The threads about whether the I MW plant have got long and convoluted so
I’m starting another one.Also my comment there keep being moved down to
the bottom of the list that makes following the answers difficult.
Mats Lewan has met with Rossi in Sweden and has reported a number of new
facts.
·Three interim reports, about every three months, with basically the
same results as in the final report, were provided by the ERV during the
test.
·During summer 2015, IH offered Rossi to back out from the test and
cancel it, with a significant sum of money as compensation. Rossi’s
counter offer was to give back the already paid 11.5M and cancel the
license agreement, but IH didn’t accept.
*I should also add that I have been in contact***with people with
insight into the MW report, that hopefully will get public this summer
as part of the lawsuit, and they told me that based on the contents, the
only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced) would
be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration
with Rossi. Nothing in the report itself seems to give any opportunity
for large mistakes, invalidating the claim of a high COP (as opposed to
claims by people having talked about the report with persons connected
to IH).
Comments about Penon being an “idiot” were apparently based on the 2012
report.Mats notes.“The HotCat report from August 2012, signed by Penon
<https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/penon5.pdf>,
containing a few notable errors, was /not/ written by Penon.”
Mats goes on to say.“*Now, all this makes me conclude* that the E-Cat is
most probably valid and that the 1MW test was indeed successful.”
- [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test a.ashfield
-
