Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Axil Axil]

Getting pad for the EVR test was still possible at that juncture and Rossi
might not have wanted to say anything that would discourage that payment,

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> A few days seem like an eternity.  Anyone remember this statement from
> Rossi in early March?
>
> Velda Funderburke
> March 11, 2016 at 6:17 AM
>
> Dr Andrea Rossi:
> After the press release of Tom Darden the usual imbeciles are talking of
> divorce between IH and Leonardo Corporation: can you comment on this ?
> Velda
>
> Andrea Rossi
> March 11, 2016 at 9:16 AM
>
> Velda Funderburke:
> Thank you for spotting this issue: there is absolutely no divorce between
> Leonardo Corporation and any of its Licensees, included Industrial Heat.
> Industrial Heat is the legitimate licensee of Leonardo Corporation for its
> Territory and I never referred to any possible divorce.
> I invite anybody to disregard any innuendo, supposition, speculation
> related to the licenses of Leonardo Corporation unless they are
> communicated directly from Leonardo Corporation.
> There is some imbecile that tries to get audience inventing situations
> that do not exist.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
> Ref. [1]
>
>
> Either Rossi was not yet preparing his lawsuit at the time (and amassing
> the 18 volumes of evidence [2]), or the reply above was a misleading one.
>
> Eric
>
> [1]
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=71#comment-1158228
> [2] 'We have prepared 18 volumes to explain exactly and in detail the
> activity of our “Licensee” and his acquaintances from 2013 to now.'
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=89#comment-1169740
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Eric Walker]

A few days seem like an eternity.  Anyone remember this statement from
Rossi in early March?

Velda Funderburke
March 11, 2016 at 6:17 AM

Dr Andrea Rossi:
After the press release of Tom Darden the usual imbeciles are talking of
divorce between IH and Leonardo Corporation: can you comment on this ?
Velda

Andrea Rossi
March 11, 2016 at 9:16 AM

Velda Funderburke:
Thank you for spotting this issue: there is absolutely no divorce between
Leonardo Corporation and any of its Licensees, included Industrial Heat.
Industrial Heat is the legitimate licensee of Leonardo Corporation for its
Territory and I never referred to any possible divorce.
I invite anybody to disregard any innuendo, supposition, speculation
related to the licenses of Leonardo Corporation unless they are
communicated directly from Leonardo Corporation.
There is some imbecile that tries to get audience inventing situations that
do not exist.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Ref. [1]


Either Rossi was not yet preparing his lawsuit at the time (and amassing
the 18 volumes of evidence [2]), or the reply above was a misleading one.

Eric

[1]
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=71#comment-1158228
[2] 'We have prepared 18 volumes to explain exactly and in detail the
activity of our “Licensee” and his acquaintances from 2013 to now.'
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=89#comment-1169740

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Frank Znidarsic]

Steven Kirvit reports.  Steven was in this early and went to see Rossi in 
Europe.




http://news.newenergytimes.net/2016/04/08/industrial-heat-says-goodbye-to-rossi/#more-43319


Frank

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Daniel Rocha]

So, according to Rossi, IH has everything. All the know-how necessary to
build a reactor. I hope this is true and the Chinese use the invention in
the most pervasive  way!

2016-04-08 23:23 GMT-03:00 Axil Axil :

> Rossi is pissed because his IP was given to competitors.
>
> Andrea Rossi
> April 7, 2016 at 8:32 PM
> 
>
> Hank Mills:
> They prepared everything, the charges, the body of the reactor EVERYTHING
> !!!.
> I just teached to them what to do.
> They never used anything pre-prepared by Leonardo Corp.
> Now, let me talk to you of a very singular coincidence: Brillouin has
> always made only electrolytic apparatuses: go to read all their patent
> applications made before their agreement with IH, and you will find
> confirmation of what I am saying ( I know their patents by heart, because I
> have studied them and probably I know them better than themselves : I wrote
> about 100 pages of notes about their patents ). And now the singular
> coincidence: they make the agreement with IH in April 2015, and Voilà, they
> made a public demo in Capitol Hill ( Washington, DC) with a device that is
> the Copy-Cat of something I am familiar with. Nothing that Brillouin has
> ever made before the agreement with IH. What a coincidence !!!
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> Nothing to disagree with there.  I think there is something fishy going
>> on, like the MW reactor supplying heat 24/7, but Rossi is choosing to pick
>> the best 8 hours of the day to calculate his reactor's performance.  With
>> that kind of thinking (and I am just speculating), a set of rechargeable
>> batteries could show a COP > 6.  So, we need to see the real data and how
>> the average was calculated.
>>
>> To me it seems like deja-vu all over again.  Didn't Defkalion claim that
>> they didn't pay Rossi because he couldn't make the reactor work reliably?
>> I don't think Rossi argued that point, he just dissolved the contract.
>> Could that be the problem here too? (Failing to meet the contract terms for
>> reactor reliability.)
>>
>> I also think Rossi only gave IH technical "crumbs" and never gave IH the
>> key to making the bread and butter eCat work.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>> *From:* Bob Higgins
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, Tom Clarke did good forensic research and wrote a
>>> good paper.  In Clarke's comment about the translucency, he states:
>>>
>>> "This error is impossible to quantify because it depends on the heater
>>> wire emissivity, temperature, and surface coverage, all of which are
>>> unknown."
>>>
>>> I agree, it is impossible to quantify - sufficient data from the
>>> experiment was not reported.
>>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>> First, here is Clarke’s take on the first Penon report and it isn’t
>>> pretty:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2989-The-August-2012-Penon-Hot-Cat-report/?postID=16547#post16547
>>>
>>> As for Lugano, because of the “impossible to quantify” problem - this is
>>> clearly not admissible in court. You can see one of many reason why a
>>> jury will never hear about a test like Lugano, never hear about
>>> imaginary COP of 60 and not hear about the year-long testing either –
>>> due to evidentiary rules and the fact that Penon is completely
>>> unqualified.
>>>
>>> Then, we have the problem of anomalous gain, which would violate the
>>> “known laws of physics.” I hate that as much as you do, but that is the
>>> way the legal system works. Few if any experts can get qualified by a
>>> Court who will testify that it can work – much less that it did work. They
>>> might have to fly McKubre in from NZ.  J
>>>
>>> In short, Rossi has almost no chance to win a jury trial even if his
>>> sordid background and criminal history cannot be introduced, in order
>>> to prove a continuing pattern of fraud. A trial is looking like a
>>> no-win situation for Rossi, especially up against squeaky clean
>>> All-American types who clean up the environment, instead of pollute it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Axil Axil]

Rossi is pissed because his IP was given to competitors.

Andrea Rossi
April 7, 2016 at 8:32 PM


Hank Mills:
They prepared everything, the charges, the body of the reactor EVERYTHING
!!!.
I just teached to them what to do.
They never used anything pre-prepared by Leonardo Corp.
Now, let me talk to you of a very singular coincidence: Brillouin has
always made only electrolytic apparatuses: go to read all their patent
applications made before their agreement with IH, and you will find
confirmation of what I am saying ( I know their patents by heart, because I
have studied them and probably I know them better than themselves : I wrote
about 100 pages of notes about their patents ). And now the singular
coincidence: they make the agreement with IH in April 2015, and Voilà, they
made a public demo in Capitol Hill ( Washington, DC) with a device that is
the Copy-Cat of something I am familiar with. Nothing that Brillouin has
ever made before the agreement with IH. What a coincidence !!!
Warm Regards,
A.R.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Nothing to disagree with there.  I think there is something fishy going
> on, like the MW reactor supplying heat 24/7, but Rossi is choosing to pick
> the best 8 hours of the day to calculate his reactor's performance.  With
> that kind of thinking (and I am just speculating), a set of rechargeable
> batteries could show a COP > 6.  So, we need to see the real data and how
> the average was calculated.
>
> To me it seems like deja-vu all over again.  Didn't Defkalion claim that
> they didn't pay Rossi because he couldn't make the reactor work reliably?
> I don't think Rossi argued that point, he just dissolved the contract.
> Could that be the problem here too? (Failing to meet the contract terms for
> reactor reliability.)
>
> I also think Rossi only gave IH technical "crumbs" and never gave IH the
> key to making the bread and butter eCat work.
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *From:* Bob Higgins
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, Tom Clarke did good forensic research and wrote a
>> good paper.  In Clarke's comment about the translucency, he states:
>>
>> "This error is impossible to quantify because it depends on the heater
>> wire emissivity, temperature, and surface coverage, all of which are
>> unknown."
>>
>> I agree, it is impossible to quantify - sufficient data from the
>> experiment was not reported.
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> First, here is Clarke’s take on the first Penon report and it isn’t
>> pretty:
>>
>>
>> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2989-The-August-2012-Penon-Hot-Cat-report/?postID=16547#post16547
>>
>> As for Lugano, because of the “impossible to quantify” problem - this is
>> clearly not admissible in court. You can see one of many reason why a
>> jury will never hear about a test like Lugano, never hear about
>> imaginary COP of 60 and not hear about the year-long testing either –
>> due to evidentiary rules and the fact that Penon is completely
>> unqualified.
>>
>> Then, we have the problem of anomalous gain, which would violate the
>> “known laws of physics.” I hate that as much as you do, but that is the
>> way the legal system works. Few if any experts can get qualified by a
>> Court who will testify that it can work – much less that it did work. They
>> might have to fly McKubre in from NZ.  J
>>
>> In short, Rossi has almost no chance to win a jury trial even if his
>> sordid background and criminal history cannot be introduced, in order to
>> prove a continuing pattern of fraud. A trial is looking like a no-win
>> situation for Rossi, especially up against squeaky clean All-American
>> types who clean up the environment, instead of pollute it.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Axil Axil]

The Lugano reactor was IH tech. This marginal system is what IH is
concerned about. They need Rossi's new systems.


On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
> As I have previously pointed out, Clarke's analysis is flawed in terms of
>> COP analysis - perhaps as badly as the analysis by the Lugano researchers.
>> Failure to recognize and account for the transmitted radiation through the
>> outer envelope is a BIG error.
>>
>
> This is my impression, too.  It seems that Tom wants to turn an
> irremediably inconclusive test into one that shows conclusively a result
> convenient to his own biases.  In order to have that, you'd need a proper
> calibration, so that you could obtain an accurate temperature reading,
> among other things.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Bob Higgins]

Nothing to disagree with there.  I think there is something fishy going on,
like the MW reactor supplying heat 24/7, but Rossi is choosing to pick the
best 8 hours of the day to calculate his reactor's performance.  With that
kind of thinking (and I am just speculating), a set of rechargeable
batteries could show a COP > 6.  So, we need to see the real data and how
the average was calculated.

To me it seems like deja-vu all over again.  Didn't Defkalion claim that
they didn't pay Rossi because he couldn't make the reactor work reliably?
I don't think Rossi argued that point, he just dissolved the contract.
Could that be the problem here too? (Failing to meet the contract terms for
reactor reliability.)

I also think Rossi only gave IH technical "crumbs" and never gave IH the
key to making the bread and butter eCat work.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> Don't get me wrong, Tom Clarke did good forensic research and wrote a good
> paper.  In Clarke's comment about the translucency, he states:
>
> "This error is impossible to quantify because it depends on the heater
> wire emissivity, temperature, and surface coverage, all of which are
> unknown."
>
> I agree, it is impossible to quantify - sufficient data from the
> experiment was not reported.
>
> Bob,
>
> First, here is Clarke’s take on the first Penon report and it isn’t pretty
> :
>
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2989-The-August-2012-Penon-Hot-Cat-report/?postID=16547#post16547
>
> As for Lugano, because of the “impossible to quantify” problem - this is
> clearly not admissible in court. You can see one of many reason why a
> jury will never hear about a test like Lugano, never hear about imaginary
> COP of 60 and not hear about the year-long testing either – due to
> evidentiary rules and the fact that Penon is completely unqualified.
>
> Then, we have the problem of anomalous gain, which would violate the
> “known laws of physics.” I hate that as much as you do, but that is the
> way the legal system works. Few if any experts can get qualified by a
> Court who will testify that it can work – much less that it did work. They
> might have to fly McKubre in from NZ.  J
>
> In short, Rossi has almost no chance to win a jury trial even if his
> sordid background and criminal history cannot be introduced, in order to
> prove a continuing pattern of fraud. A trial is looking like a no-win
> situation for Rossi, especially up against squeaky clean All-American
> types who clean up the environment, instead of pollute it.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

As I have previously pointed out, Clarke's analysis is flawed in terms of
> COP analysis - perhaps as badly as the analysis by the Lugano researchers.
> Failure to recognize and account for the transmitted radiation through the
> outer envelope is a BIG error.
>

This is my impression, too.  It seems that Tom wants to turn an
irremediably inconclusive test into one that shows conclusively a result
convenient to his own biases.  In order to have that, you'd need a proper
calibration, so that you could obtain an accurate temperature reading,
among other things.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

Don't get me wrong, Tom Clarke did good forensic research and wrote a good 
paper.  In Clarke's comment about the translucency, he states:
"This error is impossible to quantify because it depends on the heater wire 
emissivity, temperature, and surface coverage, all of which are unknown."

I agree, it is impossible to quantify - sufficient data from the experiment was 
not reported.
Bob, 
First, here is Clarke’s take on the first Penon report and it isn’t pretty:
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2989-The-August-2012-Penon-Hot-Cat-report/?postID=16547#post16547
As for Lugano, because of the “impossible to quantify” problem - this is 
clearly not admissible in court. You can see one of many reason why a jury will 
never hear about a test like Lugano, never hear about imaginary COP of 60 and 
not hear about the year-long testing either – due to evidentiary rules and the 
fact that Penon is completely unqualified.
Then, we have the problem of anomalous gain, which would violate the “known 
laws of physics.” I hate that as much as you do, but that is the way the legal 
system works. Few if any experts can get qualified by a Court who will testify 
that it can work – much less that it did work. They might have to fly McKubre 
in from NZ.  :-) 
In short, Rossi has almost no chance to win a jury trial even if his sordid 
background and criminal history cannot be introduced, in order to prove a 
continuing pattern of fraud. A trial is looking like a no-win situation for 
Rossi, especially up against squeaky clean All-American types who clean up the 
environment, instead of pollute it.

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Dave]

I do not accept this analysis as definitive.  Please note the very rapid 
change in measured temperature of the Lugano reactor that occurs with a 
small change in input drive power.  How would you explain that as a 
function of the material? Do you believe that the material changes 
properties that significantly with such a small change in drive?


My thermal models show this effect quite clearly, especially when the 
COP begins to become significant.  I believe that everyone needs to 
rethink what they are accepting as facts.


Dave



On 04/08/2016 01:58 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid thermal
gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
Thomas Clarke.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2
=1

The conclusion: The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in
the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina
is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has a
non-gray-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with
Plank's Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The
infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant band
emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity.

We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is 779C,
not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system shows a
COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error.
Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the
Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
are as expected for a system with no excess heat.


From: Robert Dorr


I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for

the Lugano test and that they even signed it.

But the Lugano reactor did not produce significant excess heat, after the
measurement errors were accounted for, so the Lugano fiasco reaffirms the
stance of IH - that they have never witnessed excess heat in a valid test of
a Rossi reactor.

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Axil Axil]

The Lugano test was a demonstration of IH technology that was in place as
of a few months ago. Rossi supported the test but had nothing to do with it
or had any stake in that test succeeding. The state of IH LENR tech as show
by Lugano was poor even if Rossi told IH how to produce the fuel.  The
Lugano test was used for IH;s patent application.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Don't get me wrong, Tom Clarke did good forensic research and wrote a good
> paper.  In Clarke's comment about the translucency, he states:
>
> "This error is impossible to quantify because it depends on the heater
> wire emissivity, temperature, and surface coverage, all of which are
> unknown."
>
> I agree, it is impossible to quantify - sufficient data from the
> experiment was not reported.   BUT, I will say that the unknown transmitted
> radiant heat will be an unknown positive value - above what is accounted
> for via emissivity.  At the higher temperatures, particularly at the core
> and the heater, the blackbody radiation peaks at a much shorter wavelength,
> delivering much radiation in the transmission band of alumina - and - the
> radiated power rises rapidly at the higher temperature of the coil and the
> core.  All of the transmitted heat is unaccounted, and it all contributes
> to the COP being greater than 1.0.
>
> The argument based on high differential COP being used by the Lugano
> researchers to argue gain probably does not hold much water, as Clarke
> says.  However, this also does not disprove COP>1.0.  The fact that you add
> additional heat and don't get a greater COP is not at all indicative that
> the COP is only 1.  There is no reason to believe that the COP was
> improving as the temperature went up.  Those two data points simply provide
> no information that the COP was only 1.0.
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>>
>>
>> Your point about the transmitted radiation is answered by Clarke’s final
>> quoted observation, which I included. Since transmitted radiation would be
>> greater with greater input power -- if it were to be relevant -- we can
>> judge its relevance by looking at differential COP. Since the differential
>> COP does not change with added power, transmitted radiation cannot be
>> relevant. Quote:
>>
>>
>>
>> “Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
>> and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
>> alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by
>> the
>> Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
>> are as expected for a system with no excess heat.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Bob Higgins
>>
>>
>>
>> As I have previously pointed out, Clarke's analysis is flawed in terms of
>> COP analysis - perhaps as badly as the analysis by the Lugano researchers.
>> Failure to recognize and account for the transmitted radiation through the
>> outer envelope is a BIG error.  Insufficient data was taken and/or reported
>> that would allow the full radiation to be back calculated, and radiation is
>> the biggest part of the output.  This transmitted radiation is an
>> independent output that is only weakly related to the characterized
>> envelope temperature (as in the incandescent light bulb model).  We will
>> probably never know what the Lugano COP was, but I believe it to be bigger
>> than 1.0 and probably around 1.6-2.0.
>>
>> We know that this type of reactor can be gainful based on Parkhomov's
>> work.  However, we have no credible evidence for a hotCat operating with a
>> COP>2.  Clarke's work probably only sets a lower limit on the COP.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>> If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid
>> thermal
>> gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
>> Thomas Clarke.
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2
>> =1
>>
>> The conclusion: The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in
>> the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina
>> is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has
>> a
>> non-gray-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with
>> Plank's Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The
>> infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant
>> band
>> emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity.
>>
>> We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is
>> 779C,
>> not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system
>> shows a
>> COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error.
>> Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
>> and this similarity is not very sensitive to 

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Bob Higgins]

Don't get me wrong, Tom Clarke did good forensic research and wrote a good
paper.  In Clarke's comment about the translucency, he states:

"This error is impossible to quantify because it depends on the heater wire
emissivity, temperature, and surface coverage, all of which are unknown."

I agree, it is impossible to quantify - sufficient data from the experiment
was not reported.   BUT, I will say that the unknown transmitted radiant
heat will be an unknown positive value - above what is accounted for via
emissivity.  At the higher temperatures, particularly at the core and the
heater, the blackbody radiation peaks at a much shorter wavelength,
delivering much radiation in the transmission band of alumina - and - the
radiated power rises rapidly at the higher temperature of the coil and the
core.  All of the transmitted heat is unaccounted, and it all contributes
to the COP being greater than 1.0.

The argument based on high differential COP being used by the Lugano
researchers to argue gain probably does not hold much water, as Clarke
says.  However, this also does not disprove COP>1.0.  The fact that you add
additional heat and don't get a greater COP is not at all indicative that
the COP is only 1.  There is no reason to believe that the COP was
improving as the temperature went up.  Those two data points simply provide
no information that the COP was only 1.0.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Bob,
>
>
>
> Your point about the transmitted radiation is answered by Clarke’s final
> quoted observation, which I included. Since transmitted radiation would be
> greater with greater input power -- if it were to be relevant -- we can
> judge its relevance by looking at differential COP. Since the differential
> COP does not change with added power, transmitted radiation cannot be
> relevant. Quote:
>
>
>
> “Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
> and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
> alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the
> Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
> are as expected for a system with no excess heat.
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
>
>
> As I have previously pointed out, Clarke's analysis is flawed in terms of
> COP analysis - perhaps as badly as the analysis by the Lugano researchers.
> Failure to recognize and account for the transmitted radiation through the
> outer envelope is a BIG error.  Insufficient data was taken and/or reported
> that would allow the full radiation to be back calculated, and radiation is
> the biggest part of the output.  This transmitted radiation is an
> independent output that is only weakly related to the characterized
> envelope temperature (as in the incandescent light bulb model).  We will
> probably never know what the Lugano COP was, but I believe it to be bigger
> than 1.0 and probably around 1.6-2.0.
>
> We know that this type of reactor can be gainful based on Parkhomov's
> work.  However, we have no credible evidence for a hotCat operating with a
> COP>2.  Clarke's work probably only sets a lower limit on the COP.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid
> thermal
> gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
> Thomas Clarke.
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2
> =1
>
> The conclusion: The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in
> the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina
> is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has a
> non-gray-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with
> Plank's Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The
> infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant
> band
> emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity.
>
> We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is
> 779C,
> not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system shows
> a
> COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error.
> Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
> and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
> alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the
> Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
> are as expected for a system with no excess heat.
>
>
> From: Robert Dorr
>
> > I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for
> the Lugano test and that they even signed it.
>
> But the Lugano reactor did not produce significant excess heat, after the
> measurement errors were accounted for, so the Lugano fiasco reaffirms the
> stance of IH 

RE: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

 

Your point about the transmitted radiation is answered by Clarke’s final quoted 
observation, which I included. Since transmitted radiation would be greater 
with greater input power -- if it were to be relevant -- we can judge its 
relevance by looking at differential COP. Since the differential COP does not 
change with added power, transmitted radiation cannot be relevant. Quote:

 

“Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the
Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
are as expected for a system with no excess heat.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

As I have previously pointed out, Clarke's analysis is flawed in terms of COP 
analysis - perhaps as badly as the analysis by the Lugano researchers.  Failure 
to recognize and account for the transmitted radiation through the outer 
envelope is a BIG error.  Insufficient data was taken and/or reported that 
would allow the full radiation to be back calculated, and radiation is the 
biggest part of the output.  This transmitted radiation is an independent 
output that is only weakly related to the characterized envelope temperature 
(as in the incandescent light bulb model).  We will probably never know what 
the Lugano COP was, but I believe it to be bigger than 1.0 and probably around 
1.6-2.0.

We know that this type of reactor can be gainful based on Parkhomov's work.  
However, we have no credible evidence for a hotCat operating with a COP>2.  
Clarke's work probably only sets a lower limit on the COP.

 

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid thermal
gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
Thomas Clarke.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2 

 
=1

The conclusion: The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in
the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina
is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has a
non-gray-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with
Plank's Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The
infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant band
emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity.

We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is 779C,
not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system shows a
COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error.
Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the
Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
are as expected for a system with no excess heat.


From: Robert Dorr

> I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for
the Lugano test and that they even signed it.

But the Lugano reactor did not produce significant excess heat, after the
measurement errors were accounted for, so the Lugano fiasco reaffirms the
stance of IH - that they have never witnessed excess heat in a valid test of
a Rossi reactor.





 

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Axil Axil]

A large blob of melted nickel that was pealed out of the Lugano reactor
speaks louder than any thermocouple. The core of the Lugano reactor got
beyond 1455C no matter what the external temperature reading showed or how
those measurements were made.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid
> thermal
> gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
> Thomas Clarke.
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2
> =1
>
> The conclusion: The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in
> the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina
> is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has a
> non-gray-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with
> Plank's Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The
> infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant
> band
> emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity.
>
> We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is
> 779C,
> not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system shows
> a
> COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error.
> Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
> and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
> alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the
> Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
> are as expected for a system with no excess heat.
>
>
> From: Robert Dorr
>
> > I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for
> the Lugano test and that they even signed it.
>
> But the Lugano reactor did not produce significant excess heat, after the
> measurement errors were accounted for, so the Lugano fiasco reaffirms the
> stance of IH - that they have never witnessed excess heat in a valid test
> of
> a Rossi reactor.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Bob Higgins]

Jones,

As I have previously pointed out, Clarke's analysis is flawed in terms of
COP analysis - perhaps as badly as the analysis by the Lugano researchers.
Failure to recognize and account for the transmitted radiation through the
outer envelope is a BIG error.  Insufficient data was taken and/or reported
that would allow the full radiation to be back calculated, and radiation is
the biggest part of the output.  This transmitted radiation is an
independent output that is only weakly related to the characterized
envelope temperature (as in the incandescent light bulb model).  We will
probably never know what the Lugano COP was, but I believe it to be bigger
than 1.0 and probably around 1.6-2.0.

We know that this type of reactor can be gainful based on Parkhomov's
work.  However, we have no credible evidence for a hotCat operating with a
COP>2.  Clarke's work probably only sets a lower limit on the COP.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid
> thermal
> gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
> Thomas Clarke.
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2
> =1
>
> The conclusion: The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in
> the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina
> is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has a
> non-gray-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with
> Plank's Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The
> infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant
> band
> emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity.
>
> We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is
> 779C,
> not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system shows
> a
> COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error.
> Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
> and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
> alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the
> Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
> are as expected for a system with no excess heat.
>
>
> From: Robert Dorr
>
> > I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for
> the Lugano test and that they even signed it.
>
> But the Lugano reactor did not produce significant excess heat, after the
> measurement errors were accounted for, so the Lugano fiasco reaffirms the
> stance of IH - that they have never witnessed excess heat in a valid test
> of
> a Rossi reactor.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid
> thermal
> gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
> Thomas Clarke.
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2
> =1
>
>
A copy is here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf

RE: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Jones Beene]

If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid thermal
gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
Thomas Clarke.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2
=1

The conclusion: The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in
the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina
is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has a
non-gray-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with
Plank's Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The
infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant band
emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity.

We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is 779C,
not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system shows a
COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error.
Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the
Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
are as expected for a system with no excess heat.


From: Robert Dorr 

> I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for
the Lugano test and that they even signed it.

But the Lugano reactor did not produce significant excess heat, after the
measurement errors were accounted for, so the Lugano fiasco reaffirms the
stance of IH - that they have never witnessed excess heat in a valid test of
a Rossi reactor.




<>

RE: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Robert Dorr 


I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for the
Lugano test and that they even signed it.

 

But the Lugano reactor did not produce significant excess heat, after the
measurement errors were accounted for, so the Lugano fiasco reaffirms the
stance of IH - that they have never witnessed excess heat in a valid test of
a Rossi reactor.

 






 

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Robert Dorr]

I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for 
the Lugano test and that they even signed it.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR


On 4/7/2016 7:11 PM, Robert Dorr wrote:



You will notice it says that Rossi and I.H. provided an E-Cat for "a" 
test measurement (I read as a singular measurment) not necessarily for 
the Lugano Test. Possibly to verify any ionizing radiation. So many 
possible ways to read all of this rapidly developing information.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR


At 06:56 PM 4/7/2016, you wrote:

Robert Dorr > wrote:
Â

I keep seeing that supposedly  I.H. was the one that built the
e-cat used in the Lugano test. As far as I can see that is
completely untrue.


I.H. is mentioned in the Lugano paper three times:


In the course of the year following the previous tests, the 
E-CatâEUR^(TM)s technology was transferred to Industrial Heat LLC, 
United States, where it was replicated and improved. . . .


The authors gratefully acknowledge Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat 
LLC for providing us with the E-cat reactor to perform an independent 
test measurement. . . .


Lastly, our thanks to Industrial Heat LLC (USA) for providing 
financial support for the measurements performed for radiation 
protection purposes.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11988 - Release Date: 04/08/16

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Craig Haynie]

Rossi:

" I have to comment the press release of IH, being a press release and 
not a forensic act.
They made the Lugano reactor ( they also signed it ) they made many 
replications of which we have due record and witnesses, they made 
multiple patent applications ( without my authotization ) with their 
chief engineer as the co-inventor ( he invented nothing ) , with 
detailed description of the replications , they made replications with 
the attendance of Woodford, after which they got 50 or 60 millions of 
dollars from Woodfords’ investors, they made replications with the 
attendance of Chinese top level officers, after which they started 
thanks to the E-Cat they made an R activity in China in a 200 millions 
concern, they made replications with an E-Cat completely made by them 
under my direction the very day in which the 1 MW plant has been 
delivered in Raleigh, they made replications that we have recorded. 
After the replication they made with the attendance of Woodford in 2013 
Mr Tom Darden said publicly: ” this replication has been stellar” ( 
witnesses available). But this is not the place to discuss this. We have 
prepared 18 volumes to explain exactly and in detail the activity of our 
“Licensee” and his acquaintances from 2013 to now. Until they had to 
collect money thanks to the E-Cat, they made replications and have been 
happy with the E-Cat; when it turned to have to pay, they discovered 
that they never made replications, that the ERV that they had chosen in 
agreement with us was not good, that the test on the 1 MW plant, thanks 
to which they collected enormous amounts of money from the investors and 
where I put at risk my health working 16-18 hours per day was not a good 
test ( but for all the year of the test they NEVER said a single word of 
complaint, even if they had constantly their men in the plant), etc etc. 
But the worse has still to come out. The worse is in the 18 volumes we 
will present in due time, in due place. A blog is not the right place to 
discuss a litigation. This is only a quick answer to the press release 
made by IH."


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892

Craig

On 04/07/2016 09:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Robert Dorr > wrote:

I keep seeing that supposedly  I.H. was the one that built the
e-cat used in the Lugano test. As far as I can see that is
completely untrue.


I.H. is mentioned in the Lugano paper three times:


In the course of the year following the previous tests, the E-Cat’s 
technology was transferred to Industrial Heat LLC, United States, 
where it was replicated and improved. . . .


The authors gratefully acknowledge Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat 
LLC for providing us with the E-cat reactor to perform an independent 
test measurement. . . .


Lastly, our thanks to Industrial Heat LLC (USA) for providing 
financial support for the measurements performed for radiation 
protection purposes.

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

Isn't it also true that one of their observers has been making positive
> remarks during the past year, as well?
>

Fulvio Fabiani was one of the two people engaged by IH to keep tabs on the
test.  But he's basically a Leonardo Corp. employee (see, e.g., [1]).  I
don't know anything about Barry West, the other monitor who was mentioned
in the suit.

Eric


[1]
https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Robert Dorr]

You will notice it says that Rossi and I.H. 
provided an E-Cat for "a" test measurement (I 
read as a singular measurment) not necessarily 
for the Lugano Test. Possibly to verify any 
ionizing radiation. So many possible ways to read 
all of this rapidly developing information.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR


At 06:56 PM 4/7/2016, you wrote:

Robert Dorr <rod...@comcast.net> wrote:
Â
I keep seeing that supposedly  I.H. was the one 
that built the e-cat used in the Lugano test. As 
far as I can see that is completely untrue.



I.H. is mentioned in the Lugano paper three times:


In the course of the year following the previous 
tests, the E-Cat’s technology was transferred 
to Industrial Heat LLC, United States, where it 
was replicated and improved. . . .


The authors gratefully acknowledge Andrea Rossi 
and Industrial Heat LLC for providing us with 
the E-cat reactor to perform an independent test measurement. . . .


Lastly, our thanks to Industrial Heat LLC (USA) 
for providing financial support for the 
measurements performed for radiation protection purposes.

RE: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Russ George]

Also since Rossi had 400 days in which to carry on his demo and took only 350 
of those days and given that IH was fully engaged and watching this whole time 
then it is quite absurd to suggest that the demo was terminated without consent 
and agreement of all parties…. That clearly suggests IH and Rossi were in 
agreement that success was in hand. The fact that IH then did not then abide by 
the agreement and pay Rossi the remaining $89 million is suddenly where the 
relationship has broken although as Rossi’s legal paper suggests IH was 
engaging in other breaches. I would guess Rossi was giving IH all the slack 
possible on the IP breaches as the $89 million would be an adequate salve to 
treat those wounds. This is simply a case of a game of real hard ball business, 
nothing unusual at all. Rossi is proving to be more of a genius in the business 
arena than in the engineering arena.

 

 

From: Craig Haynie [mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 6:50 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor 
SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

 

 

On 04/07/2016 09:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

From: Craig Haynie 

 

*  They also paid Rossi $10 million dollars, after validating that the device 
was working…

Not exactly. The logical error is cause and effect. Yes, they paid the 
installment, but elsewhere they clearly state that "Industrial Heat has worked 
for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the 
E-Cat technology – all without success". Clearly IH never said or implied that 
the device worked, nor did they deny making the installment.

 


Just to clarify, I am only reading the agreement to make this determination. I 
don't have any knowledge as to what actually occurred when IH paid Rossi the 
$10 million. Considering they now claim to be unable to substantiate the 
results, then this is certainly the prudent thing to do after a lawsuit has 
been filed against them. They also are reported to have had two observers 
during the past year, watching, and consulting with the ERV. If there had been 
a serious problem, one would think that they would have made some mention of it 
earlier. Isn't it also true that one of their observers has been making 
positive remarks during the past year, as well?

The agreement says:

"The Validation will be made in the factory of Leonardo within 120 Business 
Days following the date of this Agreement on a date mutually agreed to by the 
Company and Leonardo. "Validation" will be deemed successful and achieved when 
the expert responsible for such validation (ERV) certifies in writing that 
during a 24 hour test period the Plant consistently produces energy that is at 
least six times greater than the energy consumed by the Plant... and the 
temperature of the steam produced by the Plant is consistently 100 degrees 
Celsius or greater... At their respective elections, the Company and the 
Leonardo may have representatives present to observe the Validation process and 
discuss the testing and its results with the ERV."

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Dorr  wrote:


> I keep seeing that supposedly  I.H. was the one that built the e-cat used
> in the Lugano test. As far as I can see that is completely untrue.
>

I.H. is mentioned in the Lugano paper three times:


In the course of the year following the previous tests, the E-Cat’s
technology was transferred to Industrial Heat LLC, United States, where it
was replicated and improved. . . .

The authors gratefully acknowledge Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat LLC for
providing us with the E-cat reactor to perform an independent test
measurement. . . .

Lastly, our thanks to Industrial Heat LLC (USA) for providing financial
support for the measurements performed for radiation protection purposes.

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Craig Haynie]

On 04/07/2016 09:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


*From:*Craig Haynie

ØThey also paid Rossi $10 million dollars, after validating that the 
device was working…


Not exactly. The logical error is cause and effect. Yes, they paid the 
installment, but elsewhere they clearly state that "Industrial Heat 
has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by 
Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success". Clearly IH 
never said or implied that the device worked, nor did they deny making 
the installment.





Just to clarify, I am only reading the agreement to make this 
determination. I don't have any knowledge as to what actually occurred 
when IH paid Rossi the $10 million. Considering they now claim to be 
unable to substantiate the results, then this is certainly the prudent 
thing to do after a lawsuit has been filed against them. They also are 
reported to have had two observers during the past year, watching, and 
consulting with the ERV. If there had been a serious problem, one would 
think that they would have made some mention of it earlier. Isn't it 
also true that one of their observers has been making positive remarks 
during the past year, as well?


The agreement says:

"The Validation will be made in the factory of Leonardo within 120 
Business Days following the date of this Agreement on a date mutually 
agreed to by the Company and Leonardo. "Validation" will be deemed 
successful and achieved when the expert responsible for such validation 
(ERV) certifies in writing that during a 24 hour test period the Plant 
consistently produces energy that is at least six times greater than the 
energy consumed by the Plant... and the temperature of the steam 
produced by the Plant is consistently 100 degrees Celsius or greater... 
At their respective elections, the Company and the Leonardo may have 
representatives present to observe the Validation process and discuss 
the testing and its results with the ERV."


Craig

RE: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Jones Beene]

From: Craig Haynie 

 

Ø  They also paid Rossi $10 million dollars, after validating that the device 
was working…

Not exactly. The logical error is cause and effect. Yes, they paid the 
installment, but elsewhere they clearly state that "Industrial Heat has worked 
for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the 
E-Cat technology – all without success". Clearly IH never said or implied that 
the device worked, nor did they deny making the installment.

There are many reasons why someone would want to pay for a foothold in a 
potentially valuable technology without validating its full factual reality. 
Above this, there are a number of similar logical and semantic problems to 
grasp in this situation. For instance, both of the two items below could be 
true…

1) The “average” COP in Penon’s report is 6

2) COP at times “was as high as 60”

Those can be true and at the same time we must accept the reality that the 
average COP over the entire year, the whole 350 days of a test period, could be 
less than one. That can be true, even when the two items above are true, as the 
complaint alleges. Penon’s report was clearly not based on the full time period 
of 2000 hours.

If you haven’t figured it out by now, the reason that these seemingly 
conflicting statements can all be true - is called “cherry picking” of data. 
Happens all the time - even at the top labs. 

The complaint from Rossi has been carefully worded in legalese to overlook the 
fact that 350 days, in industrial parlance, implies 8-hour days and a minimum 
of 2000 hours. Accordingly, at IH, they will insist if this goes to trial - 
that all of that the full allotted time of the contract must be used as the 
divisor in the final equation – in order to have a meaningful average COP 
instead of a selective  one. 

Rossi and his defenders can claim that the use of cherry-picking pervades all 
of science and moreover – even if the percentage of impressive COP data is low 
based on the full year – it is still meaningful. It may not encompass the full 
term of the experiment but it violates the laws of physics over its own smaller 
span. In that sense, they are correct but it will be next to impossible to find 
a jury which will award damages based on such a lame rationalization. 

 

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Craig Haynie]

On 04/07/2016 08:19 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
But now that IH said they could not get Rossi to prove anything, Rossi 
shouldn't have got anything. And note that the claim that the 
experiment prove anything came from Rossi's side. So, we are 
concluding that he got 10 million based on what "Rossi said".




This is IH's best legal position at this time, isn't it? It seems 
obvious to me that since Rossi's claim is extraordinary, and violates 
known physical laws, that this route is the best route to winning the 
lawsuit against them.


I don't know why they didn't close the deal and pay the $89 million, but 
I think it's quite likely that they didn't raise as much money as they 
thought they would during this past year, and had to bail on the agreement.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Daniel Rocha]

But now that IH said they could not get Rossi to prove anything, Rossi
shouldn't have got anything. And note that the claim that the experiment
prove anything came from Rossi's side. So, we are concluding that he got 10
million based on what "Rossi said".

2016-04-07 21:03 GMT-03:00 Craig Haynie :

>
>
> On 04/07/2016 08:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> Isnt the 10 million on an escrow account? As far as I understood, IH even
>> bought a unit before completing the reactor.
>>
>> The $10 million was on escrow at the beginning, until IH validated that
> the machine was working, and producing at least 6 COP. Then I understand,
> from the license agreement, that the money was released to Rossi.
>
> Craig
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Craig Haynie]

On 04/07/2016 08:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Isnt the 10 million on an escrow account? As far as I understood, IH 
even bought a unit before completing the reactor.


The $10 million was on escrow at the beginning, until IH validated that 
the machine was working, and producing at least 6 COP. Then I 
understand, from the license agreement, that the money was released to 
Rossi.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Daniel Rocha]

Isnt the 10 million on an escrow account? As far as I understood, IH even
bought a unit before completing the reactor.

2016-04-07 20:57 GMT-03:00 Craig Haynie :

> You're right. I have made two mistakes in two days. Something's wrong. I'm
> just not concentrating on what I'm writing. :)
>
> Craig
>
>
> On 04/07/2016 07:54 PM, Robert Dorr wrote:
>
>>
>> It wasn't a month long test, it was a 24 hour test performed in Ferrara
>> Italy. I keep seeing that supposedly  I.H. was the one that built the e-cat
>> used in the Lugano test. As far as I can see that is completely untrue.
>>
>> Robert Dorr
>> WA7ZQR
>>
>>
>> At 03:55 PM 4/7/2016, you wrote:
>>
>>> They also paid Rossi $10 million dollars after validating that the
>>> device was working for a month.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> On 04/07/2016 06:54 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>>
 "Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the
 results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without
 success".

 It seems imply that Rossi did not generate any extra heat. I don't
 think they they'd say "without success" if any COP>1 was found, since the
 claim also include cold fusion and(with) COP>=6

>>>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Craig Haynie]

You're right. I have made two mistakes in two days. Something's wrong. 
I'm just not concentrating on what I'm writing. :)


Craig

On 04/07/2016 07:54 PM, Robert Dorr wrote:


It wasn't a month long test, it was a 24 hour test performed in 
Ferrara  Italy. I keep seeing that supposedly  I.H. was the one that 
built the e-cat used in the Lugano test. As far as I can see that is 
completely untrue.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR


At 03:55 PM 4/7/2016, you wrote:
They also paid Rossi $10 million dollars after validating that the 
device was working for a month.


Craig

On 04/07/2016 06:54 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
"Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the 
results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without 
success".


It seems imply that Rossi did not generate any extra heat. I don't 
think they they'd say "without success" if any COP>1 was found, 
since the claim also include cold fusion and(with) COP>=6 

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Robert Dorr]

It wasn't a month long test, it was a 24 hour 
test performed in Ferrara  Italy. I keep seeing 
that supposedly  I.H. was the one that built the 
e-cat used in the Lugano test. As far as I can see that is completely untrue.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR


At 03:55 PM 4/7/2016, you wrote:
They also paid Rossi $10 million dollars after 
validating that the device was working for a month.


Craig

On 04/07/2016 06:54 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
"Industrial Heat has worked for over three 
years to substantiate the results claimed by 
Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success".


It seems imply that Rossi did not generate any 
extra heat. I don't think they they'd say 
"without success" if any COP>1 was found, since 
the claim also include cold fusion and(with) COP>=6

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Craig Haynie]

They also paid Rossi $10 million dollars after validating that the 
device was working for a month.


Craig

On 04/07/2016 06:54 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
"Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the 
results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without 
success".


It seems imply that Rossi did not generate any extra heat. I don't 
think they they'd say "without success" if any COP>1 was found, since 
the claim also include cold fusion and(with) COP>=6

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Daniel Rocha]

This is the link:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/industrial-heat-statement-on-meritless-litigation-from-leonardo-corporation-and-andrea-rossi-300248066.html

2016-04-07 19:54 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :

> "Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the
> results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without
> success".
>
> It seems imply that Rossi did not generate any extra heat. I don't think
> they they'd say "without success" if any COP>1 was found, since the claim
> also include cold fusion and(with) COP>=6
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Daniel Rocha]

"Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the
results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without
success".

It seems imply that Rossi did not generate any extra heat. I don't think
they they'd say "without success" if any COP>1 was found, since the claim
also include cold fusion and(with) COP>=6