A recent filing in the Rossi vs. IH case has revealed a particularly scathing expert technological report by Rick A. Smith, P.E., which claims to invalidate Fabio Penon’s data and even goes so far as to call it “fictitious.” Smith further contends the water flow numbers were caused by a hot water flow circuit and not any steam flow as advertised by Rossi.
The full report may be read here.
Based on the preceding and my more than forty years’ experience as a professional engineer engaged in facility and utility engineering and operations, it is within a reasonable degree of engineering certainty that I conclude the following:
1. There was no steam flow from the E-cat to the black box, based on both a pressure difference analysis and a heat transfer (temperature difference) analysis. In fact steam flow (other than de minimus amounts to warm the piping) was impossible with the configuration at the time of the validation period. Thus, any steam flow numbers appearing in Mr. Penon’s report are not valid, therefore the whole report is invalid.
2. If there were a heat exchanger and cooling fans in the mezzanine, there is absolutely no physical evidence of their existence.
3. Because of anomalies in the reported data which violate the laws of thermodynamics, and major discrepancies between Mr. Fabiani’s data and Mr. Penon’s data, the data reported by Mr. Penon must be viewed with extreme skepticism.
4. Only the four BF units were running during the majority of the validation period. At times, some units were down for repair or maintenance. Their combined maximum “steam” output is 482 KW thermal. Despite this, Mr. Penon reported significantly higher produced energy numbers for the entire test. It is the author’s opinion that the produced energy numbers in Mr. Penon’s report are incorrect and therefore, his entire report is invalid.
5. It is the author’s opinion that the water flow numbers found in Mr. Penon’s report were not generated by condensate returning from the black box. The alleged steam and condensate system was in reality a hot water flow circuit using the Grundfos pump to circulate the water through the piping and the water meter. Because of this, any “steam” flow numbers in the Penon report are fictitious and the whole report must be invalidated.
6. As the photos of the BF units illustrate, there are no superheaters, thus there can be no superheated steam. Because of this, Mr. Penon’s reported steam temperature numbers are not valid, thus his whole report is invalid.
Another exhibit from the Rossi v. Darden case offers a revealing look at Industrial Heat and their activities over the past few years. IH has been aggressively pursuing LENR technology through acquisitions, patenting, funding and “grooming” partnerships with a myriad of LENR inventors and firms.
In an email dated March 4, 2016, Woodford Funds expresses clear disappointment in the coming announcement that IH was unable to announce successful testing of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat technology as it was a “core element” in their initial investment of a reported £39 million. 214-35 – Exhibit 35
A recent transcript of a discovery hearing in the Rossi et al. V. Darden et al. case from March 9, 2017 proved to be very informative. The magistrate is clearly rankled with the attorney’s bickering and in a revealing comment, Mr. Pace, for the defendants answered “probably not” when the magistrate asked if they were never going to settle the case. Mr. Pace also predicted a 2-3 week trial this summer. IH and Darden seem very committed to proving Rossi defrauded them and/or breached the agreement they had.
THE COURT: All right. Good.
You guys are never going to settle this case, huh?
MR. PACE: Probably not.
THE COURT: How long is this case going to take to try?
MR. PACE: A couple of weeks.
THE COURT: Really?
MR. PACE: Yes. Two, three weeks.
Rossi and Leonardo lost a tactical battle to disclose to the defendant’s attorneys two deposit transactions into Leonardo Corporation that the plaintiff’s are maintaining are irrelevant to the case. The magistrate upheld an agreement among the parties that will allow these transactions to be revealed for attorney’s eyes only. We may never know who this mystery financier is, but Rossi’s attorney tried very hard to conceal it.
THE COURT: And why is this so sensitive that he
cannot — I mean, why are we spending twenty minutes on this
thing? Why don’t you just show it to them and they will say,
okay, it’s not relevant.
MR. ANNESSER: Your Honor, our company works with
certain parties that has nothing to do with this license
agreement and nothing to do with anything at issue in this
Rossi also lost in a bid to keep his tax records concealed. There is a lot of Internet discussion about Rossi’s purported tax issues in Italy and his agreement with IH made this a condition of their agreement – that Rossi must pay his taxes – so this may come to bearing on this case as well.
THE COURT: All right. I am going to require that tax
returns be provided for attorney’s eyes. It’s alleged in the
complaint. Not even a defense really saying there was a prior
breach. So because of the prior breach serves as a defense to
Plaintiff’s breach because the contract was already breached.
Read the full transcript here.
The Rossi v. Industrial Heat, et al. case in federal court in Florida has resulted in the release of numerous exhibits. In fact, over the past week there has been almost too much to speculate on as both sides can be inferred as making compelling arguments for and against their claims. This is very typical of the U.S. adversarial judicial system where the truth unfortunately matters less than mounting a vigorous legal attack and defense.
Among the documents is the final report of one Fabio Penon, who was the mostly absentee professional chosen as the Expert Responsible for Validation (ERV) by both sides. The report claims the “energy multiple was always higher than 6” and the temperature of the steam produced was in excess of 100 degrees for the 350 days. In fact, on most days the reported COP was in excess of 60, which is a shocking number for many reasons.
You can decide for yourself the veracity of this report by reading it here and all the other court documents.
Leonardo Corporation’s response to Industrial Heat’s motion to dismiss was entered on June 17, 2016. The document can be read here.
While all the facts of this particular case aren’t publicly known, this blog strives to be about the bigger picture and the potential of LENR. Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat LLC make up just a small segment of the broader industry and we hope this unfortunate distraction does not detract from the attention, investment and encouragement all earnest LENR researchers deserve.
That being said, while disappointed, we reserve judgment on Andrea Rossi’s work and credibility until it can be openly and thoroughly vetted through whatever means necessary.
Industrial Heat, LLC (IH) has made a motion for summary judgment in the action brought by Leonardo Corporation seeking almost $100 million in damages. The full document is available at: https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/ih-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
In summary, IH argues their agreement with Rossi, coupled with the admissions in the Complaint, demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ central contentions are incurably flawed: The License Agreement required performance by Plaintiffs within a specific time period, which Plaintiffs acknowledge did not occur within that time period, and the License Agreement permitted IH and IPH – after having paid Plaintiffs over $10 million (which Plaintiffs admit was paid) – virtually unlimited usage of information they received from Plaintiffs.
RESEARCH TRIANGLE, N.C., April 7, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — We are aware of the lawsuit filed by Andrea Rossi and Leonardo Corporation against Industrial Heat. Industrial Heat rejects the claims in the suit. They are without merit and we are prepared to vigorously defend ourselves against this action. Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success. Leonardo Corporation and Mr. Rossi also have repeatedly breached their agreements. At the conclusion of these proceedings we are confident that the claims of Mr. Rossi and Leonardo Corporation will be rejected.
Industrial Heat continues to be focused on a scientifically rigorous approach that includes thorough, robust and accurate testing of promising LENR technologies. Our goal remains to deliver clean, safe and affordable energy.
Update – Rossi Responds:
April 7, 2016 at 7:27 PM
I have to comment the press release of IH.
They made the Lugano reactor, 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&D activity in China, 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 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, was not a good test, 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 J.T. Vaughn.
MIAMI, April 6, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Leonardo Corporation announced today that on March 29, 2016, Leonardo Corporation received independent third party validation of the overwhelmingly positive results of a nearly yearlong test of Leonardo’s 1MW Energy Catalyzer (“E-Cat”). According to the inventor, Andrea Rossi, the E-Cat generates a low energy nuclear reaction (“LENR”) which produces excess heat energy at a cost substantially below more traditional energy sources. According to the independent third party report, over the 352 day test period, the E-Cat consistently generated energy at a rate in excess of six (6) times the amount of energy consumed by the plant, often generating energy exceeding fifty (50) times the amount of energy consumed during the same period. According to Andrea Rossi, Leonardo Corporation considers the results of the third party test to be “an overwhelming success” and that “the world is one step closer to the realization of a commercially available new, clean and efficient energy source.”
The independent third party validation test was performed by Dr. Ing. Fabio Penon, a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering, at the behest of Leonardo Corporation and one of its licensees, Industrial Heat, LLC. as both desired independent third party verification of the sustainability of the energy production of the E-Cat over a prolonged period. “The results of Dr. Penon’s test was consistent with the measurements taken by the representatives of Leonardo Corporation and Industrial Heat respectively during the course of the test” said inventor Andrea Rossi.
“Leonardo Corporation is working diligently with its licensees, corporate partners and material suppliers to implement a production and distribution plan consistent with the expected demand for the E-Cat units when they are made commercially available” stated Rossi.
Notwithstanding, Licensee Industrial Heat continued involvement in the development and manufacturing of the E-Cat is uncertain at this time. As stated in a lawsuit filed by The Silver Law Group, P.A. on behalf of Leonardo Corporation on April 5, 2016, Leonardo Corporation believes that Industrial Heat breached the terms of its license agreement and misappropriated Leonardo Corporation’s intellectual property relating to the E-Cat. Additional information is available regarding the E-Cat at www.ecat.com. The lawsuit can be viewed at www.pacer.gov, Case No. 16-CV-21199-JLK, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida. Leonardo Corporation does not anticipate that there will be any delay in the commercial release of the E-Cat technology as a result of the lawsuit.
Contact: Leonardo’s attorney John Annesser, Esq. JWA@silverlawgroup.com, 305-664-3955
SOURCE The Silver Law Group, P.A.