Some people thought that I was too biased towards Rossi in the hypothesis on the Rossi-IH affair that I presented recently. So, for equilibrium, here’s more or less the opposite hypothesis, based on claims that have reached me from other sources.

– The starting point for this scenario is that either Rossi has achieved LENR reactions with high COP, without ever proving it, or he might have achieved modest efficiency, with COP between 1 and 3, as many others in the field. Over time, in that case, he tended to exaggerate the results, being absolutely convinced that he would obtain increased COP, sooner or later, with changes in the design. Meanwhile he hid the lack of progress with lack of precision in various tests.

– In October 2012, Rossi and IH (Industrial Heat LLC) entered a license agreement, on which Rossi was paid $1.5M. The reason for IH to enter the agreement was, a part from the increased credible activity in the LENR field, that several seemingly convincing independent tests had verified the validity of the E-Cat technology, and that it was worth risking the money for getting access to a potentially disruptive energy technology that could change the world and save it from the climate and pollution crisis.

– The 24h Validation Test in May 2013 was apparently successful, and again the amount of $10M was worth risking, giving the potential upside, especially since IH with this sum would get access to the IP and the knowhow of the E-Cat, which Rossi transferred to them as stipulated by the license agreement. Rossi, however, at this occasion maybe kept some essential details for obtaining high COP for himself.

– With the IP in hand, with claims that IH had acquired the IP, and with seemingly successful demonstrations made with Rossi’s assistance, IH could raise funding, e.g. about $50M from UK based Woodford, in addition to about $10M already raised from other investors.

– After a while, however, IH realised that it didn’t manage to obtain Rossi’s effect with the instructions received from him, when performing tests with the help of independent experts (maybe e.g. the team at Brillouin Energy, in which IH also invested). And over time IH concluded that either Rossi didn’t have what he claimed, or he hadn’t given them the complete knowhow. IH was therefore not interested in going ahead with the one-year test stipulated by the license agreement, at least not before having been able to replicate with high COP.

– Rossi still wanted to perform the one-year test, and found a way to set it up. A UK based company, or possibly just some people Rossi knew, formed a local company in Florida, appointing Rossi’s lawyer as president. IH was presented with this plan, and since IH now had low confidence in Rossi, it didn’t care much about what Rossi would do and accepted any suggestion. They also accepted, or didn’t object to, the same ERV as in the 24h Validation Test, although they were not convinced he was the right choice for this task. IH maybe didn’t think that Rossi would obtain any result. Alternatively, IH considered the condition of transferring the knowhow not fulfilled, and therefore they would not have to pay the remaining $89M, even if the one-year test would be successful. Meanwhile, IH used the raised funds for other investments in the LENR field, and kept a low profile on the possibly failed investment in Rossi’s technology.

– The customer company using the energy from the plant (‘JM Chemical Products Inc’ according to the license agreement) should produce products for catalytic applications, but IH soon found out that there was no production activity (maybe the heat from the plant was just absorbed in a dummy load and vented out). IH didn’t want to make too much noise of this finding, and since they argued that the agreement’s conditions weren’t fulfilled, they didn’t act on this fact. Yet they had two representatives always present at the heat plant.

– IH also found flaws in the ERV’s measurements. Again, IH didn’t act on this.

– Meanwhile, IH filed a few patent applications on Rossi’s technology, taking advantage of a change in the US patent law, making it possible under certain conditions to file an application without the inventor signing it. Maybe the filings were simply part of normal business activities in the technology field.

– As the one-year test went on, IH realised that Rossi was convinced of a positive result, and it used the PR and crisis management firm APCO Worldwide to get help on handling a potentially delicate situation. IH also started to reach out to experts in the field, asking for help to understand what secret Rossi might have kept for himself, or alternatively to get information that could help proving that Rossi had nothing. IH also reached out to Rossi who declined to give any further help.

– Meanwhile, Rossi, started to gather information on a lawsuit to be able to defend himself, since he was convinced of a positive result but understood that IH didn’t agree with him.

– The test was completed in February 2016. The ERV compiled a report, which was not very convincing, and delivered it to Rossi and IH. Rossi filed his lawsuit to defend himself. IH kept a low profile, still considering the license agreement to be open but arguing that it didn’t have to pay, at least not until Rossi hadn’t provided all the knowhow needed for a successful high COP replication.

§

I must underline that I have not been able to confirm much of this information, except for a few well-known facts, known from the documents in Rossi’s lawsuit.

Neither have I yet seen the ERV report, which could give important perspectives on this scenario. The latest info I have on the report is that it will be released only when the IH-Rossi case will be brought up in court, maybe a month or more from now, which I think is an unfortunate delay.

I have tried to reach Tom Darden and JT Vaughn at IH several times to get comments, but I haven’t got any response.

Rossi strongly denies parts of this scenario, particularly the claim that there wasn’t any activity in the factory and that the ERV’s measurements were non-satisfactory.

Hopefully, we will know what is true when the case will be handled in court.

Summing up my own experiences of the E-Cat technology, I have seen several flaws in the reports on the high temperature ‘Hot Cat’, while I had more confidence in the results from the older E-Cat, on which I made measurements myself at four occasions. The most convincing demonstration, in my opinion, was held on October 6, 2011, when the E-Cat was run in self-sustained mode for almost four hours, with water boiling inside all the time, even though fresh water was input continuously. Here’s my report from the test. And here is the temperature data.

Finally, let me make clear that my fundamental aim in this story is to bring out the truth, whatever it may be.

I’m also confident that whatever the outcome will be, the LENR field has gained something in the end, if only by a significantly increased interest over the last years. And I will keep fighting for the importance of increasing the efforts on making LENR a commercially viable technology.