract, they should have done more far due diligence.

    Instead, they made Penon the only person with the authority to make a judgement in this test.

    Penon in effect became Judge Judy in this arbitration between Rossi and IH.

    Judge Judy is an American arbitration-based reality court show presided over by retired Manhattan family court Judge Judith Sheindlin. The show features Sheindlin adjudicating real-life small claim disputes within a simulated courtroom set. All parties involved must sign contracts agreeing to arbitration under Sheindlin.

    Once the contract is signed, Judge Judy is given absolute legal authority in the case at hand. When the verdict is rendered by this Judge, the issue is legally resolved.

    The plaintiff cannot say that Judge Judy is an idiot and plaintiff is not bound by what she says. NO, the issue at hand is adjudicated.

    It does not matter who or what Penon is, he was given the authority under the contract by the two parties involved in the contract to make the judgement and his decision is absolute.

    1. Axil,

      Jed is more of a LENR librarian. He isn't a scientist. He is a very interested party to LENR evolution and progress. This is no criticism of Jed as I am sure he will agree and would would say the same.

      Doug Marker

    2. It is ridiculous to claim that I am "renowned."

      In my opinion, I.H. should have hired a licensed HVAC engineer to do this analysis. There are hundreds in Florida who are authorized to make measurements of large boilers. The methods are defined by law. A report from a licensed engineer following proper procedures will stand up in court. If the engineer does anything against the codes, on purpose or by accident, he will lose his license and his livelihood, so he will be very careful.

      Although I am no expert, I can judge this situation. I have some knowledge of the test. I am sure that any HVAC engineer who so much as glances at the instruments, configuration and methods used by Rossi will dismiss them instantly, and will testify in court that the results are meaningless.

    3. Jed, how about you come over to ECN and discuss what I.H. should or should not have done. You always cower from a proper circle jerk. Back in 2011 you were adamant Rossi was legit and even boasted you had "inside information" on Rossi's affairs. How do you feel now that Rossi has been shown to be liar. You banned the likes of myself and Mary Yugo from Vortex. Why? Just because you couldn't handle a proper circle jerk? Well bah to you. We have tweezers and magnifying glasses so we manage just fine at ECN. I say it again, come join us for a proper circle jerk.

    4. 1. I have no idea what the ECN is, and no time to participate in other on-line forums. I am only here because Gluck attacked me, and I do not intend to stay.

      2. I was never "adamant" that Rossi was real. I said there were indications both ways. I published damning descriptions of his work, such as the paper by Clarke.

      3. I did have inside information on his work. I still do. I talked with the people working with him at the Navy, NASA, I.H. and elsewhere. They were then and are now very upset with him, as I have described countless times. He nearly killed the people from NASA.

      4. I did not ban you from Vortex. Vortex is run by Bill Beaty, not me. I do not know him well, and I have no say over what he does. I was not aware that he banned you.

  2. Peter
    It would be great if there where a way
    of finding someone other than A.R who has used Penon for EVR.
    Have them say what they think of his competance to do EVR.


    1. The only party whose opinion legally matters is IH who gave the ERV binding arbitration authority over the E-Cat licence agreement.

    2. Legally Yes.
      But I know a good truck driver when i work with them
      because i am a truck driver.
      Same as a EVR person would know how good Penon is as
      a EVR person.

    3. IH made the determination that the ERv was an expert in the field and gave him absolute arbitration authority in the licence agreement.

      The Judge is going to ask IH if they gave the ERV absolute authority as the agent of arbitration to determine if the terms of the licence agreement were met. Then the Judge will ask the ERV if he has determined if the terms of the Licence agreement were met. The ERV will say that in his expert judgement, the terms of the licence agreement were met. The Judge will then rule that the terms of the licence agreement were met and that 89 million must be paid to Rossi.

      What Rossi thinks or does, if the e-cat works or not, if a teapot is used to make hot water, what IH thinks or does are all immaterial to this arbitration. The key to the legal case is the judgement of the ERV since he is the absolute agent of arbitration. All the other noise is immaterial to the legal case at hand.

      After the favorable ruling by the judge in favor of Rossi, if I were Rossi's lawyer, I would request an injunction to prohibit IH from selling any LENR based product until it is proved in court, that all these IH products contain no Rossi IP.

    4. Does the Judge have the legal right to ask for
      a second EVR.

    5. Axil:

      Are you the judge? A friend of the judge? Are you even a lawyer? If you not, I suggest you stop posting this damn nonsense. Every lawyer I have asked say you wrong. They say you have no idea what you are talking about, or how the law works in cases like this. You should stop pretending to be an expert when you actually know nothing. Perhaps this the Dunning Kruger effect, but you are making a fool of yourself.

    6. The ERV made two rulings first to award 1.5 million to Rossi and then another $10,000,000 based on his judgement that the Rossi reactor worked. This sets a precedent that IH accepted the judgment of the ERV as competent, impartial, valid and binding.

      But now when it comes down the billion dollar judgment, the ERV is a fraud. I don't think that line of reasoning will hold up in court. Such and argument seems inconsistent, against precedence, arbitrary and self serving.

      Is the ERV competent when he serves the interests of IH? Is that justice and fair play; the court will decide.

    7. Again, you are not a lawyer, you know nothing about this case, and people who are lawyers tell me that these opinions you are pulling out of . . . thin air, are nonsense. That latest one is factually incorrect as well. Stop pretending you know anything about this.

    8. Jed Rothwell:

      "If the ERV say in court that he thinks the terms were met, he should pack his bags and take the first airplane for Italy as soon as he leaves the stand, to avoid being arrested for perjury and fraud."

      This judgement seems to be very harsh, cruel, damaging, and severe. This statement causes me to wonder what the basis of this hostile feeling about a complete stranger comes from. There is no case made to support this reaction and no logic that leads to it.

      As far as my opinion on the law that applies in this case, I simply want to go on the record with an opinion based on logic and research. Oftentime, experts are kind enough to correct or agree with the offered option and the logic that underlies that opinion. The reaction to this opinion then transforms into a opportunity for learning.

      How you reach your feelings appears to be based on hearsay from one of the parties in this dispute. You seem to be inured to the self serving motives that might produce this information from such people. I hope that they are not betraying your trust, reputation, friendship, and good nature.

    9. Axil, you are out of your league. Jed is right. The matter is not anywhere near so simple, the law doesn't work like that. Judges are not robots and will look at equity. Suppose, for example, that IH was able to show that the Penon report was seriously flawed, or to make it more black-and-white, that Penon was corrupt. Do you imagine that the court would say, "Tough, you agreed, you have to pay?" I've talked with an attorney about this case and he said that there was no way to prejudge this without knowing what evidence would be before the judge. Your idea of contract law is preposterous, naive.

    10. You wrote: "Axil, you are out of your league. Jed is right. The matter is not anywhere near so simple, the law doesn't work like that. . . ."

      Actually, I am not "right" in this instance. I am just reporting what I heard. I asked a couple of lawyers and that is what they say. I know little about the law.

      Still, I suppose common sense applies in a courtroom. As you say, I doubt that a judge would say "tough, you agreed, you have to pay" if it is shown that Penon is corrupt, or if several licensed HVAC engineers testify that the Penon report is nonsense.

    11. This all says to me that Penon will be the target of all the FUD that money can buy. I predicted not long ago on this site that the ERV would be ruined and this test would be the last job that the ERV would enjoy. When elephants dance, mice watch out!

    12. sounds like Jed is being Fed legal information by his handlers over at Industrial Heat.

  3. Peter
    It would be great if there where a way
    of finding someone other than A.R who has used Penon for EVR.
    Have them say what they think of his competance to do EVR.


  4. Peter,

    Personal attack, character assassination, ridicule and even inventing distorted stories. These all seem to be well practiced tactics of particular people in this LENR & Rossi set of debates.

    The unfortunate (sad) thing I see, is that these tactics seem to be dominant among the anti-LENR people. I note that for particular individuals, such tactics are 'stock-in-trade' practice. Even worse, practiced by some who otherwise seem quite intelligent people. I have concluded that these particular advocates are prone to use every tactic they can reach and for them winning is more important than honesty & integrity.

    Doug Marker

    1. quoted from dsjm above.
      "Personal attack, character assassination, ridicule and even inventing distorted stories."
      I agree entirely, except I probably don't agree about who is doing all that you say in that statement.
      To help determine who that statement most aptly applies to we could have a quick scan through the Rossi blog to read the numerous posts which denigrate the character of IH persons and the claimed behavior of same, even though in the same blog he says he cannot comment on matters which are the subject of current litigation, as would be normal practice.
      But he then continues to publish many posts from supposed third parties which do exactly that, and passes his own opinion of them in a supportive manner. Worse still, it is obvious from the syntax and grammar that some of these supposedly third party posts are actually written by Rossi himself.
      In selectively posting them on his blog, does he claim that he doesn't have the ability to moderate those posts off the blog? And having passed them for publication does he then claim he is obliged to pass comment on them, often in a supportive manner?

      Even more pointed, when someone writes in and tells Rossi they have had enough of all the conversation about the current legal disagreement and to get on with the scientific discussion, he says he agrees and will not post anything else on the matter. That resolve lasts less than a day, and then he's back on his soap box.
      What have we heard from IH in response to all these accusations on the Rossiblog?
      No personal attacks.
      No character assassination.
      No ridicule.
      And no distorted stories.
      From what I can see, all they have stated is they could not substantiate Rossi's results, and they would be defending their position in the upcoming legal action.
      That's as it should be.

  5. I have read Jed's and others comment in regards to the Google Earth photo of the proposed location of the test.

    According to this meme, it is possible to determine from the satellite photo that the plant did not work, because if it did it would have killed everyone inside the building.

    I am not an expert on these things, but if Jed can just look on a building and declare with certainty a 1MW plant would kill everyone in it, also should Industrial Heat LLC and Andrea Rossi.

    What serious company would jeopardize to run a test that kills their own scientists, customers and investors.

    I am not sure if the building on that picture indeed was were the test was performed, but surely there is something wrong with this argument?

    1. Look at the building floorplan as well. You will see the building is divided into small sections, with a different company in each one.

      Also, you should estimate how much waste there has to be in the shipping container if it is transferring ~1 MW of heat to the water. The answer is ~300 kW. That is as much heat as 25 large home stoves turned on fully. That would make the box a large oven, even with the door open. Rossi claims he spent hours inside of it. No one could survive that for 10 minutes.

    2. This is actually a killer argument. I don't think 300 KW is correct, that would be 70% efficency, and the efficiency could be higher. But even at 95%, which I understand is difficult to obtain, 5% waste heat in the reactor container would make it way-intolerable in there without a lot of air conditioning. Plus there is the problem of how the megawatt of heat is dumped from the building. This is not a trivial problem. What one might expect to see is a huge steam plume.

    3. Dear Jed -

      I think you did not understand my statement so I will will repeat it once more slightly different.

      What I meant was that no serious company would perform a test, that if successful, would put peoples lives at risk.

      The logic being that either we do not know enough of the conditions from looking at the building, the plant did not actually operate in the building, or I.H is not a serious company.

      In terms of technical judgement, I would never question you, but this is instead a rational / logical argument to point out how illogical the situation is.

      I.H can not be a serious company while playing roulette with the lives of their investors, customers and personnel. I am not saying that have, but if what you claim is true, and if that indeed was the building the test was performed in, I.H is not a serious company.

      Hope you do not find my argument offensive.

    4. The test was conducted by Rossi, not I.H. Rossi selected the building and found the customer, according to the legal papers. I believe the customer was incorporated by Rossi's lawyer, which is fishy.

      The customer is a chemical distributor. I do not see how anyone in that business could use 1 MW of process heat, so that is fishy too.

      The calorimetry is not fishy. It is preposterous.

      As far anyone from I.H. can tell, the machine is not producing any excess heat, so there is no danger. It certainly is not producing 1 MW.

    5. I thought that I.H had paid for parts of the test and also that some of the test equipment was produced and assembled by people paid / hired by them.

    6. With a 2" water line and a flow of 110 gallons per minute of city water, through a heat exchanger, one-pass to the drain, How much heat would be removed?
      More than enough to keep everyone comfy in the building.
      And some of the heat going to the process?

    7. Oh yes, and a 40° DT.

  6. A comment about the anti-Rossi tactics and why they are employed. Firstly, this post is not about claiming Rossi is 100% right nor a challenge to his famous 'factory ready' claims, it is about commenting on the utterly devious tactics used in seeking to discredit him. It is a well known saying that when someone keeps throwing mud, some is bound to stick. To see this in a current context just follow the American presidential election primaries and the tactics of nearly all the participants. Ask yourself if you think the best mud slingers are leading the races (both Democrat & Republican). I am in little doubt.

    So in regard to Andrea Rossi, particular very well know web identities have never been content to point out Andrea Rossi's inconsistencies and leave it to us to decide, particular ones of these people have gone to great extremes to pile tons of mud (and worse) onto Andrea Rossi, and then, onto anyone who questions the tactic.

    Because they have largely succeeded in establishing a highly negative, even 'evil', view of Rossi, other people don't seem to flinch when Rossi is called a liar, cheat, a thief and fraud (all the time). The issue re the mud-slinging tactic is that so much mud has been thrown that when anyone is associated with Rossi, they are immediately tainted by it. i.e. Seen as wearing the same mud that is sticking to Rossi. Throwing mud is a *despicable* tactic, but I guess for 'despicable people' it is worth doing.

    Just to illustrate the absurdity of this mud-slinging, look at IH and how when they were seen as Rossi backers and his friends, the same despicable mud slinging was used on them, but, now they are in a dispute with Rossi (and that is *all* it is), they have been washed clean, sanitised and are now to anti LENR/anti Rossi people, the current heros *against* Rossi. What a pathetic and transparent manoeuver this appears to be.

    There are always at least 2 side to any dispute. Then come all us observers with our own 'sides'. Not all can be right.

    Mud-slinging is the tactic of the propagandists and manipulators.

    Doug Marker

    1. This is not about Rossi, or his personality, or his proclivities. This is about calorimetry. As everyone knows, Rossi did bad calorimetry in previous tests. Unfortunately, he did bad calorimetry this time as well. I.H. sent in various experts to examine the test when it was underway. These experts concluded that Rossi was making a mistake and the machine was not producing excess heat. I.H. concluded that they were not able to "substantiate" the claims. Substantiate means "provide evidence to support or prove the truth of" a claim. To be specific, they see no evidence of excess heat.

      That is ALL THERE IS TO IT. Personality, motives, attacks, inconsistencies, lawsuits and everything else is irrelevant. The machine does not work, period. Therefore I.H. will not pay $89 million.

      If Rossi honestly thinks it does work, I suppose he should sue for the money, but if he honestly thinks that he is a certified idiot who does not know what he is doing.

      If you do not believe me -- and I doubt you do -- I still suggest you wait to see the evidence presented by I.H. before making up your mind about this dispute. It is foolish to try to judge calorimetry based on the blather in Rossi's blog. You should note that Rossi has not released a single detail about the calorimetry. You have no idea what he has done, or whether it works, or why I.H. thinks is a mistake. You have no business holding any opinion about this dispute, and no business supporting either side. This is a technical dispute, not a matter of opinion.

    2. @J ed Rothwell

      "This is about calorimetry. As everyone knows, Rossi did bad calorimetry in previous tests."

      I am very curious, I understand that it is even for specialists difficult to make an exact calorimetry on a single test devices in a laboratory, but is it really possible to incorrectly analyze a COP greater 50 using calorimetry on a device that (claimed) is producing 1MW/h thermal heat and is running 352 days in mostly self sustain mode? And if yes, could you please explain to me how do you think could such an incorrect measurement occur, is it a fundamental error out of unintentional ignorance and lack of professionalism, or are the data simply manipulated or falsified. So my question is, can someone incorrectly 'measure' a COP>50 on a device running 300+x days in self sustain mode and how?

    3. Doug,

      You might be right, I am a chode sometimes. It's just that I have trouble remembering what I say sometimes, so it pays to repeat it once or twice.

    4. ". . . but is it really possible to incorrectly analyze a COP greater 50 using calorimetry on a device that (claimed) is producing 1MW/h thermal heat and is running 352 days in mostly self sustain mode?"

      Evidently it is possible to incorrectly analyze a COP greater than 50, because Rossi has done that. The actual COP is less than 1 because of heat losses. As far as I can tell.

      It is not in self sustain mode as far as I know. I don't know where you heard that, but there is no excess heat. The only thing coming out is what they put in.

      I am sorry, but I cannot discuss any specifics, except for the information that Rossi has made public, such as his claim that the machine produces 1 MW and he spend hours inside it. That cannot be true because he would be cooked.

    5. Rossi spent his time on site during the test inside the computer control container which was climate controlled to the best of my understanding. Is this Rossi should be cooked gambit an example of the FUD offensive that will around our ears shortly.

    6. To determine if the claim of a COP of 50 could be a mistake, go back to 2011 when the performance claims included periods of COP of 200 for the original ecat which Rossi used to heat his 'factory'.
      And the early claims for the hotcat which was said to perform like a Ferrari but was de-tuned to purr like a kitten.
      Did any tests ever actually verify these incredible performances? No. Never.
      It's a lot easier to make extraordinary claims than it is to demonstrate them.
      So far, I have no reason to believe the claim of a COP of 50 is any more achievable than the previous and still unproven claims of a COP of 200. And that's really strange because COP's in that range would be so obvious to even the most casual observer.
      So, most recently, and in complete accordance with previous attempts to prove a positive COP, in this case it seems IH have not been convinced this present stack of ecats does not show evidence of the claimed COP of six. I am not at all surprised. My only surprise is that in spite of all the failed real evidence so far, some people still believe it should have.
      Had all or any previous tests proven the point already I also would have been surprised that this latest one didn't, but they didn't so I wasn't.
      It's as simple as that.

    7. @ Jed Rothwell
      Andrea Rossi
      April 13, 2016 at 5:30 PM
      Patrick Ellul:
      The Report will be published after it will have been disclosed in the Court.
      Everything you are reading now is just toilet paper, diffused by professionals of the same and the ones they have paid for.
      I can only repeat what my Attorney wrote in our press release, it is that we are pleased by the results. The results are coherent with what I have repeatedly written on this blog during the 352 days of test: the plant has worked mostly in SSM mode. As all the visitors have seen.
      Warm Regards,

      So again, if Andrea Rossi's statement "during the 352 days of test: the plant has worked mostly in SSM mode" is correct (indicates that there is no power input necessary during self sustain periods), is it possible that the ERV Fabio Penon could have make an incorrect measurement during this SSM periods?

    8. The reports are all from the side which is trying to get 89 million dollars. That makes them highly unreliable.
      I always found it very strange that the 1MW plant which had multiple reactors was always running with either all reactors being driven or all reactors in self sustain mode. (ssm) That is very strange and is the equivalent of having a v8 engine and aranging the timing so that all 8 cylinders fired at once, and then nothing for the next two revolutions.
      One of the advantages of multiple smaller ecats running to make up the 1MW was that some ecats would be in ssm which others would be in driven mode. That would even out the input power requirements to manageable levels.
      For many months when asked how the plant was running, Rossi would answer it was in ssm or driven mode. I finally commented on another website, how strange that was for the reasons just given. Soon after that the running reports changed so as not to mention that anomaly. That made me believe the running reports were just fiction.
      If you are wondering if that would be consistent with previous behavior, it is completely consistent with the running reports of the original 1MW plant sold to the secret military customer and run for twelve months. Rossi gave a number of updates regarding it's operation. It was reported to be running to specifications, and the six monthly recharge of the fuel had been done as scheduled, and the customer was happy with the operation.
      Now, to those who still think there was a 1MW plant sold to a secret military customer in 2011, followed by an order for 11 more, then they wont see any problem with believing these recent reports of the whole plant running in ssm.
      But, if you have now dismissed the whole 'secret military customer' twelve month 1MW operation and associated running reports, then you shouldn't have much trouble accepting the running reports for the most recent twelve month 1MW plant could be equally suspect. Most things have a degree of consistency to them, so until we hear some other accounts of the 12 month test from IH, or Penon, or someone else with a better record of honest and accurate reporting, will make no assessment on how Pennon could have made any incorrect measurements, other to say, his measurements were probably correct but the test was set up in such a way that the things he was measuring were not the right things or not measured in the right places to determine the true COP.
      That would then be consistent with previous experience.

  7. I hope the Judge makes them put the Ecat
    in the Court room during the trial and make A.R and T.D
    run it while M.Y is doing a EVR.

  8. I completely fail to understand why Jed repeatedly states that "Rossi did bad calorimetry" during the 1-year test, when it was the ERV who did the calorimetry. As I mentioned earlier, this reeks of bad faith. Forgetting for the moment the fact that none of us have seen the ERV's report, Jed can you please explain why on the one hand you keep claiming to be logical, factual, and unbiased, and on the other hand you keep stating the falsehood that the problem with the one-year test was Rossi's calorimetry? At the very least, stop repeating this error!

    1. You wrote: ""Rossi did bad calorimetry" during the 1-year test, when it was the ERV who did the calorimetry. . . ."

      Okay, I have no idea who "did" the calorimetry. Early on, I learned how it was being done. Whoever did it was doing it wrong. Whether that was Rossi, Penon, or some guy who wandered in off the street, it is wrong.

      This was long before the ERV report was written.

      Whoever did the calorimetry, Rossi is the one who has claimed the gadget produces 1 MW. He also claims he spent hours inside of it. You can look at photos of the machine and see for yourself that is impossible. He would be dead if he spent 10 minutes inside a machine producing 1 MW. So even if it does produce excess heat, Rossi is definitely making false statements about it. Whether he is making mistakes or lying I cannot judge.

    2. Tonia Naylor
      January 23rd, 2016 at 8:40 AM
      Dr Andrea Rossi:
      The place in the factory where the 1 MW plant is in operation has windows? Can you describe it?

      Andrea Rossi
      January 23rd, 2016 at 9:27 AM
      Tonia Naylor:
      Windows are amenities we cannot condone to us…the place reserved to the plant is completely closed and blind; the circulation of air is made by a fan system from the roof. The warm air is extracted from the roof. Obviously we have conditioned air inside the container of the computers.
      We cannot see outside if not with the cameras installed by the security staff.
      The place is maintained pretty clean, though. It couldn’t be otherwise, since I am strongly allergic to powder: a small bunch of powder can unleash an asthma attack, so I need to stay always in the clean.
      Warm Regards,

    3. Bad calorimetry is the chief tool used by the naysayers to discredit and disprove LENR. Mary Yugo was purported to be an expert in calorimetry, then came Tom Clarke, now Jed Rothwell joins the ranks and rolls out and dusts off the calorimetry weapon.

      It looks like this calorimetry gambit will be the main line of attack against the ERV, to grind him into oblivion and insignificance as the trial proceeds. This is a prediction.

    4. Axil, sometimes plain common sense beats any complex argument. Jed Rothwell has used simple reasoning that even non-scientists can immediately understand, namely that a 1 MW "reactor" would produce intolerable heat. As that heat was tolerable, it was not 1 MW. Nobody here, nor elsewhere as far as I am aware, has made the slightest attempt to contradict him. Instead there are unsubstantiated personal attacks to claim "bad faith", or that Jed is not qualified. I have known Jed professionally for some 20 years and I can assure you his competence and integrity are unimpeachable.

      You claim, without evidence, that "Bad calorimetry is the chief tool used by the naysayers to discredit ...". Jed has cogently presented his evidence. Why don't you do the same? Is your argument based entirely on innuendo and sarcasm?

      Jed writes that "experts concluded that Rossi was making a mistake and the machine was not producing excess heat." Isn't this what the scientific community has been saying for more than 5 years?

      Over 7 years, Rossi has had every opportunity to get his devices independently validated. Had he done so, it would have immeasurably improved his chances of getting his many patents accepted. But he has refused to do so. Many non-public evaluations have failed to verify. Many of Rossi's public assertions have been found to have been false, and indeed made with reckless disregard for the truth. But you know that already.

      Well it seems that IH did insist on independent validation and after paying $11M could insist. But IH were not satisfied with the test for reasons we do not yet know. Like all honest firms they patiently waited until the end of the test before making public their disquiet.

      But we can be quite sure they were not "silent as the grave" as Peter claims. Hint: If IH had been silent, how come they got sued so soon? It takes months to prepare a $300M Court case.

      Rossi could settle out of Court and return the $11 plus interest and expenses IF he has no IP. Alternatively he could delay by transferring the lacking IP. Given that IH has already paid for and therefore acquired exclusive IP rights then they are perfectly entitled to apply for new patents, and even make the IP public. Such action has no bearing on whether or not the technology works. And if that IP is without any value, Rossi can hardly complain of any fraud! On the contrary it may be IH who can complain.

      Anyway all this will become clear in time even if now, it is not clear to you. There is no need to speculate.

    5. I tend to agree with the comments of "Anonymous" above except for a few crucial points: (1) The location of the test and the details of the test arrangements, facility, location of 1 MW reactor with respect to industrial facility, air-conditioning, customer etc. have not been revealed publicly and so without this information I cannot state that it is obvious that 1 MW reactor would produce intolerable heat. (2) It's strange that there is now a discussion of Rossi returning the $11M plus interest and expenses if he has no IP. It's not clear to me that the contract with IH would require this, since they paid the $11M after their own tests. Furthermore, if IH and all the others who claim that Rossi's ecat does not produce excess heat (and all of the calorimetry was wrong etc.) are correct, then why isn't IH suing Rossi for the $11M? Also, why have they been filing patent applications based on his technology?

  9. As I understand it, the e-cat was used to heat water, resulting in pressurised hot water og steam phase.

    In that case the only measurement you would need is mass rate, pressure and temperature of the fluid entering the 1 MW plant, and the pressure and temperature of the fluid leaving the plant (for stable conditions).

    This is a really easy calculation and any chemical process engineer, nuclear engineer or HVAC engineer should be comptentent to calculate heating power delivered to the water.

    I would be surprised If Penon where not able to do his properly.

  10. Checking the output energy should be quite simple: Ask the customer if the supplied power was enough to run his process, which should have been in the order of 1 MW continuously. If the energy wasn't used by any real process, then a considerable heat exchanger should have been used to release the heat to outside the building. Measuring the temperatures and flows of that, including knowing the parameters of the heat exchanger would give an accurate check. I hope Penon did that too.

  11. One additional comment: a powerful argument has made by Jed regarding the "waste heat" in the shipping container. If this is argument is completely correct, then we don't even need to look at any of the details of Rossi's technology, IH's behavior etc. and we can automatically rule out (based on size of shipping container, density of ecats etc.) that Rossi's plant produced 1 MW of excess heat. On the other hand there are two serious possible flaws in this argument: (1) air-conditioning - even without any heat if I was in a shipping container in the Summer I would need air-conditioning (2) insulation - presumably the heat pipes that Jed claims were leaking/wasting 300 kW of excess heat were well thermally insulated. Since the HVAC specialist that Jed quoted on Vortex gives figures that range from 70% heat transfer efficiency to 99% heat transfer efficiency, then the 300 kW excess heat could actually be only 10 kW excess heat, and presumably this could be easily removed by air-conditioning. Here is a link to some photos of the inside of the 1MW plant. Presumably all of the white tubes are highly thermally insulated heat-pipes (one at the top is even labeled "Steam") while the black tubes are electrical conduits. Similarly, the blue-boxes or Ecats could also be thermally insulated.

    1. If you had looked more closely at my posts on this thread, you would have seen that Rossi states he spent his time in an air conditioned container. Further, the building in which the plant operated was cooled by fans on the roof of the building. This is a witch hunt against a man that does not deserve this foul treatment.

  12. axil,

    Your quotation of what rossi told Tonya Naylor debunks the argument of Jed Rothwell about "cooking environment inside the container". Rossi desgined a brilliant ventilation system which drives the heated air in the 1MW container upwards through a chimney (based on archimedes law of floating).

  13. A follow-up to my comment regarding thermal insulation. Since Rossi claims 1 MW with periods of COP equal to 50, while IH claims the COP was 1 (at least on average), then we can assume that if IH is correct then at least 20 kW was being produced. So this reinforces the claim that this could amount of power be easily removed by air-conditioning (since Rossi, IH officials and others "visited" the plant while it was functioning and survived). So, an investigation of the heat-transfer efficiency of the actual plant could be a way to at least determine if the claimed COP was possible.

  14. No, my friends this is not a caliometer problem. Even a complete non qualified ERV like myself could find out in broad strokes if the result was better than one.Btw I am not an idiot because of that.
    Real stupid debate we have here.
    Jed claims he knows something mumling in the beard. Then we debate who is insane.
    I saw several people talking about mudslinging - that is all there is an Jed started that by bringing in facts he cannot verify. The word is sandbox.

  15. No, my friends this is not a caliometer problem. Even a complete non qualified ERV like myself could find out in broad strokes if the result was better than one.Btw I am not an idiot because of that.
    Real stupid debate we have here.
    Jed claims he knows something mumling in the beard. Then we debate who is insane.
    I saw several people talking about mudslinging - that is all there is an Jed started that by bringing in facts he cannot verify. The word is sandbox.

  16. Lennart
    Any kind of debate is better
    than no debate.

  17. I really hope those shills are AIs, no human deserves to do this job