A discussion of Rossi’s comments in 2015 about the “test.”
Jack Cole found and noted on lenr-forum.com, a Rossi blog post describing this
Can you describe the measurement instrumentation of the 1 MW E-Cat in operation in the factory of the Customer of Industrial Heat?
The measurement system of the 1 MW E-Cat is made by:
56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the water steam in different positions
56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the liquid water that flows toward the reactors in different positions
1 PCE 830 to measure the consumption of electric power, which has been installed between the container of the reactors and the electric power source of the Customer’s Factory, plus
the Wattmeter of the Customer’s factory installed by the electric energy provider
56 pressure gauges to measure the pressure of the steam in different positions
All the data are taken by the certified registration system made by the referee, who has placed the certified gauges to calculate the COP, and collected in his computer. All the referee’s gauges are certified and sealed.
Besides all this, there is the master Gauge, which is the manufacturing plant of the Customer, which needs 1 MWh/h of thermal energy carried by steam: if they receive this energy they pay for the plant, provided we give the granted COP, otherwise they do not pay. They measure with their instrumentation the amount and quality of the steam, but most of everything, they check the amount and the quality of their production and compare their costs using the E-Cat VS their costs with the traditional heaters. Their plant is the universal gauge and is, under a commercial point of view, the only one that really counts. So far the Customer is satisfied. Nevertheless, I have to add that it is soon to assume final considerations and we are aware of the fact that within the end of the year the results could be positive, but also negative.
This is remarkable in the light of what we now know about the customer and what was actually happening.
There is no mention of the measurement of flow; however, this is a blog post and not necessarily expected to be complete. It’s an odd omission, though, being central to any measurement of generated power. There is mention of the “referee,” as having set up a “certified registration system,” with “certified gauges” to calculate the COP, data being collected in his computer. Was IH watching this blog, would they notice the reference to Penon as the “referee,” which is a term used in contests? However, what is notable here is the description of the “Master Gauge,” which is a variation on Rossi’s theme, “In the Market is Truth.” If the Customer pays for the power, it must be real, right? This assumes that the Customer is independent and paying with its own funds.
However, this is the Term Sheet describing the agreement with the customer, which is J.M. Products, Inc., fully under the legal control of Johnson, who is also President of Leonardo Corporation, Rossi’s company. First of all, there is no mention of “COP” in that agreement. If JMP fails to provide electrical power to the Plant, the rental is due anyway. There is no specificiation of how much power must be supplied. In theory, once the plant was in operation, and producing no “COP” higher than 1.o, IH could have required a megawatt of electrical power to be supplied …. Maybe one of those generators….
Bottom line, this was not an arm’s length agreement. Rossi and JMP were the same, in effect.
Now,did JMP measure the “amount and quantity” of the steam? (Aren’t amount and quantity the same? Ah, well…. maybe he meant “quality,” which would, in fact, be important. Was there any measure of steam quality? (No. Not done. Not a part of the protocol. Measuring steam quality is actually difficult, it cannot be done solely from temperature and pressure, nor can it be done with a humidity meter, as was purportedly done with some early demonstrations.)
However, JMP provided reports of power, to be used by Industrial Heat to generate invoices. As far as we know, Industrial Heat did not actually bill JMP, so these were not actually paid. However, what did the reports show? From the first, power was “1 MWh/h” for 26 days, and “750 KWh/h” for 4 days, which, then figuring 24-hour days, for the number of days, creates the billable amount.
These reports are obviously not based on measurements. They are statements of nominal power from the nominally 250 KW “slabs.” Actual measured power would be different. Apparently sometimes there were three slabs in operation and sometimes four. Suppose the slabs were operated to regulate power precisely. Why one would do this is beyond me, but suppose. So each slab is set to produce 250 KW or nothing. Okay. But when would the transition take place? Always at midnight, so that a day is only one or the other? If a slab is down, would it not be restored to operation ASAP?
IH describes these reports as “falsified”. See Rossi Answer Merge with IH Claims on paragraph 77. Rossi blankly denies the claim. Johnson, like all the 3rd party defendants, has yet to respond. A blanket denial here may or may not be legally sufficient, since IH has supplied evidence. “Falsified” it is, to be sure, circumstantial. That is, the very round numbers would be okay if the agreement or practice was simply to rely on Rossi’s reports of power, and if those reports were rounded off so grossly. But on the blog it is supposedly measured by the customer. In the Term Sheet, the only reference to measurement of power is that the customer is to keep records of plant operation.
There is no mention of the measurement of power or COP in the term sheet, and COP would appear to be irrelevant, only delivered power would matter. A clearer agreement would have stated how much electrical power would be available.
Rossi apparently had in mind the GPT, where COP matters and where delivered power is not specified with any clarity. I.e., if there was a little propane burner in there, there is nothing I see about the GPT, as described, that would cause this to fail, and COP could be infinite. Just not a megawatt, unless they were bringing in a lot of propane! It is very obvious that the GPT was designed by Rossi to be what Rossi wanted, and according to how he thinks.
Maybe I’ve overlooked something. Comments welcome.
For Rossi v. Darden, this all increases the impression that the Customer was not independent, that this power installation was set up to be a faux GPT under full Rossi control.
Frank Acland complied a page with 41 “updates” from information in Rossi’s blog:
This covers the period from , update #1 is dated August 1, 2014, and #41 is dated February 18, 2016. The first comment was August 1, so “UPDATE #1 was probably the original post. There is a lot there. Rossi repeats many times that it is the customer’s “measurements” that count. And then the customer’s profit on what he is manufacturing. One would certainly get an impression that the customer is independently measuring the power, at least in some way. So why is the power always a multiple of 250 KW (3 or 4 times that), and every day is one level or another? No, the customer was not measuring power. The customer was reporting to IH whatever Rossi said to report, and this was all a very clumsy fraud. It is fascinating to see the reported commentary from Sifferkoll and Mats Lewan, who had spoken to sources they considered reliable, and then Acland, in turn, considers Mats reliable. (My sense is that Mats actually stopped paying close attention to what was going on, and the lawsuit flabbergasted him.)
This is of interest:
According to Rossi, they are contractually obligated to have the plant run for 350 days in a 400 day period, so this would mean the plant will need to run for at least another 214 days. So by my calculations, the test can’t end until February 2016 at the earliest.
“Contractually obligated”? Obligated to whom? I remember reading this and wondering what he was talking about. The “customer” was paying for power, and allegedly had a backup (that is very unclear, a megawatt backup?, but I suppose you could rent a megawatt generator on short notice).
The number of days of operation was the issue here, and it was revealed as 136 days on July 6, 2015. The information about 350/400 must have been earlier than that. So Rossi, for sure, did have the GPT in mind. This was about when Rossi excluded Murray.
Rossi talks about using the “smaller reactors” if there was a need. What need? The GPT was to be of a Unit. Not many Units. I.e., suppose there are two 1 MW power plants (and allegedly there were, the original E-Cat Plant and the more sophisticated slabs). So a plant is selected for a performance test. Can the tester mix and match? I.e., if half the units fail, can the tester substitute other units? What would be the limit on this?
I’d say that if IH was paying attention, there was information here that Rossi was considering the Doral Plant a GPT. The actual installation seems to have happened in September, 2014, but the alleged Test did not begin until February, 2015. Rossi talks about troubles in the early days. This is fairly clear: When the 1 MW plant was delivered to IH in August, 2013, it wasn’t ready to supply a megawatt! Rossi’s blaming IH for the test not starting is quite thin. And then how was the starting date set? Power was apparently already being supplied to the customer, from the story told. But the instrumentation was not installed until February, we think.
“ERV” is not mentioned in all this (a “referee” is mentioned, though), until the last quoted post, February 18, the last day of the test. Elsewhere, as I recall, I have searched for “Guaranteed Performance Test” and this doesn’t show up until the lawsuit was filed.