Discussion on lenr-forum about the new filings shows a phenomenon often encountered: an obvious argument is brought up, and someone says that this was considered and rejected long ago. But there is no actual reference, and the fora do not actually have a decision-making mechanism, usually, so this is just an opinion. I have seen it happen that a view was advanced and essentially crushed by many responses, but what I saw today was not like that. Rather, people had mostly quite talking about it, until a new occasion arose. This is coming from the newer, grittier version of the old IH Exhibit 5, Peter Gluck’s favorite punching bag, but it is now actual data, apparently, from the … ta daaaa!!! Penon Report! “Final,” it says.
Let’s review the issues:
Forty-two wrote: [before the new revelation of Penon data]
As Paradigmnoia wrote, Exhibit 5 is not new. It was already included in the first answer from IH, and therefore the major issues have been discussed long time ago.
E.g. that it is not feasible to drive the 1398 kg/h steam @0 barg through a minimum 6m long pipeline with DN40 (40mm) diameter.
Everyone can easily check that with this calculator:
That fact is just ignored by Rossi supporter, and it is useless to discuss this again and again.
One might think. But, as it happens, it is argued again, as if the whole flow issue was conclusively debunked long ago. The new report gives a constant pressure of 0.0 bar. Not barg. The pressure gauge Penon planned to use, in the declared test protocol, was absolute pressure (bar). But 0.0 must be gauge pressure, i.e., the difference between the pressure in the pipe and atmospheric, which would be an error, because pressure would be needed to assess the boiling point of water, which depends on absolute pressure, not gauge pressure. If we assume zero barg at the return tank (which is likely), then 0.0 barg at the other end is, indeed, impossible unless there is very low flow. If the system is sealed, the pressure at the return tank could possibly be negative barg.
There are many ways for a test to go awry. I personally prefer to rely on the “room calorimeter.” If a megawatt is being dissipated in a fairly small warehouse with no forced air circulation, the temperature in the warehouse will increase with increased power. As has been pointed out, if delivered power really was a megawatt, it would have been deadly in there. As it is, in the summer, the ~20 KW input power to the Plant would make it uncomfortable, but that could be handled with air conditioners, which then explains the extra power that we will come to. Except it’s still mysterious….
But I think in Exhibit A at page 63 there is some interesting new information: [I’ve replaced the original link with the local file and PDF page.]
“In connection with the instant litigation – and after the Plant ceased operating – Counter-Plaintiffs obtained electrical power data from Florida Power and Light (“FPL”) for the Doral Location where the Plant was operated. The FPL records show that often more power was being used at the Doral Location than being reported by USQL for the Plant, but sometimes less power was being used at the entire Doral Location than being reported by Fabiani and USQL just for the Plant.”
Unfortunately the FPL records are not included in the docket files.
It would be good to have them, because I suspect that there was never significantly more el power consumed for the entire Doral site than the el. power for the 1MW plant – which would be another indication that there couldn’t have been any real production at the JMP area of the Doral site.
After this was written, Rossi put up FPL records, monthly billing, plus the Final Report, which gives daily figures for input power. Then, in their Reply, IH put up a chart showing three daily power levels for the duration of the alleged Test. The Fabiani and Penon reported levels match exactly except for what may be one or two small glitches, possibly typographical errors. This indicates to me that they are probably from the same data, not independent, I’d expect a little more variation. But there is also daily consumption for FPL. The suspicion above is not confirmed. Most of the time, the total JMP bill was for a little less than twice the reported Plant input power. But there is an odd period where the total bill is less than the reported input power. A single glitch could occur for various reasons, but this is more than that. See the last half of November, 2015.
I am unconvinced, so far, that this data shows deception on Fabiani’s part. However, the point is not that deception has been proven, but that with Fabiani’s failure to address issues, deception is reasonably suspected, and the data indicates the possibility. Something is off. There may be a harmless explanation, and that will come out in Discovery.
The ERV data, on the other hand, is more suspicious. So it relied on data provided by Rossi and Fabiani, perhaps. That is an issue about independence of the ERV. This will only become relevant if the primary IH defense — that there was no GPT, per GPT requirements in the Second Amendment — fails. This is all connected with the claims of fraud in setting up the Test in Doral.
If there could not have been a megawatt there — because of inadequate cooling, as IH has claimed — then there must have been some error in the Penon analysis, and some stand out as possible.
I would like to note that the Penon specifications sheet listed a pressure sender model that reports in Absolute pressure, and also for good measure is not rated for the steam temperature.
(We have no idea what actual model was installed, although there are possibly photos in the hands of IH et al).
He is correct. The specifications sheet was attached to an IH response to a Rossi request for production. However, there is no evidence or claim we have seen that shows that this is what was actually used. However, if the gauge pressure version was used, with the same temperature specifications, we see, then, that failure modes were set up. Most seriously, if the gauge was damaged, it might well report 0.0 barg, or even, if an absolute gauge, 0.0 absolute (which would be preposterous).
Planet Rossi somehow still manages to hang on in what must be a desperate kind of hope. You are surely warned and must be prepared for the the additional facts and truth that will be emerging in the coming weeks months. Rossi is finished.
Just to notice: Dewey has not said anything new here, but, on the other hand, he is an IH insider and actually has some idea of what might be emerging.
If the ECat technology doesn’t work, Industrial Heat shouldn’t issue another patents around it and he should return the license back to Rossi (AmpEnergo company).
Time for Albert again:
In their Counter-Complaint (the proposed version, but the others are the same), IH has explained: based on the results of their own testing:
95. Leonardo and Rossi purportedly transferred and delivered all E-Cat IP to CounterPlaintiffs on June 9, 2013. However, after numerous attempts, both with and without Rossi’s involvement, Counter-Plaintiffs have been unable, using the transferred E-Cat IP, to replicate the results included in the Evaluation Report purportedly certifying that Validation was achieved from April 30 to May 1, 2013, or otherwise generate measureable excess energy.
96. Only one of three conclusions can be drawn from the foregoing facts: 1) Leonardo and Rossi did not transfer and deliver all E-Cat IP to Counter-Plaintiffs; 2) Validation was never achieved and Penon’s reported COP calculations were false; or 3) both.
There is nothing there about “it doesn’t work.” Rather, that there is no actual excess energy is one of the possibilities, but not the only one. If IH were strongly convinced that Rossi actually has nothing, that the entire E-cat thing was a delusion or scam, then they might consider “returning the IP” for some small consideration, even. However, they probably spent about $20 million on this project, so far. If there is the smallest possibility of Rossi having real technology, then the License has a value. Further, this all came out, Rossi has been known — or claimed — to create a deliberate failure to get out of a contract, where he thought he could do better with someone else. Back to Zephir:
But IH doesn’t wants to do it despite the offer of Andrea Rossi – it wants to embrace this technology despite it doesn’t work. In addition, as MrSelfSustain also noted, we have multiple indicia, that A. Rossi has working technology in hands.
There has been no offer, apparently. That Zephir thinks there was is yet another example of how people believe blog bloviation without checking alleged facts, or at least realizing what is known as distinct from what is imagined or inferred, perhaps incorrectly. As to multiple indications, there is little that does not depend heavily on Rossi Says. There is enough to keep alive the possibility that, okay, he’s a terrible businessman, and check your wallet, but … maybe he has something. To present this as strongly evidenced (“multiple inidicia”) is misleading. A pile of weak evidences is not necessarily strong evidence.
“IH doesn’t wants [sic] to do it.” They have not been tested in this regard. They have not asked for a cancellation of the Licence and a refund. Rossi has claimed to have cancelled the License, which is, given the Agreement, legally preposterous. (Some of this comes up, once again, with much confusion over it.)
Ampenergo was mentioned. This is interesting: IH has claimed to have paid Ampenergo “millions” in pursuit of satisfying provisions of the License Agreement with Rossi, which was subject to a prior agreement with Ampenergo. Ampenergo is a shareholder in IHHI, and if the License reverts to them, they could easily then license it to Industrial Heat, should it ever be necessary. (And that could be formalized, if needed).
Rossi is finished.
That has been said before of course.
Alan can be trusted to say something totally useless. And, to boot, misleading. While Dewey and others may have said “Rossi is finished” before, I don’t recall it being said in a context where it was becoming so obvious. Alan has shown many times that he doesn’t understand Rossi v. Darden, and he disliked that so much attention was being paid to it, but he persistently gunked up the discussions with useless junk like this.
Rossi has not offered to buy the IH license back but is welcome to do so at full price including $1.5M for the 1MW container and all legal expenses incurred by IH to date.
Dewey Weaver, though he is an IH insider, speaks for himself, not for IH, so this is his idea, not a suggestion coming from IH. I have no idea what IH would settle for, but normal principles are to settle for a bit less than you think you will get by going to trial. That (“full price,” if it is $11.5 million) could be a lot less than what they spent, but this is where sensibility wants a highly experienced and trustworthy attorney, to make judgments like that. I have professionals tell me what they think is likely. I’m not satisfied. I want estimates of odds. “But I can’t be sure.” I don’t want them to be sure, I just want them to give me a sense from their experience. Reality will always vary from expectation. It doesn’t mean the expectation was bad or wrong, it was merely incomplete.
Responding to more from Zephir,