Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with.Seebelow.

[Eric Walker]

Hi Bob,

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM,  wrote:

Nowhere that I know of was Rossi obligated to transfer his future
> inventions and related IP to IH.
>

These obligations were spelled out in the original License Agreement and
its amendments, i.e., docs. 1-2 through 1-4.  I recommend reviewing these
when you have a moment (here titled 001-02, 001-03 and 001-04):

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

I think the Second Amendment is in dispute.  But most of the details are in
the License Agreement, doc. 1-2.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with.Seebelow.

[bobcook39923]

Higgins--

A key question is what constitutes “Intellectual Property” legally.   The IP 
identified in the contract did not spell out the “art” of operating a plant 
built in accordance with the design described in the patent and the other 
documents listed in the contract that were transferred to IH.  And furthermore  
there was no requirement for Rossi to relate to IH everything he kept in his 
head, undocumented.  For example his ideas about further development of the 
Quark-X invention.  

I thought at the time when the miracles that the Quark-X was demonstrating per 
the reactor operators was what caused IH to have second thoughts as to the 
worth of the technology represented by the E-Cat really was in light of 
potential competition from the Quark-X in the future.   

Nowhere that I know of was Rossi obligated to transfer his future inventions 
and related IP to IH.  

The E-Cat control system, to my knowledge, has not been specified very well.  
IMHO the control system operation requires substantial “art” involving a 
complex integration of various parameters that Rossi has not documented, but 
has come to be able to manipulate in an effective way by trial and error 
learning, which he has kept to himself.   (The science of Rossi’s Ni-H LENR+ 
would be revealed by how control is accomplished.)

Is this undocumented “art” required to be taught to IH by the contract?  I 
could not find such a requirement in the contract. 

I think the reason for the absence of such a requirement was IH’s lack of 
understanding as to the LENR technology, not unexpected from a venture 
capitalist with a minimum of technical staff on hand to advise as to technical 
provisions in the contract.  Due diligence may not have been accomplished by 
IH.  

 Bob Cook

From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 3:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It 
isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering 
with.Seebelow.

Perhaps someone could remind me of the terms of the GPT.  

I thought I remembered that the GPT had to achieve at least a COP>=4 for 250 
days continuously.  I don't think it required anything like the 1 MW output.  
Perhaps Rossi created the 1MW array of devices as a "reactor" to give himself 
the flexibility under computer control to swap out non-functional or 
marginally-functional units so as to maintain his COP over the reliability 
period.  That would be a shrewd way of maintaining his claim of continuous 
reliability.
So, not making 1MW is not a problem for the GPT (I think).
Even having a COP << than what was reported is not a problem, as long as it is 
found to have a COP of at least the minimum requirement of the GPT.  The very 
high reported COP could be a ruse to have the real, much lower COP (but greater 
than the GPT requirement), come out by independent analysis as a surprise twist 
in the case.
Perhaps the validity of the "customer" may be a sticky legal point, but it may 
be just a semantic and the court, particularly a jury, could overlook it. 
There is the other sticky point for Rossi - he has not lived up to his end of 
the bargain in usefully transferring the technology into IH so that they can 
make a product.  That's what they paid $11M for.  Technology transfer would 
seem to be a prerequisite to beginning the GPT.  If Rossi is making a case for 
having a COP of at least 4 (to use that number for the GPT), how can he not 
have transferred that technology to IH before the GPT?  Had he done this, 
everybody would be happy today.  This is certain to weigh in a jury's decision.

RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with.Seebelow.

[bobcook39923]

Jones—

I smiled at your conjectures about Rossi: his reasons to sue, his perceived 
problems with IH/Cherokee, his greed for a bigger share, his probable belief of 
IH deep  pockets.  

You could provide a popular sequel to Sherlock.

Bob Cook



Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 9:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It 
isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering 
with.Seebelow.

I would add this to what Giovanni has observed. 
Rossi probably sued first because not only was his failure to perform obvious 
to all insiders at IH, but moreover - he considered Industrial Heat to be his 
actual partner in an ongoing scam which "could have" dragged on for far longer 
(had they been dishonest).
The problem was - Rossi could see that IH/Cherokee etc. were raking in lots of 
cash from investors - far more of the loot than Rossi was getting, so he sued 
to get a bigger share -- hoping they would settle, rather than expose what he 
thought was a joint windfall, in which he was not getting his fair cut.
He possibly believed that IH had valuable deep pocket investors in other 
projects of dubious merit, and did not want to risk loosing them when the money 
seemed to be flowing in strongly from Europe and China. The "brownfield" 
businesses of IH and Cherokee etc had itself been claimed by some to be ripe 
territory for scam artists, and Rossi was fully familiar with that niche in 
Italy due to his prior scam in brownfields: the Petroldragon affair. 
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiPetroldragonStory.shtml
When viewed from the perspective and history of Petroldragon, Leonardo, 
brownfields and Rossi's past contacts (at high level in our DoE - the other 
Leonardo) which were involved with his TEG scam, then a "silent partner in 
crime" scenario makes sense ... especially to a delusional inventor like Rossi.

Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
The courts are full of frivolous lawsuits and crazy claims of all types. People 
spin the truth or straight lie all the time in court proceedings from divorce 
to business cases.   
And it is well known that filing first gives you a psychological advantage. 
So Rossi could have simply anticipated he would be sued so he sued first. 
The fact he filed first is not the proof of anything. 
Giovanni 



On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:
Jed,
It is you who is missing my point.  Show me one case where the fraudster took 
his victim to court.
That is the last thing a fraudster would want to do, to have all the facts come 
out IN COURT.

RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with.Seebelow.

[bobcook39923]

Adrian—

I got your point the first time.  I came to the same conclusion nearly 1 year 
ago upon Rossi’s filing his complaint in court and as more lawyers came to 
Rossi’s legal team. 

 Fraudsters do not file complaints against those they defraud!

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: a.ashfield
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 8:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It 
isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering 
with.Seebelow.

Jed,
It is you who is missing my point.  Show me one case where the fraudster took 
his victim to court.
That is the last thing a fraudster would want to do, to have all the facts come 
out IN COURT.

AA
.
On 2/2/2017 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield  wrote:

I don't recall either of them taking their victims to court.
It was the other way around.

Your analysis is too narrow. You are missing the point. The point is, people 
such as Madoff and Rossi have enormous chutzpah, and they are reckless. They 
will say or do anything. They assume they will always find a way to win out. 
Rossi must have thought he could blazon his way through and demand money from 
IH. He thought they would fold, and pay something, if not the full amount.

The specifics details about whether Madoff was sued or Rossi filed suit is not 
at all what I am getting at. The key thing is, these people will do or say 
anything, even filing a lawsuit they cannot win.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with.Seebelow.

[bobcook39923]

I do not recall that the IH/Rossi contract says anything about the nature of a 
customer being a manufacturer.  The customer may have only been an energy sink, 
a steam condenser for example.  

The objective of the test was to produce energy for 350 days out of a year.  

I’ll review the contract and check out the specs for the customer.

Bob Cook

From: a.ashfield
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It 
isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering 
with.Seebelow.

I don't recall either of them taking their victims to court.
It was the other way around.

AA
On 2/2/2017 7:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield  wrote:
 
At this point it strikes me that it is extraordinarily unlikely that a 
fraudster would take the supposed victim (IH) to court.

Your personal level of incredulity is not a valid metric. Look at famous scams 
such as Ponzi or Bernie Madoff. They seem incredible, but they were real.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with.Seebelow.

[bobcook39923]

Adrian—

IMHO if anyone is blundering its IH.  They way under estimate Rossi’s resolve 
and intelligence, not even considering his lawyers input and their incentives.  
 

I agree with your conclusions.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: a.ashfield
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 9:10 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It 
isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering 
with.Seebelow.

Jones, contrary to what you wrote, I don't think it matters a damn whether the 
customer was real of not.  IH failed to find a customer for a year and possibly 
Rossi decided just to find a suitable heat sink.
What matters is how the 1 MW plant performed.  Did it really produce 1 MW with 
a COP of ~86?  We won't know until a drawing showing the layout of things like 
the flow meter is made available and speculation from second hand sources 
doesn't really help.

As to the other comments and a unnecessary multi-line title, it obviously comes 
as a surprise to Ahern that engineers frequently use the most convenient 
dimension, particularly if it is in comment use and understandable by most.  
Most people don't think in terms of millions of grams per second.

"something real that he is blundering with."   Blundering with?  A possible 
working LENR device?  Comments like that are something up with which I will not 
put.

Adrian Ashfield
On 2/2/2017 10:27 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

To cut to the chase ... Rossi's claim for supplying a massive amount of steam 
to a customer in an adjoining space (which no one from IH was allowed to visit) 
could be  instantly validated if there was indeed a real customer using the 
steam.

If there was no customer, and the steam was not being used for a real 
manufacturing process, then we have fraud - no matter how much reputed steam 
was being supplied.

This is the issue of fact to be determined by a jury, or by the judge if Rossi 
cannot present a prima facie case that there really was a real customer using 
steam to manufacture a product. It's really pretty simple, no? 

Was there a customer using the steam or not?

Legal definition of Fraud - A false representation of a matter of fact—whether 
by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment 
of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive 
another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Brian Ahern wrote:
Yesterday I corrected the Rossi calculations. I failed to note the water was 
above 100C with no pressure to keep it in the liquid phase. The metering device 
cannot function with a compressible fluid. It will always measure higher values 
than measuring it as a single liquid phase at the input.

Measuring the flow beyond the heating stage is OK if the output temperature is 
below  100C.  Allowing the temperature to exceed 100C is a surfire way to get 
inflated flow measurements.

Rossi was warned about involving two phase fluid flow. He did it anyway because 
it is so easy the provide inflated values. 

I agree with Jed that this was the most ambiguous method possible.  Use the 
minimum power to get to 103 C and have your flow meters operate in a two phase 
mode that is guaranteed to over report flow rates due to the increased 
compressibility.

Once again he selected the most ambiguous method .



From: bobcook39...@gmail.com 
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:27 PM
To: Jed Rothwell; Vortex
Subject: RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is 
veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. 
Seebelow. 
 
The enthalpy calculations of Ahern do not appear to account for the change of 
the phase of water to steam at about 100 C.  This is about 540 calories per 
gram and should add to the heating of the liquid phase over about 30 C.   
 
This amounts to 540 /30  or about 1800% additional enthalpy—joules or calories 
whatever units you want-- IMHO.
 
 
Bob Cook
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 
From: Jed Rothwell
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 12:40 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is 
veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. 
Seebelow.
 
Brian Ahern  wrote:
 
The water flow rate is 36000kG/day  or 36,000kG x 1,000g/kG  x 1 day/84,600 
sec/day = 425.5 G/sec
 
Note:
 
1. Rossi and Penon arbitrarily reduced the flow rate by 10%. That is what Rossi 
told Lewan in an interview. That is shown in this spreadsheet, in the "reduced 
flowed water (kg/d)" column. So, use 32,400 kg instead of 36,000 kg.
 
2. They used the wrong kind of flow meter, and it was installed in the gravity 
return pipe, which was only about half full of water. The manual for this flow 
meter says it does not work in a pipe that is half full, so the flow rates are 
far too high. It is difficult to say how far off they are, but they 

RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with.Seebelow.

[bobcook39923]

Higgins’s question about the schematic plan of the plant should settle 
everything. 

 Normally a system producing steam as the heat transfer agent will have a 
condenser with a condensate pump in the sump of the condenser.   There is a 
negative pressure—not a back pressure as Jed has suggested.  It is created by 
the condenser,  thus the condenser creates the differential pressure driving 
the steam from the  boiler to the heat sink.  

The feed pumps require a net positive suction head to operate properly without 
cavitation.  This would normally be established by the condensate pump(s).  If 
there were voids—air bubbles for example—in the feed line, the pumps would fail 
in short more than likely.  

Undesirable two-phase (air/water) feed flow to the reactor would create water 
hammer which could not be tolerated for long and be very noticeable to anyone 
near the steam producing plant.  

I find it hard to believe that Rossi would file suit without knowing for sure 
the steam system worked as I have suggested. 

It is telling that discovery has not brought such a schematic into the court 
record.  Rossi’s lawyers stand to make a fortune on IH stringing out the court 
proceedings IMHO.   

Bob Cook


Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 7:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It 
isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering 
with.Seebelow.

Has there yet been published in the court documents, a schematic of Rossi's 
system showing the location of the pumps and flow gauge?

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
Yesterday I corrected the Rossi calculations. I failed to note the water was 
above 100C with no pressure to keep it in the liquid phase. The metering device 
cannot function with a compressible fluid. It will always measure higher values 
than measuring it as a single liquid phase at the input.

Measuring the flow beyond the heating stage is OK if the output temperature is 
below  100C.  Allowing the temperature to exceed 100C is a surfire way to get 
inflated flow measurements.

Rossi was warned about involving two phase fluid flow. He did it anyway because 
it is so easy the provide inflated values. 

I agree with Jed that this was the most ambiguous method possible.  Use the 
minimum power to get to 103 C and have your flow meters operate in a two phase 
mode that is guaranteed to over report flow rates due to the increased 
compressibility.

Once again he selected the most ambiguous method .