Prometeon, Srl, Addresses E-Cat Licensee Status

The following statement was submitted by Aldo Proia of Prometeon, Srl.

Reply to Andrea Rossi’s statement about licensees appeared on Jonp

We would like to reply to the misleading statements published last week on the JONP, the well known Andrea Rossi’s blog, which are shown in their entirety at the end of this letter. We felt in need to add relevant information and to correct some of Mr. Rossi’s statements to the extent that we are concerned.

“[Rossi from Jonp]:
Daniele Passerini (blogger of “22 Passi”), You asked me few days ago about why some of our commercial Licensees have cancelled their websites.”

It is a clear reference to us,Prometeon Srl, because we temporary canceled our website and Daniele Passerini asked Rossi about our status of licensee, sending us in CC his communication.

“ [Rossi] The reason is that we decided to offer to all our commercial Licensees to buy back their license at a price, obviously, superior to the price they paid for it.Some of our Licensees have accepted our proposal and sold us back their license.”

This is only a part of the whole story and it lacks of important information about the context and the reasons why we took such an apparently foolish decision, just a couple of months before the release of the second Third Party Report, that we all knew would have been positive.

Briefly: the buy-back offer was made by Mr Rossi and E.F.A. Srl, the company controlled by Rossi’s partner that owns the E-Cat® exclusive distribution license for Europe, a few months after that some important facts had happened, the most important being the following:

1) The license owned by another E-Cat licensee, of a different European country, and that we will not unveil for respecting privacy, was canceled by the licensor (EFA) and the licensee was threatening a lawsuit, thus inducing all the other licensees to wonder about the loyalty of their commercial partners (EFA/Rossi) and about their real intentions; in fact, even if Mr Rossi/EFA sold the licenses for selling both the domestic and the industrial 1 MW E-Cat®, this latter theoretically available within three months from the date of the order, after more than one year and ½ after signing the sub-license agreement we all were still waiting to see a working 1 MW E-Cat® and, without having a proof it was really ready for the market, as Rossi never stopped claiming, no one of us wanted to lose their reputation by offering the E-Cats® to the customers… The trust relationship with Mr Rossi/EFA was progressively losing steam and after the bad adventure of the above mentioned E-Cat® licensee, somebody also started talking about a possible legal lawsuit against both EFA and Leonardo Corporation.

2) For all of us it was extremely important to show a working E-Cat to the potential customers. So, at the beginning of Spring 2014, we proposed to EFA the purchase of an E-Cat®; we were in talk for selling the thermal energy to an Italian company having a big district heating network. It was the perfect client where installing the low enthalpy E-Cat®. We never got an answer from EFA/Rossi neither all the purchasing contracts we had been asking for months. Moreover, in September 2014 we (Prometeon) placed an order for a 1 MW E-Cat®; as far as we know, it was the first signed order ever for an E-Cat®! Before accepting the order we warned our customer that they had 99% probabilities not to see their E-Cat®, but they still hoped to get it as they trusted Mr. Rossi, despite everything. As we expected, instead of organizing a party and giving the good news to the world, EFA/Leonardo Corporation never let us have all the solicited documents necessary to close the order: e.g. a supply contract, a maintenance contract, guarantees about the E-Cat® and the future fuel supplies, a technical manual with a detailed description of how to integrate an E-Cat® in an existing industrial environment and with a SCADA,…
Moreover, in one year and a half of work we found many customers seriously interested in buying the E-Cat, nominally already on the market, and we presented pre-orders and requests for demonstrations to both EFA and Mr Rossi, but we never had any kind of cooperation, we never received the purchasing contracts and it had never been possible to organize e demonstration. As far as we know, also other licensees had customers interested in installing an E-Cat® and they faced similar problems.

The described situation put both EFA and Leonardo Corporation (Mr. Rossi) under pressure and this could be one of the main reasons why they decided to make their buy-back offer. Obviously we didn’t accept the offer; we had many customers ready to place orders the day after they would have received from EFA/Rossi the purchasing contracts and the due guarantees.

A few weeks later, in the month of December, we received a formal letter from EFA saying that our license contract was canceled because “we didn’t get enough orders, like it was written in the license contract”!! Obviously this was ridiculous and it was the final confirmation, if still needed, that it would have been impossible to see a working E-Cat®, probably for a long while.

In the following months we tried in every way to find a friendly solution to this very uncomfortable situation, also with the intermediation of Industrial Heat and Mr. Andrea Rossi, well informed through our letters, but it was not possible and surely not for our responsibility.

Finally, to avoid the risk of wasting time and money in a long, unhealthy legal battle, we decided to give up and to accept the buy-back, even because we did not want to have to deal with similar “partners” any more. Regarding the superior price offered, Rossi’s words suggest that we had good profits from the buy-back, while clearly the opposite is true.

“ [Rossi] We maintained with our former Licensees a friendly and collaborative relationship, open to the possibility of future collaboration upon specific issues.”

In our case this is ridiculously false!

What to say more? A very unpleasant experience. By our side we have already turned the page to follow an alternative and very promising route to get clean energy from LENR; the challenge is very stimulating and the scientists involved in the project are very well prepared and motivated.

The only good thing we can say about Mr Rossi is that he has the merit of having broken the wall around LENR and that finally this important, clean and cheap energy source has started receiving the attention it deserves.
We take this opportunity to apologize publicly with all the people and companies that have contacted us over the last two years being seriously interested, for different reasons, at the E-Cat® and who didn’t get the answers they hoped to receive or couldn’t buy the E-Cats®, for other people’s responsibilities.

Prometeon Srl, former E-Cat licensee for Italy
The managing board
Eng. Guido Parchi
Aldo Proia

  • Ged

    Ooo, man, business fights are vicious. That’ll make future licensees wary, but not sure how that matters now that IH is in control and changed the mix. Wonder if it’s IH’s doing primarily.

    Business is a crucible, and hopefully the E-cat will come out the other side to the product promise land.

  • Ged

    Ooo, man, business fights are vicious. That’ll make future licensees wary, but not sure how that matters now that IH is in control and changed the mix. Wonder if it’s IH’s doing primarily.

    Business is a crucible, and hopefully the E-cat will come out the other side to the product promise land.

  • Gerrit

    Thank you Prometeon for making this statement.

    I hope to hear from your alternative route to LENR soon.

  • Gerrit

    Thank you Prometeon for making this statement.

    I hope to hear from your alternative route to LENR soon.

  • Yeah once IH became involved all these old licensees had to be cleaned up. Too bad it got so ugly for Proia who I think did Rossi a great service at the time.

    Rossi business style is akin to making dogs chase a mechanical rabbit just a little too fast for them to catch.

    Interesting tidbit that they are working with someone else now.

    Also interesting that they did get their money back plus a little bit. That’s another circumstantial piece of info that Industrial Heat believes the E-Cat works.

  • Yeah once IH became involved all these old licensees had to be cleaned up. Too bad it got so ugly for Proia who I think did Rossi a great service at the time.

    Rossi business style is akin to making dogs chase a mechanical rabbit just a little too fast for them to catch.

    Interesting tidbit that they are working with someone else now.

    Also interesting that they did get their money back plus a little bit. That’s another circumstantial piece of info that Industrial Heat believes the E-Cat works.

  • badger

    One could lose their business for selling untested products and I’m not surprised this happened. I am surprised that people think they will get a secret invention before its legal status is settled.

  • Freethinker

    Well,

    That Aldo Proia is angry, is not very strange. I can fully understand his anger and disappointment. Especially since there is must vested also in integrity, not only money, and that the potential return on their investment was very promising, with a lot of interested clients lined up.

    Be that as it may, it is still so that it is not hard seeing this from Rossi’s side as well.

    If I were him, I’d be looking for a stable setup, which would make the best possible guarantee for success. Darden, and IH could get the financing, could provide the network of global contacts for manufacturing and potential big customers (the latter being conjecture, but not unlikely).

    The licensees could offer customer projects. It would mean doing research while setting up the energy production for all these individual customers, with support networks, training etc. A lot of work that would possibly slow down R&D. And then you get paid. You know, after delivery.

    With IH there were upfront funding for a relative aggressive R&D, firm support on IP issues, and a customer waiting in the wing. Also, Darden et.al. seem to have a basic value set and intentions, that seem agreeable to Rossi.

    And it seem that Aldo Proia has been paid back, what he resent is the fact that he would have made a lot of money on all those customer prospects he had, had there been a 1MW plant to deliver. Agreed. Not nice. But business is not nice. It is doggy dog. And unfortunately the licensees drew the short stick.

    • Veblin

      Eat doggy dog, Eat.

    • Omega Z

      This has been a question since Rossi sold all the rights to Industrial Heat. I’m sure the Licensees became very concerned at this development. Their discontent after getting their money back plus can be tied to feeling that they are being shut out of a great opportunity.

      I would note that with the sale of the technology to Industrial Heat, the Business Model has substantially changed.
      I’ve posted before that if Industrial Heat were to license this technology to GE, Siemens or other large entities, they would(DO) have their own distribution network. That puts these licensees in the way. A temporary hindrance to the Big Boys.

      This may be the best outcome for the licensees. Likely none would be able to survive having to compete with the Majors. They would ultimately have lost everything in the market.

  • Freethinker

    Well,

    That Aldo Proia is angry, is not very strange. I can fully understand his anger and disappointment. Especially since there is must vested also in integrity, not only money, and that the potential return on their investment was very promising, with a lot of interested clients lined up.

    Be that as it may, it is still so that it is not hard seeing this from Rossi’s side as well.

    If I were him, I’d be looking for a stable setup, which would make the best possible guarantee for success. Darden, and IH could get the financing, could provide the network of global contacts for manufacturing and potential big customers (the latter being conjecture, but not unlikely).

    The licensees could offer customer projects. It would mean doing research while setting up the energy production for all these individual customers, with support networks, training etc. A lot of work that would possibly slow down R&D. And then you get paid. You know, after delivery.

    With IH there were upfront funding for a relative aggressive R&D, firm support on IP issues, and a customer waiting in the wing. Also, Darden et.al. seem to have a basic value set and intentions, that seem agreeable to Rossi.

    And it seem that Aldo Proia has been paid back, what he resent is the fact that he would have made a lot of money on all those customer prospects he had, had there been a 1MW plant to deliver. Agreed. Not nice. But business is not nice. It is doggy dog. And unfortunately the licensees drew the short stick.

    • Veblin

      Eat doggy dog, Eat.

    • Omega Z

      This has been a question since Rossi sold all the rights to Industrial Heat. I’m sure the Licensees became very concerned at this development. Their discontent after getting their money back plus can be tied to feeling that they are being shut out of a great opportunity.

      I would note that with the sale of the technology to Industrial Heat, the Business Model has substantially changed.
      I’ve posted before that if Industrial Heat were to license this technology to GE, Siemens or other large entities, they would(DO) have their own distribution network. That puts these licensees in the way. A temporary hindrance to the Big Boys.

      This may be the best outcome for the licensees. Likely none would be able to survive having to compete with the Majors. They would ultimately have lost everything in the market.

  • Gian Luca

    This is a result of IH partnership?
    I hope it is so ‘because I don’t think Mr Rossi might have done it on their own initiative

  • The failure of such innovative venture is very common. The way it failed, is not so common and I understand Mr Proia reaction.
    The end seems to be e mix of Rossi failing to deliver because of lack of organization and funding, and on the opposite the classical behavior of a big corp like Cherokee facing contractant he does not want to serve.

    This remind me the way France try to fool ecomouv” and the highways concessions. that is business.

    I just hope what I imagine about their new partner is true. Future will say, I have no data else some vague description that may match Aldo Proia and his clients.

  • The failure of such innovative venture is very common. The way it failed, is not so common and I understand Mr Proia reaction.
    The end seems to be e mix of Rossi failing to deliver because of lack of organization and funding, and on the opposite the classical behavior of a big corp like Cherokee facing contractant he does not want to serve.

    This remind me the way France try to fool ecomouv” and the highways concessions. that is business.

    I just hope what I imagine about their new partner is true. Future will say, I have no data else some vague description that may match Aldo Proia and his clients.

  • Barbierir

    Thankfully Rossi has sold the rights to IH that will be able to manage things more professionally. It’s evident since 2011 that his claims that the Ecat was ready for market were… ehm… a little premature

  • Bob Greenyer

    Interesting, and, inevitable.

    • Ronzonni

      What do you mean? Why did you write that?

      • Rossi’s original band of agents don’t fit into IH/EFA’s plans as they almost certainly plan to sell directly to customers and won’t want a redundant layer of intermediaries taking some of the profits. This will especially be the case if the business strategy has changed drastically, for instance by moving to a leasing model, but in any case the devices, when available, will sell themselves without any need for agents.

        As Bob G says, getting rid of them was an inevitable business move, but the manner of Prometeon’s dismissal does leave a bad taste. I would very much like to know who they have hooked up with as a replacement.

        • Anon2012_2014

          The country license model came from Defkalion. Rossi copied it. In my opinion, back in 2012 Rossi was a business neophyte, and it just may have “seemed like a good idea at the time”. Hence the breakdown of the relationship with Defkalion. Remember that this was a time when Mr. Rossi use to describe his detractors as “snakes and clowns” in public. This was not how an experienced business man would have done things.

          I saw some documents of the country licenses model from Defkalion a few years back. Basically they thought they could collect $2 billion that way ($10 mm per country * 200 countries) before they shipped first product. What a joke. And why should the United States license cost the same as the license for say Luxembourg?

          I never cared for the country license model of Defkalion or as subsequently adopted by Mr. Rossi. The traditional way to raise money is via VC with an angel, then a seed round, then a Series A, B, C and D round. Investors want to own a share of the core company, not be country licensees. I saw the country license as just a way to get money out of people like Roger Green.

          It is possible that IH just wants to own the technology world wide and then license it to a GE and a Siemens. Buying back these poorly conceived country licenses may just be a way out. Rossi needed Industrial Heat. Now he should stop talking business on his personal blog. And Industrial Heat should demo something real right now for all to see instead of just a few select scientist under controlled circumstances.

          And no one knows what was originally paid for the Rossi country licenses or what IH/Rossi paid to buy them back. We do know that Mrs. Rossi bought some condos in Miami at the time Mr. Rossi sold the licenses. That is all we know.

          • Frank Acland

            I think those real estate purchases were made quite recently — after the IH Deal was made.

          • Anon2012_2014

            Maybe I am wrong on the time sequence of the condo purchases. We still have no idea what the licenses were sold for. I thought I saw $10 mm in Roger Green’s document, but we don’t know if money actually transacted at that price level.

          • Omega Z

            Most Licensees were sold for $100,000 or less.

          • Jan Nie

            No 10 mega, DGT was publicly dreaming about 40,5 million Euros per licence and one licence per country and talked about 63 countries, so some 2,5 billion Euros was principal moviestar in their dreams

          • Omega Z

            “We do know that Mrs. Rossi bought some condos in Miami at the time Mr. Rossi sold the licenses.”

            No, Mrs. Rossi bought some condos in Miami, After Industrial Heat bought Rossi’s Technology. Not when Rossi sold the License….

      • Bob Greenyer

        When a big investor comes in (and they want a 100X return on their investment) they’ll make it difficult for the people that got an inventors product to the point at which they became interested to continue to claim any rights – they’ll do it as fast as possible, because the previous investors will want more and more as the “big” investor adds value (like patents and better versions of the product).

        This is how it works.

  • bachcole

    So, what is the bottom line?

  • jrainearwills

    so Cherokee bought a dud…

    • GreenWin

      Had they bought a “dud” they would not be buying back licenses. As Redford pointed out, franchise/license disputes confirm there is a business worth fighting over.

      • Bhlowe

        Any good investment scam involves paying above average returns to early investors. Just ask Bernie Madoff. Glad Prometeon shared their side of the story– and yes, they took an extraordinary risk investing with Rossi and lost out on wasted time, opportunity cost and I’m sure did not “make” money in the deal as Rossi seemed to allude to.

        Rossi admits to not having a working 1MW reactor or any customer using any of his products. That is the sad state of affairs. Is there any real “Rossi effect” capable of producing energy? Few know for sure.

  • GreenWin

    Mr. Darden and IH/Cherokee not Rossi need to address how they intend to accommodate remaining licensees and future customers.

    • Sanjeev

      Its seems the deal was with EFA/Leonardo corp and IH etc are not so much involved.
      There is a whole circus of entities here, the newest one being IPH something. No one exactly know who owns what.

      • And this is exactly the reason why IH should come up with a web-presence as fast as possible.

        The loose credibility by such statements. And their damn non-transparency doesn’t make it better…

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Their offer to buy back the licenses suggests that they have enough potential partners in the queue. Too much publicity might have unwanted side effects as long as not everything is cut and dried.

          • Fortyniner

            Judging by the sudden influx of so many ‘skeptics’ here, it appears that someone doesn’t want the the probable significance of the buy-back moves to be noticed.

          • LuFong

            Don’t you mean that judging by the absence of the pom-pom boys, it appears that someone doesn’t want the significance of the buy-back moves to be noticed ? 🙂

            As a true skeptic (versus a denier or believer) I find this story very interesting and it’s not often we get credible insider information.

          • Fortyniner

            I believe that you probably are what you say you are, and I was not referring to you in my post. By ‘skeptic’ in inverted commas I was politely referring to the fairly obvious shills/trolls posting on this page.

        • Fortyniner

          IH may be planning to market the reactors in the US though some other entity – the paper companies do seem to be breeding unchecked at the moment.

        • Bernie777

          Does anyone have stats on how many licenses were sold?

          • Ged

            I remember 1 for each major continental region (minus Antarctica), with 2 in one of them, for 6 total, with Leonardo servicing the US. But that was sooooo long ago. The Australian one was pretty vocal way back when…

          • Bernie777

            Thanks, I think you are right.

          • hempenearth

            No stats but these are the ones I can remember:
            – E Cat Australia (Roger Green) – Australia, SE Asia, Pacific Islands and more
            – AmpEnergo – America
            – Prometeon (Aldo Proia) – Italy, San Marino
            – New Man Consult (Gerd Neumann) – Germany
            – TransAltec Inc (Adolf Schneider) – Switzerland
            – Hydrofusion (Magnus Holm) – Northern Europe (Sweden based I think)

  • GreenWin

    Mr. Darden and IH/Cherokee not Rossi need to address how they intend to accommodate remaining licensees and future customers.

    • Sanjeev

      Its seems the deal was with EFA/Leonardo corp and IH etc are not so much involved.
      There is a whole circus of entities here, the newest one being IPH something. No one exactly know who owns what.

      • And this is exactly the reason why IH should come up with a web-presence as fast as possible.

        The lose credibility by such statements. And their damn non-transparency doesn’t make it better…

        • Rocky Mountain High

          *lose

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Their offer to buy back the licenses suggests that they have enough potential partners in the queue. Too much publicity might have unwanted side effects as long as not everything is cut and dried.

          • Judging by the sudden influx of so many ‘skeptics’ here, it appears that someone doesn’t want the the probable significance of the buy-back moves to be noticed.

        • IH may be planning to market the reactors in the US though some other entity – the paper companies do seem to be breeding unchecked at the moment.

    • Ronzonni

      I would hope and expect that IH would honor agreements made by Mr. Rossi before they bought his invention. Isn’t it usual for obligations as well as assets to be purchased in these types of buyouts?

  • The Defkalion split from Rossi was caused by Rossi not keeping his word. I think Rossi is a great engineer, but not a good businessman. Defkalion has put up with allot of unfair criticism and that is why they went secretive. They got fed up. I believe they have better technology that they developed independently of Rossi.

    • psi2u2

      Unfortunately they have yet to demonstrate their “better technology.”

    • Thomas Clarke

      @psiu2

      Rossi has yet to demonstrate his technology in a way that is scientifically believable.

      He does not need to do that, of course, if he is selling units to customers. He certainly seems to have had no lack of customer. Selling units? Prometeon don’t seem to think that likely.

      • Omega Z

        Have you never worked on a project that Issue’s arose. And were sure the answer would come quickly, only to find the answer at a much, much latter time.

        Rossi merely over promised & wasn’t able to deliver at the time or even now. Having the goods & integrating it into a useable product are 2 totally different Issue’s. The later being developed at this time with the Pilot Plant. 1 year if all goes well?

        Being overly optimistic afflicts everyone. First the Inventor & then all those that follow. Most of those here want their 10Kw E-cat & intend to get 100Kw of energy out of it. Electricity, heat their homes, melt the ice of their sidewalks, Etc. While in reality, 10Kw will only heat about 500 sq.ft. of their homes or 1000 sq. ft. if used only as supplemental heat. 10Kw is a lot until put into perspective.

        Take Note.
        As to the license buy back, we have no financial data to make a judgement on, However, If I new the technology was real & even if you repaid me double what I put in, I would be very discontent.
        Most people I know would be tickled to death to get their money back(without extra) if they thought this a scam. These people seem discontent for being shut out of a great opportunity.

        Some are concerned that the so-called Powers That Be will monopolize this technology. This situation just confirms their fears. For me this was always a forgone conclusion. It will literally take 100’s of Billions to bring this to market. Last I checked, I & everyone here is a little bit short a few dollars.

    • Ronzonni

      Defkalion is laying low. So low that they closed offices and their web site. Can we be sure they are coming back with better technology? Isn’t Gamberale sort of their Prometeon? He was their distributor and dropped out when they would not perform the tests he required.

      So far, the only person heard from on the subject may be Peter Gluck who is a wonderful guy but seriously optimistic. Anyone hear from Hadjichristos or Xanthoulis lately? And what does Stremmenos have to say now about Prometeon and about Defkalion? Maybe Admin could find out.

    • Omega Z

      CC
      I respectfully disagree. It was DGT who didn’t pay up. This was reported by Christos Stremmenos, a member of the board of Defkalion Green Technologies. He had more to say about their other despicable actions but that’s another story. Sour Grapes.

      That said, I take a more even attitude towards DGT. In late 2010, early 2011 trying to obtain funds for an unaccepted technology would have been very difficult. It is and has been for everyone in this field of work. DGT just couldn’t deliver what they promised. They still find themselves in this same predicament today for their on little venture.

      Defkalion Green Technologies over promised & under delivered. Very much as Rossi has over promised & under delivered. Rossi being at the heart of developing the technology may be forgiven, as many in his position suffer this issue. He’s in good company. Apple, Microsoft & many other big names also over promise. It happens. It’s a fact of life. It’s at the end of the day that counts. Whether a product eventually gets delivered.

      Likely many(Not All) of Rossi’s licensees were in it for a quick return. A Get Rich Quick Mentality. Sadly, these types are not alone.
      Old Venture Capitalist(VC’s) are disgusted with today’s younger generation of VC’s.

      The elders willingly admit, they tried to take the Lions share or controlling interest of any investments they made. Justified by them due to the high risks & long term to market. They complain that the younger generation is highly risk averse, want the technology at production ready & 100% of controlling interest with no concern about leaving the developer of the technology a pauper if the situation presents itself.

      I came across a story about Lonnie Johnson & his heat engine development. He entered a VC agreement with PARC, a Xerox company to continue it’s development. They constantly move research to other facilities & with each advancement file new patents while omitting Johnson’s name. He says it is a constant struggle to keep from being shut out. Such is the world we live in today.

      As to this situation with Rossi & licensees, This explains it all.
      “a technical manual with a detailed description of how to integrate an E-Cat® in an existing industrial environment and with a SCADA,”

      It is not ready for such a deployment. That is made perfectly clear by the present 1Mw LT E-cat Pilot Plant & the difficulties Rossi/IH are struggling with. Rossi simply couldn’t deliver at that/this time.

      Having followed Rossi for quite sometime, I’m sure like many others of his nature, are always sure that the answer to the issues will be present themselves shortly. Note Rossi was working on the SCADA & remote access control about 2 years ago. Rossi disclosed to a limited degree that it had issue, & likely at that point was shelved for a later time.

      • Jan Nie

        One important condition was in contract between DGT and Rossi (or his company): Rossi had obligations to demonstrate 48 hours run of E-Cat. Rossi never met this obligations. So Rossi break this contract.

      • I agree with some of the things you said. But, Christos Stremmenos is an old friend of Rossi and was given Defkalion stock as a promotion because he use to be an ambassador to Italy and was a popular figure due to his life history of opposing the Greek fascists. Stremmenos rarely attended Defkalion meetings and he still owns Defkalion stock, as far as I know. Rossi could not deliver a stable reactor and double-dealed distribution rights for Canada that Defkalion needed to stay in business. Defkalion’s important investors had planned to sell in Canada and had been promised that right. Defkalion had no choice but go their own way and tried to do so peacefully with dignity. Rossi started a name calling war which continues to a small extent today. Neither Stremmenos nor Mats Lewan were fair to Defkalion, in my opinion, and the main reason is they are buddies of Rossi.

        I believe Defkalion has a secret lab in Vancouver and are working on resolving problems in integrating their reactors to perform useful work, the same kinds of problems Rossi has. I believe Defkalion’s reactor design is easier to control and has a far higher COP. I suspect, but do not know as fact, that they have a silent partner. They don’t need offices or a website at this point, but I suspect they will have both relatively soon with a safety certified product. Only time will tell for sure.

        • psi2u2

          Chris, whatever the cause of bad feelings in the past, I hope that you are correct about Defkalion!

        • Omega Z

          Chris, I recall that, But Rossi has always withheld the rights to both North & South America along with the U.S. Military market right from the start. DGT were aware of this.

          Note that DGT had 2 deadlines & missed both. However, As I’ve said, It had much to do with circumstances that people don’t always control. Same to all the difficulties that Rossi & everyone else in the field have & still have to face.

          • A deadline to pay for an unstable and thus unusable product? Defkalion did not break any rules of good business practice.

      • psi2u2

        You are right; Stremmenos, who is the person responsible for introducing Rossi to Defkalion principals, said more than once that he felt that the primary responsibility for the breakup was not Rossi’s failure to deliver but Defkalion’s failure to provide the promised funding.

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    “was progressively losing steam”

  • Sanjeev

    I feel some sympathy for Prometeon. It seems EFA got rid of them in favor of more profitable partners. But it can be a major case of misunderstanding (happens with Rossi often because of his strange ways).
    Its good that they have not given up totally and found another LENR player. Can it be DGT?

    • Chris, Italy

      More likely Nichenergy. Anyway Rossi has always been brazen and I sure get Prometeon’s point of view.

  • Rocky Mountain High

    From the beginning Rossi has made bold statements about when the e-cat was going to be available to buy and about how far along the e-cat was in development. It has been years and Rossi has not delivered a single working e-cat to any customers as far as anyone knows. In my book Rossi has lost all credibility. I hope Rossi proves me wrong and it’s not just a big scam.

    • The appearance of some blood on the walls is a good indication that IH and partners/subsidiaries are consolidating their marketing plans by removing some potential legal problems in a fairly ruthless manner. I doubt very much that Rossi has much say in the matter – this is just typical corporate business in action.

      I’m sure that Rossi will be devastated to hear of his loss of credibility in your eyes, and will probably spend a sleepless night as a result. Actually, I don’t think that weak shill posts are going to make very much difference to the outcome at this stage, but congrats anyway for getting the words ‘credibility’ and ‘scam’ into this blog.

    • Freethinker

      ” I hope ….” 😀

      Sure you do.

  • Gerard McEk

    I guess this was the only possible way out of the contracts that Rossi had with Prometeon after he sold his knowhow to IH. Presently the commercial part is of no concern to Rossi anymore, but to IH and apparently a clash was unavoidable. Obviously IH does not want to continue with Prometeon for reasons that can only be guessed. (It’s Italian or not US or not legally tight or not commercially viable or etc.). Still I believe IH should have tried to renegotiate the contracts. This situation cause a shade on the LENR movement and I am not happy with it.

    • Chris I

      Are you sure you read the whole thing properly? I don’t interpret it this way at all.

  • Gerard McEk

    I guess this was the only possible way out of the contracts that Rossi had with Prometeon after he sold his knowhow to IH. Presently the commercial part is of no concern to Rossi anymore, but to IH and apparently a clash was unavoidable. Obviously IH does not want to continue with Prometeon for reasons that can only be guessed. (It’s Italian or not US or not legally tight or not commercially viable or etc.). Still I believe IH should have tried to renegotiate the contracts. This situation cause a shade on the LENR movement and I am not happy with it.

    • Chris, Italy

      Are you sure you read the whole thing properly? I don’t interpret it this way at all.

  • Chris, Italy

    Just as I thought!!!!!

    Although it is a more complicated explanation, I actually find it less surprising. In any case, Prometeon is no longer their licensee and this is why their website is under maintainance. I had been very curious as to whether any prospective customer portfolio had been bought along with the licence but now the whole thing is as clear as a bell. It doesn’t speak well for Rossi but it does speak well for the overall matter.

    • Ged

      As Bob pointed out, we all knew this was coming the moment IH obtained the IP rights from Rossi. It’s good at least that the licenses are being bought back, rather than abandoned.

      • Chris, Italy

        Who is “we” and on which grounds?

        You, Bob and “we” seem to all be supposing that IH would never want to have a network of licencees across the world AND that, given this, they would have made the deal with Rossi, aquiring control of Leonardo and EFA with the intention of making these back out of the previous deals OR that they were unaware of them when dealing with Rossi. Strikes me odd. Are you really sure? Or else what is your logic?

        I had been increasingly wondering if the licensees were getting pissed off at the dawdling. That’s why I looked at Prometeon’s site a few weeks ago, when I found it in its current state. It turns out that they were indeed getting pissed of.

        • Ged

          The answer is actually extremely obvious if you go back a bit in time and take a look at the IH press release here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/24/press-release-industrial-heat-has-acquired-andrea-rossis-e-cat-technology/ , which has the line “Mr. Vaughn confirmed IH acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to Rossi’s LENR device after an independent committee of European scientists conducted two multi-day tests at Rossi’s facilities in Italy.”

          That is, IH gained control of the licenses, but the original 3 year contracts with the old licensees was still an issue that had to be addressed. It was obvious from the language of the release that IH was consolidating all control of the E-cat, so the other licensees would have to be cut loose. There was a chance there’d still be a deal struck with them, but that seemed unlikely from day one; hence this is Not a surprise but an inevitability.

          Fast forward to: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/07/17/german-ex-e-cat-licensee-speaks/ where the German E-cat licensee lost their license due to IH forbidding them to have one, but also buying back that license (to fulfill the contract and allow it to amiably end).

          In short, this has already been happening for months. Prometeon is the only one I know of that has released a big statement unlike the others. Just gotta pay attention to the string of events; hence why “we” knew this was coming all along–it’s already been happening and it was stated in business lingo to be going to happen since day 1 of IH’s take over of the E-cat.

          • Chris, Italy

            “I have acquired the licensing rights” implies that I am free to choose whether I like the status quo or prefer to change it ASAP. It doesn’t imply that you know what I will choose, without me having told you that as well. If IH did deliberately as Proia describes, I find it disappointing but I see no grounds on which “we” was able to predict it without using his crystal ball.

          • Ged

            Really? Everything had to be renegotiated because of those words, it’s not just choice on IH’s side alone, it’s a business process.

            Oh man, I have watched the tech industry for years, and when you see that phrasing the same results always happen: licenses get bought back and consolidated, things get shaken up. That’s how new management always works, without fail, unless the contracts are made specifically to safe guard from that. The status quo is never maintained. It’s very high probability, which is why it’s an expected result (see expected result in statistics), no clairvoyance necessary.

            But you should have seen the other warning sign too: IH bought the IP. This is much deeper than having control of licensing rights. They have ownership, even more contracts must now be legally renegotiated with these new owners, and there was no way they’d see everything the way Rossi did (which would be required for maintaining status quo). They have their own connections, and they were bound to make different decisions within the rules of contract law, especially when you recall IH is stemmed from aggressive investment world’s, while Rossi is an engineer’s view point. Things were gunna change on the business side, and the weight of past precedence gave high confidence in how.

            The shocker is hydrofusion is still around. That I did not expect.

          • Chris, Italy

            If a company has contracted obligations, the contract remains valid regardless of who the hell comes to own the company. That’s law, in most any country and it’s law in Italy; EFA srl is Italian regardless of who owns it. It’s likely law in the land of Leonardo Corp. and IH llc too. Regardless of the different preferences of Rossi and the IH guys, they certainly had to take these contracts into account when they negotiated the deal with him.

            So your only point is that, by inductive reasoning (see much debate from Hume onward, down to that nitwit who reveres Karl, namedrops about Mandelbrot, and derides statiticians and has likely been investing increasingly into the Black Swan of Cold Fusion), you deem it likely that in their negotiations they would have examined all those contracts and priced in the cost of kicking the butts of all the licensees (which indeed Proia implies they’re doing). Fine, if that’s your experience, you found it likely. Still I don’t see what is so business unsavvy about what Rossi had already done and served them on a silver platter, as to make your expectation such a near.certainty, that they would trash it at whatever cost, and what does your wisdom expect their business savvy alternative to be?

            Next time I come up with something like it, something that all will want and fears scant competition, I will A) patent it properly (except with software, secrecy is more appropriate there) and B) just dole out licensing contracts. But, given their IP problem (no patent and a secret that won’t hold for long), they’ll need to be ready to mass deliver from a huge, well guarded produvtive capacity; this makes it amazing to me that they trashed their sales forces without even acquiring the annexed prospective portfolios (the thing most valuable to them at the moment, by any businesswise reckoning), it just strikes me as utterly retarded. At least, based on Proia’s side of the story; You can be bloody sure Proia didn’t hand his portfolio over too, for just 10% past his own initial investment at least… a couple years? back. That’s hardly a medium to low risk financial instrument, let alone the sweat of salesfolk who must have been straining to persuade their prospectives that patience is a virtue.

          • Ged

            Wow, your post is kinda messy to read.

            You forget contracts have exit clauses (I.e. how they are being bought back in the first place), as well as contingency clauses. It’s common that annulment of the contract upon new -ownership (not just management) is a clause. A contract has to be made specifically to say that new ownership, not just management, won’t invalidate the contract. We don’t know exactly how these were set up, but you should study the computer industry some where these events are common.

            Moreover, why would IH want to stay connected to the old licensees? They aren’t up to snuff compared to IH’s own likely contacts. They were all rather piddly, and the Australian one for instance was rather childish in its conduct which would damage product reputation. IH indeed would have known of all these and been prepared with how to deal with them prior to taking ownership. And they are dealing with then by using the exit clauses to buy back rather than full renegotiation, in most cases.

            IH would want to independently vet its licensees, not use Rossi’s more fringe ones which it may not feel it can trust or would have the competency, connections, and reach to properly sell e-cats. I would have done the same in their shoes as it is necessity. Hydrofusion must have impressed them, but they were always the most competent of the bunch, so good on them.

          • Chris, Italy

            I did not forget that contracts have exit clauses, you aren’t making sense here. I know that even in the USA a company is a legal person, distinct from the physical people who own it and those who make decisions for it, at any given moment. Your first paragraph is irrelevant, even if EFA srl weren’t Italian; I don’t doubt Leonardo’s obligations remained binding and you yourself imply this in parenthesis. You’re a bit self-contradictory.

            The rest of what you say goes case by case and exhibits nothing to justify “we” making the confident predictions that you claimed. You’re not holding them up and this exchange is dragging on too long to keep interesting me. I had a bit of fun this morning and I hadn’t contracted any obligation to be less messy.

          • Ged

            I really find it interesting why you are so defensive about this matter and find it hard for people to have predicted this give the weight of past precedent. Just because you failed or couldn’t see it, does not mean others have been so limited. Studying contract law and its cases would help in making it more apparent to you, but it is a dry subject most of the time. I also pointed out to you were other licensees were bought back, even provided you a link to a recent one, and how this was a systematic process launched by IH from day one; and yet you still don’t understand why we could see the writing on the wall?

            Some people can see what seems obvious to them, others can’t. Such is the diversity of view, which is a good thing. Don’t be so salty that in this case you were surprised by the obvious, for I was just as much so by Hydrofusion.

          • Chris, Italy

            I really “find it interesting why” you are so insistent and with so much strawman fallacy, even somewhat self contradictory. I don’t see where I “failed” and I even recognized that your opinon may have had grounds in your experience, only not what you had first said. No theorem, only your experience of what is typical and it even strikes me as a description of today’s smartasses rather than business sages.

            As for contract law ans its cases, even if I were a US citizen, or chose to study it in detail, I pointed out something more fundamental than its details (which these COULD NOT change) and which I know to be true int the USA too. I mean, shucks, otherwise who would ever make a long term deal with a company that’s traded on the stock market? Very next sale of even one single share and… Wow! “Look son, the ownership ain’t no more the same, therefore your contract is now void; you can wipe your arse with it now.” Duuuh, really?

            After all, the very fact that they proposed the buyback, doesn’t make it even an exit clause. If you had cared to read Proia properly, it even seems they mistakenly tried to apply one, but Prometeon successfully challenged that. I get your opinion but I just don’t get your logic.

          • Ged

            Chris, you aren’t making sense anymore. Read: http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/when-purchasing-and-existing-business–are-previou-1607381.html that explains, again, everything I’ve already said, as it seems you need another source. Change in ownership can straight up void contracts, and if not, the contract is still up for renegotiation if either party desires. Even more, buy back -is- an exit clause, one of if not the nicest ones at that. A contract typically has many, multiple exit clauses for multiple contingencies.

            Again, look at the computer industry where patents are shuffles around continuously and licensees oft times cut loose as a result. It’s risky business in all fields.

          • Chris, Italy

            Notice that none of those 4 attorneys are really saying the contracts become void, if you sort out the confusion and also take into account what Proia and Rossi have said about it. Neither Leonardo nor EFA have ceased to exist. IH now controls them (did not buy just their assets). At the most IH might have required that Rossi assume liability for things they did not accept, but this doesn’t appear to be the case (buy what both he and Proia said). Things are certainly less clear cut in America than over here, still that link does not tell me the things you’ve been saying.

            I repeat, I do get your opinion, but not your logic. I’m also weary of a pointless debate. I you don’t get my opinion and even less my logic, I’m unable to be of any further assistance.

          • Ged

            I get your opinion–that you are surprised that IH would exit (or not continue) contract from Rossi’s old licensees rather than take the liability on themselves for what they didn’t choose nor negotiate, and that you don’t see how other people could have expected this outcome–but I do not get your logic at all. I guess we’ll have to leave it as irreconcilable logics.

          • Chris, Italy

            That’s not my opinion, because it contains a part which I deem false: By negotiating with Rossi and choosing to accept a deal with him, they did so take the liability on themselves.

            If you purchase an entity which is a legal person, you take on what obligations it has; they come with it. Strictly speaking, they are not “Rossi’s old licensees” but those of the legal persons in question. At the most, the Cherokee partners might have reckoned on what options were available to change these afterwards, when and at what cost. How certainly they must have done so is your opinion.

            Yes, they appear to be irreconcilable logics.

          • Ged

            If you read my earlier link, you would have seen that when buying up a company IP, one doesn’t have to buy the liability. You do Not have to take on what legal obligations the entity you negotiate with has, that is false. But, it is an Insentive to the party you are taking IP ownership from to do so. But it is Not a requirement. You are misunderstanding contracts: the only thing that matters is what’s explicitly in the contract, there is no external necessity for all the fluff you are assuming. Not how it works. This is why business is treacherous. We are are seeing IH use exits to buy back, which they can because of the ownership change: notice how no one can threaten legal action?

            For all we know, everything IH is doing is for PR sake only, with no legal ramifications, and that’s what it sounds like according to the licensees who have no legal course with which to keep their licenses, which is part of their frustration. Didn’t you not notice that?

            So, that part of your reasoning is on a flawed assumption. We don’t know the details of IH’s ownership take over, and we don’t know the details of the licensee contracts which the take over may legally annul depending on the wording of the contracts–if IH even accepted them in the first place. As it is typical to Not carry along baggage from the people you buy IP from, these course of events are expected, hydrofusion is not.

          • Chris, Italy

            Ged, seriuosly. Have you really nothing better to do? To me it all looks like the way I see it. Even page 10 of that pdf, it seems to me that your opinion is exactly the common misconception it talks about, but you read it your own way around. Thehe Ontario one is potentialy less relevant, but I read part of the section you suggested and it didn’t look the way you construe. BTW, perhaps the reason no legal action could be threatened is just aimply because no infringements were committed.

            If you want a bit more… ehem… “fluff”, read this:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality#Juridical_persons

            but I guess you’ll construe even that as meaning the obligations don’t come with the entity in question (especially as it is worded unclearly in parts). To me it supports the opposite; it talks about exceptions in which the physical people can be liable for what they have decided on behalf of the juristic one (especially necessary when it’s criminal responsibility), but these are for protection of creditors or damaged parties and clearly not of the kind you’ve been claiming.

          • Ged

            Your link has nothing to do with this, what so ever. A licensing agreement is saying someone can use your IP as long as you say they can to make a product and turn a profit while providing you a royalty. It’s a very loose relationship.

            Let me actually quote from the first link I gave to point out to you what’s in plain English. From page 10, “Although some change-of-control provisions purport to void the transaction, the more direct approach is to provide that a change of control is equivalent to a material breach of the agreement or grounds for termination, or both.”

            Doesn’t get much plainer. If you have a change in IP ownership (control), that generally terminates the licensing agreement. This is Common practice. Hence why it is expected for the old licensees to be cut loose, as renegotiation must commence and a new agreement reached as the old one is breached.

            Now, let’s look at an actual licensing agreement from the real world wilds: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1069489/000106299304000483/exhibit2-1.htm

            Note how the licensor and licensee have a -right- to early termination of the agreement at any time. Material breach is also grounds for immediate termination. Notice once again how from above that change of ownership is generally regarded a material breach.

            So there you have it. From the start, you’ve been trying to argue that it makes no sense that anyone could “see this coming”, that IH would let go of the old licensees after it took ownership of the IP, while I have said from day one that it is a common enough outcome to the point of being expected if one watches what companies do or reads agreements.

            And now I’ve given you links showing exactly how these agreements work, and shown you them working in the real world, spelled out. Your arguments have been completely unrelated and meaningless.

            Yes, this was an expected outcome. And no, it isn’t weird that “we” saw this coming. The insistence that one couldn’t predict this is what’s weird, not the realization that licensing agreements are built intentionally to allow this very event. They are a loose agreement that can be terminated at any time by either party, and change of ownership or control is generally regarded as immediate grounds for termination, and thus renegotiation to make a new agreement, or not.

          • Chris, Italy

            If you are unable to connect the dots, I have contracted no obligation to do so for you and I’ve alredy wasted far too much of my time. Your quote from that pdf and “explanation” of it tell me that I had guessed correctly, that you construed it back-asswards. Sorry, I read no further.

          • Ged

            Right. I quote where it says change of ownership is grounds to terminate licenses as we’ve seen been happening; then I show you a real such agreement archived by the US government that shows the same written plainly. Yet you keep trying to push “corporations being people” as somehow having to do with this, when it’s completely unrelated unless you mean taxes or free speech.

            If you can’t accept reality, what’s plainly written, that’s your problem. Meanwhile, the rest of us will easily see what’s coming and not be surprised by what shocks you. Since you fail to give any arguments other than vague insults, you are officially beaten, and there’s no more point to this.

            But it was fun debating with you, I will choose to respect your opinion, and I hope you don’t feel bad.

          • Chris, Italy

            I don’t feel bad, I only deel annoyed as long as you keep insisting when I’ve repeated I don’t have enough time. I’m too presumptuous to feel bad about not getting your logic (instead of feeling so certain that you’re not getting mine). Not that it’s much more presumptuous than officially declaring who the loser is. As far as I care you rest free to believe what you like.

          • Ged

            Here, this may be helpful, check out page 10 of this US law IP licenseeing guide on changes-of-control
            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=E-R9VIqRLPOLsQSBh4HgBg&url=http://www.skadden.com/sites/default/files/publications/Publications2679_0.pdf

            It’s not an easy read, but as you can see, changes in control generally lead to termination of the contract unless drafted to protect from that. I don’t know what happens to the licensee’s money in such a case, but IH is doing right to pay it back, PR or legal or not; and again, as you can see by law, this is the common outcome of such changes.

          • Ged

            Here we go, I found a much easier to read resource http://www.bbburn.com/pmart6.htm

            It seems that licensees are basically leasing a product in the eyes of the law. The licensor can offer a warrenty on that, but doesn’t have to. Licensees seem to have little rights if the owners decide to rescind the license, even if the licensee makes a down payment, the licensor can terminate if they wish (see the section on licensing agreements). All pursuent on the actual wording of the agreement, as I keep saying.

            Hopefully these detail are helpful in regards to US law. If the licensing agreement didn’t warranty it, then all the licensees are SOL upon change of ownership termination, it seems; even more so than I thought.

            Now it should be easier to see why this was so expected.

  • ecatworld

    I believe Rossi has only ever said that there were 2 working 1 MW plants delivered. He has said that one was delivered to a secret military customer, the other shipped to IH in the USA.

    People have often referred to the 13 military plants, but I am not aware he has ever said they were delivered. In fact I’m not sure where the reference to these 13 plants originated.

    If you could provide a source, I’d appreciate it.

    • Ronzonni

      I will look.

    • LuFong

      There are a number of other references to these 13 plants in his journal. You are right he never claimed he had delivered them only that he was manufacturing them. This was right after the October 2011 1MW plant demo right about the time he was selling these licenses.

      The original statement was from an italian journal Focus.it (no longer available) but mentioned here ( http://ecatnews.com/?p=1358 )

      We are building a 130 MW thermal plant, made of 13 plant
      such as the one you saw on October 28th: but it’s a military research
      and I can’t reveal any further detail, not the name, nor the place, nor
      the nationality of the customer

      Also confirmed here:

      Andrea Rossi

      November 18th, 2011 at 5:33 AM
      Dear Matthew:

      There is a typo: WE ARE MANUFACTURING 13 1MW THERMAL PLANTS LIKE THE ONE TESTED ON THE 28TH OF OCTOBER.

      This is the correct version.

      Warm Regards.
      A.R.

      • ecatworld

        Thanks very much, Lufong

      • Omega Z

        1 sold to a military customer with a possible 12 more to follow. I imagine those 12 evaporated as soon as the Hot-cat became possible which was not long after the 1 unit shipped.

        Note the Demo unit wasn’t shipped. It needed major refurbishing(Lots of leaks) & it was quicker & easier to just build another. The Demo unit was ultimately rebuilt/refurbished & likely the 1 that went to IH. That makes 2 total by my count.

        Had the IH deal not happened, I believe the demo would have went to a licensees customer as it seemed to be in limbo for a couple months until the IH test took place & passed.

        A competitor of Rossi’s, Don’t recall who, but claimed to have seen the 1Mw system at NRL while his project was being evaluated there.
        The main reason I recall this is because he accused NRL of sharing proprietary information with Rossi.

  • wonderboy

    This is definitely the ugly side of business. IH wants to maximize profits, probably control distribution, and utilize there own network.

    I bet for a while now they were trying to figure out how to get out of those contracts. Rossi (who some may argue isn’t the most virtuous) was probably eager to toe the company line and knew this would happen for a while now. Thus, the old licensees got the shaft.

    This is tragic because Rossi isn’t known for his reliability, and unfortunately this will be used by skeptics to cast further doubt (even in the face of third party tests). I hope for the sake of humanity they stop playing games and start putting out a product.

    • Ged

      That’s a good bit of analysis. All part of IH’s consolidation strategy. I don’t think Rossi is even the main e-cat controlling figure anymore, just the one we see.

  • Ged

    That’s a good bit of analysis. All part of IH’s consolidation strategy. I don’t think Rossi is even the main e-cat controlling figure anymore, just the one we see.

  • ecatworld

    I think part of the issue has to be that Rossi/IH are still working on getting the 1MW plant to where it needs to be.

    It seems like technical issues have come up in an industrial setting where they are installing a 1MW plant that they were not expecting, and they are just not ready to deploy plants.

    • LuFong

      I agree that the 1MW plant was probably not ready for commercial use. I also believe Rossi needed money. The problem is Rossi has been claiming commerciality of the E-Cat for 3+ years and has been saying that the verity of the E-Cat will be decided by the market. And here, it appears, we have Rossi thwarting the market. It’s ugly but not proof of anything one way or another. It does support my view of Rossi however.

  • Frank Acland

    I think part of the issue has to be that Rossi/IH are still working on getting the 1MW plant to where it needs to be.

    It seems like technical issues have come up in an industrial setting where they are installing a 1MW plant that they were not expecting, and they are just not ready to deploy plants.

    • Barbierir

      It seems so and the 1MW plants were even less ready when Rossi signed the deals with Prometeon and other distributors, he made a lot of promises that later couldn’t be kept

  • bfast

    ‘Sounds like Defkalion all over again. The statement, “The only good thing we can say about Mr Rossi is that he has the merit of having broken the wall around LENR ” is an understatement. I object strongly to the word “only”. Getting LENR back on the table is a bug, Huge, MASSIVE deal! I believe that LENR will be way big enough for multiple core players — let ’em play. I very sincerely hope that Rossi et. el. become one of those core players, and that Eng. Rossi is well rewarded for his hard work.

  • bfast

    ‘Sounds like Defkalion all over again. The statement, “The only good thing we can say about Mr Rossi is that he has the merit of having broken the wall around LENR ” is an understatement. I object strongly to the word “only”. Getting LENR back on the table is a bug, Huge, MASSIVE deal! I believe that LENR will be way big enough for multiple core players — let ’em play. I very sincerely hope that Rossi et. el. become one of those core players, and that Eng. Rossi is well rewarded for his hard work.

  • Fortyniner

    Actually, the appearance of some blood on the walls is a good indication that IH and partners/subsidiaries are consolidating their marketing plans by removing some potential legal problems in a fairly ruthless manner. I doubt very much that Rossi has much say in the matter – this is just typical corporate business in action.

    I’m sure that Rossi will be devastated to hear of his loss of credibility in your eyes, and will probably spend a sleepless night as a result. I don’t think that shill posts are going to make very much difference to the outcome at this stage though, but congrats anyway for getting the words ‘credibility’ and ‘scam’ into this blog.

  • Freethinker

    ” I hope ….” 😀

    Sure you do.

  • Frederic

    If Prometeon signed a contract based on the model supplied below by Lu Fong for a commercial sales license for the Indian subcontinent, it’s no wonder they were a little foolish to do so (and to pay EUR 100 K !) : there is no Licensor commitment whatsoever in this contract.

    Still, as A. Rossi proved himself he still is not in a position to supply a 1MW reactor as he prefers to wait for the “first in load” e-cat to be a success on the customer site before organizing demos, it should not be to difficult to counter the sales target.

    All of this is a bit sad, as Rossi claimed several times not to have ask money to anyone, public or private.

    But it won’t change a thing for the tremendous commercial success of LENR in the very short term.

  • I don’t believe this claim, and it is clearly only a hearsay report by Yeong Kim, from a company who fooled a partner…

    anyway it is not impossible.
    first the claim was not a static 1.6T (like a MRI magnet) field but a peak measurement with a probe at 20cm.
    It does not mean flying tools but dead telephones, huge EMI …

    my quick computation led me to interpret it as a big 8T source in the reactor… hard to swallow, but superconduction is observed in LENR active hydrides.
    8T is observed in some extreme permanent magnet and sure on cold superconduction (but not in HTSC).

    Another hypothesis is that the probe was fooled by huge EMI from either the sparks or the LENr reaction…

    the last hypothesis is that it is a lie, from a company desperate for funding of their basic research, who expected it was easy to design a LENR reactor and found it was not.

    That is the hypothesis I caught from people who approached them.
    It is not sure, it is probable.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Very interesting. This VERY much explains why there was the “public” 1 MW e-cat demonstration about 2 (3) years ago. The demonstration was not really for the public, but was LIKELY to prevent the licenses pulling out and wanting their money back. (and it was a means to sell licenses to potential buyers).

    In other words, Rossi was under HUGE pressure to deliver something and they needed money badly.

    And we see around that time licensees of e-cat were VERY frustrated since they could make sales, but not achieve delivery!
    In the software industry we often call this vaporware.

    Vaporware:
    You start pre-selling the product to buyers and distributors, but you don’t have the product ready. In some cases this occurred without ANY product ready! So you don’t have the money for the project, so you pre-sell to give you the money you need to keep going! And if no one is interested, then you simply don’t build the product and hence the term “vaporware”.

    However having made promises for delivery dates that are now slipping and cannot be achieved, one gets in real trouble if you actually take or start getting orders, or orders that cannot wait until you can deliver!

    And to be fair, the term “vaporware” often refers to the case when the software product is not even built, but is being pitched!

    If at conferences and approaching investors you get LARGE interest, then you can build the non existing product. If you don’t receive orders and interest, then you simply stop talking about the product that never existed! I mean, if no interest exists in the product, then at least you not spent money, and not taken orders!

    The slippery part is when you spent money, but need quite a bit more then expected. (and this is COMMON in software, and technology industry).

    And to be fair, in many cases initial software development has taken place, and everyone is on board REALLY is sincere and believes they can deliver. I think a great example of this was the promise of a NEW file system for Vista/Windows 7. Microsoft and their engineers sincerely believed that the new file system could be delivered as part of the new OS, but it never made it way into the product. Too many changes, too ambitious of a change to the basic file system. I STILL hope this new file system eventually finds it way to the desktop. Such a file system can solve many basic problems in the computer industry by using a database system in place of what today amounts to DOS for managing files on your computer. Not only would searching improve, but distributed file sharing (think of every computer being a file share node like Napster), and replication technology is great for backup of files and as a means to move data and files between computers. In fact such a setup would revolutionize much of how we deal and use files on windows based computers. The current file system used is VERY old, and many new things could be done by replacing that older system with a newer technology.

    And recall how both Boeing (the new Dreamliner) and Airbus (380) had HUGE HUGE multi-year delays in delivery of their new airframes. The airlines had to apologize to customers who booked on these new planes, and worse in the meantime find other air frames to use, or cancel orders, and then go purchase some other plane – all in all a nasty and hurtful process. However Airbus did not mislead and they (at one point in time) honestly believed they could deliver on time.

    So be it new Aircraft, new software or in this case the e-cat, then technology OFTEN suffers rather large delays in delivery dates. One often used solution to this problem is to simply CUT OUT features.

    So in the case of Microsoft, the new file system was going to hold up the release of their next OS for some time, so they dumped that feature.

    And same goes for recent Apple iPhone, they has planned to use super hard durable sapphire glass that cannot scratch. (this sapphire is referred as transparent aluminum – one of the hardest substances we have in manufacturing). Too many problems occurred that could not be solved. So in place of a long multi year delay that is MUCH too long in such a fast moving industry like smartphones, then Apple simply DUMPED the new glass feature.

    The problem with e-cat is you cannot cut features to trim down and speed up release date (at least you can’t until the product is more mature and has features BEYOND the basic expectations and requirements).

    So while I rather saddened that a number of Vendors had the rug pulled out from their feet, such kinds of caution is required when dealing with new not yet released products.

    To the end user, you turn on a phone, jump on a plane etc., but few realize the MANY MANY years and large sums of money spent for you to enjoy that product with an “on” button.

    This “on” effect is one of those VERY beautiful life “illusions”. A great example of this “effect” is attending someone’s wedding as opposed to be involved in planning the weeding. You go to wedding, have food, give a hug, go home, you smile at the great time you have. That was just so fun and easy.

    However the huge planning required for the wedding is not seen, and really the whole thing is a “magic” illusion to those attending. You get the “on” switch feeling and effect by going to that wedding, or when you pick up your smartphone and hit the “on” button. So the efforts and work that results in your great experience is not seen or felt – the work and effort involved is transparent to you.

    So planes, software, attending weddings and one day owning an e-cat no doubt will produce that same “on” effect, no different then when you now turn on your microware oven without any thought.

    However in most cases these magic “on effects” are the result of MANY years of historical technology that been built up over the years.

    So while technology often creates that “magic” like “on effect, it also has a equally and NASTY and HARD hurting effect when technologies are delayed to the eager population wanting that new phone, to ride on that new plane, or in this case experience the beauty of owning a table top nuclear power pant in your home proving buckets of energy at some stupid low cost!

    I mean, there was a time when many dreamed of JUST owning their OWN computer – in fact I well remember that experience! – it was an Apple II for me! Just the “idea” of owning a computer was a thrill – and I can’t wait for the thrill of owning my own table top nuclear reactor with that “on” switch!

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • LuFong

      I think Rossi started selling these licenses AFTER the October 2011 demo. Before that he probably was burning his own money. The 3 year period for the license extension is probably coming up for many of these licensees which is why this has come up.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Sure, I can agree on this. Sure, either to keep licenses, or sell licenses results in much the same process and thought process I outline. They need money! Eventually one has to start delivering a product or that business will un-ravel.

        As I stated, Microsoft, Boeing, Airbus, Apple all often suffer big delays in their products – the trick is to minimize the damage.
        In software the hard choice is to ship the product even when not perfect, and the product is NOT up to one’s standards – you need revenue.

        In fact this “tinkering” stage can go on FAR too long in software if you don’t force a shipping date. As noted, when possible you don’t reduce the quality of the overall product, but simply cut features that cannot be delivered. However, in some cases you do both!

        Regards,
        Albert k

    • Anon2012_2014

      I think the 1 MW shipping container model of ECAT came from the earlier “genset” model of Rossi’s predecessor company — I can’t remember its name but it was based in New Hampshire and if you Googled for Rossi the picture of the genset (a generator running off of waste oil) was on the internet landing site.

      There is no doubt in my mind that the 1 MW shipping container was more of a mockup, i.e. to show what one would look like if they could get it running. We never saw a test of the shipping containing unit other than an inconclusive test where it took 400kW to run the devices and it was not clear how much heat came out of the unit.

      The real deal — the only thing with decent data — is Hot ECAT-I and ECAT-II (Lugano test). If, and I include the conditional if, these devices can be shown to run independently by third parties from the ground up, than IH and Rossi are off to the races.

      The rest of the Rossi exaggerations — the robot factories, the military customer running the 1 MW ECAT, etc… is more to me of salesman’s exaggeration.

      I think it is highly likely that Mr. Rossi has indeed demonstrated a working ECAT-II in the Lugano report partially supervised by Levi et al. He left a few holes (i.e. no chain of custody of the fuel and ash) and I have heard 2 good hypotheses on why IH/Rossi have left those unanswered questions. I am also unimpressed with energy measurement that is calculated as the x^4 as slight errors in observation can result in large errors in energy reported. I am waiting for McKubre to get his hands on a working ECAT device.

      We cannot know with certainty if Rossi has the goods until a trusted third party replicates his test. We cannot know with certainty if the fuel/ash shows proof of transmutations until a trusted third party does all the handling of the fuel and ash. But it could be a working LENR furnace, and I think it is likely that it is working.

      If this is working as advertised as an experiment, but without a deliverable product, everything we see occurring makes sense. In the mean time, we are just frustrated with the inability to definitively show a working device or to have a device on the market. So we wait.

      • US_Citizen71

        This has been done. Virtually all of what you have stated was done by IH before purchasing the IP we just didn’t get to see the numbers or hear details of what happened. It must have been pretty damn believable for IH to purchase the rights.

      • Omega Z

        Do you know that Both Tom Darden & JT Vaughn of Industrial heat were not just present, but personally involved in the test before purchasing Rossi’s IP & had brought along an outside expert. Somewhere there is a picture floating around of this.

        I have no Idea of what Rossi & Levi’s relationship is today, but Originally, they were not friends. Did you know Levi was one of the Original Skeptics.

        As to tests. There will be no more. There is only the pilot plant results to look forward to. A test such as you propose will never happen. Rossi/IH are not going to turn over all there knowledge to totally independent parties. Black Box is all there is.

        Even if this were to happen & it wont, Should that 3rd party provide proof positive, It will only be claimed that they were bought off or incompetent. You should know that by now.

    • William D. Fleming

      It doesn’t seem prudent to sell licenses for a product before that product is proven to work and you have the means of manufacture. Great leaps forward are often made by imprudent people.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Very interesting. This VERY much explains why there was the “public” 1 MW e-cat demonstration about 2 (3) years ago. The demonstration was not really for the public, but was LIKELY to prevent the licenses pulling out and wanting their money back. (and it was a means to sell licenses to potential buyers).

    In other words, Rossi was under HUGE pressure to deliver something and they needed money badly.

    And we see around that time licensees of e-cat were VERY frustrated since they could make sales, but not achieve delivery!
    In the software industry we often call this vaporware.

    Vaporware:
    You start pre-selling the product to buyers and distributors, but you don’t have the product ready. In some cases this occurred without ANY product ready! So you don’t have the money for the project, so you pre-sell to give you the money you need to keep going! And if no one is interested, then you simply don’t build the product and hence the term “vaporware”.

    However having made promises for delivery dates that are now slipping and cannot be achieved, one gets in real trouble if you actually take or start getting orders, or orders that cannot wait until you can deliver!

    And to be fair, the term “vaporware” often refers to the case when the software product is not even built, but is being pitched!

    If at conferences and approaching investors you get LARGE interest, then you can build the non existing product. If you don’t receive orders and interest, then you simply stop talking about the product that never existed! I mean, if no interest exists in the product, then at least you not spent money, and not taken orders!

    The slippery part is when you spent money, but need quite a bit more then expected. (and this is COMMON in software, and technology industry).

    And to be fair, in many cases initial software development has taken place, and everyone is on board REALLY is sincere and believes they can deliver. I think a great example of this was the promise of a NEW file system for Vista/Windows 7. Microsoft and their engineers sincerely believed that the new file system could be delivered as part of the new OS, but it never made it way into the product. Too many changes, too ambitious of a change to the basic file system. I STILL hope this new file system eventually finds it way to the desktop. Such a file system can solve many basic problems in the computer industry by using a database system in place of what today amounts to DOS for managing files on your computer. Not only would searching improve, but distributed file sharing (think of every computer being a file share node like Napster), and replication technology is great for backup of files and as a means to move data and files between computers. In fact such a setup would revolutionize much of how we deal and use files on windows based computers. The current file system used is VERY old, and many new things could be done by replacing that older system with a newer technology.

    And recall how both Boeing (the new Dreamliner) and Airbus (380) had HUGE HUGE multi-year delays in delivery of their new airframes. The airlines had to apologize to customers who booked on these new planes, and worse in the meantime find other air frames to use, or cancel orders, and then go purchase some other plane – all in all a nasty and hurtful process. However Airbus did not mislead and they (at one point in time) honestly believed they could deliver on time.

    So be it new Aircraft, new software or in this case the e-cat, then technology OFTEN suffers rather large delays in delivery dates. One often used solution to this problem is to simply CUT OUT features.

    So in the case of Microsoft, the new file system was going to hold up the release of their next OS for some time, so they dumped that feature.

    And same goes for recent Apple iPhone, they has planned to use super hard durable sapphire glass that cannot scratch. (this sapphire is referred as transparent aluminum – one of the hardest substances we have in manufacturing). Too many problems occurred that could not be solved. So in place of a long multi year delay that is MUCH too long in such a fast moving industry like smartphones, then Apple simply DUMPED the new glass feature.

    The problem with e-cat is you cannot cut features to trim down and speed up release date (at least you can’t until the product is more mature and has features BEYOND the basic expectations and requirements).

    So while I rather saddened that a number of Vendors had the rug pulled out from their feet, such kinds of caution is required when dealing with new not yet released products.

    To the end user, you turn on a phone, jump on a plane etc., but few realize the MANY MANY years and large sums of money spent for you to enjoy that product with an “on” button.

    This “on” effect is one of those VERY beautiful life “illusions”. A great example of this “effect” is attending someone’s wedding as opposed to be involved in planning the weeding. You go to wedding, have food, give a hug, go home, you smile at the great time you have. That was just so fun and easy.

    However the huge planning required for the wedding is not seen, and really the whole thing is a “magic” illusion to those attending. You get the “on” switch feeling and effect by going to that wedding, or when you pick up your smartphone and hit the “on” button. So the efforts and work that results in your great experience is not seen or felt – the work and effort involved is transparent to you.

    So planes, software, attending weddings and one day owning an e-cat no doubt will produce that same “on” effect, no different then when you now turn on your microware oven without any thought.

    However in most cases these magic “on effects” are the result of MANY years of historical technology that been built up over the years.

    So while technology often creates that “magic” like “on effect, it also has a equally and NASTY and HARD hurting effect when technologies are delayed to the eager population wanting that new phone, to ride on that new plane, or in this case experience the beauty of owning a table top nuclear power pant in your home proving buckets of energy at some stupid low cost!

    I mean, there was a time when many dreamed of JUST owning their OWN computer – in fact I well remember that experience! – it was an Apple II for me! Just the “idea” of owning a computer was a thrill – and I can’t wait for the thrill of owning my own table top nuclear reactor with that “on” switch!

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Anon2012_2014

      I think the 1 MW shipping container model of ECAT came from the earlier “genset” model of Rossi’s predecessor company — I can’t remember its name but it was based in New Hampshire and if you Googled for Rossi the picture of the genset (a generator running off of waste oil) was on the internet landing site.

      There is no doubt in my mind that the 1 MW shipping container was more of a mockup, i.e. to show what one would look like if they could get it running. We never saw a test of the shipping containing unit other than an inconclusive test where it took 400kW to run the devices and it was not clear how much heat came out of the unit.

      The real deal — the only thing with decent data — is Hot ECAT-I and ECAT-II (Lugano test). If, and I include the conditional if, these devices can be shown to run independently by third parties from the ground up, than IH and Rossi are off to the races.

      The rest of the Rossi exaggerations — the robot factories, the military customer running the 1 MW ECAT, etc… is more to me of salesman’s exaggeration.

      I think it is highly likely that Mr. Rossi has indeed demonstrated a working ECAT-II in the Lugano report partially supervised by Levi et al. He left a few holes (i.e. no chain of custody of the fuel and ash) and I have heard 2 good hypotheses on why IH/Rossi have left those unanswered questions. I am also unimpressed with energy measurement that is calculated as the x^4 as slight errors in observation can result in large errors in energy reported. I am waiting for McKubre to get his hands on a working ECAT device.

      We cannot know with certainty if Rossi has the goods until a trusted third party replicates his test. We cannot know with certainty if the fuel/ash shows proof of transmutations until a trusted third party does all the handling of the fuel and ash. But it could be a working LENR furnace, and I think it is likely that it is working.

      If this is working as advertised as an experiment, but without a deliverable product, everything we see occurring makes sense. In the mean time, we are just frustrated with the inability to definitively show a working device or to have a device on the market. So we wait.

      • US_Citizen71

        This has been done. Virtually all of what you have stated was done by IH before purchasing the IP we just didn’t get to see the numbers or hear details of what happened. It must have been pretty damn believable for IH to purchase the rights.

      • Omega Z

        Do you know that Both Tom Darden & JT Vaughn of Industrial heat were not just present, but personally involved in the test before purchasing Rossi’s IP & had brought along an outside expert. Somewhere there is a picture floating around of this.

        I have no Idea of what Rossi & Levi’s relationship is today, but Originally, they were not friends. Did you know Levi was one of the Original Skeptics.

        As to tests. There will be no more. There is only the pilot plant results to look forward to. A test such as you propose will never happen. Rossi/IH are not going to turn over all there knowledge to totally independent parties. Black Box is all there is.

        Even if this were to happen & it wont, Should that 3rd party provide proof positive, It will only be claimed that they were bought off or incompetent. You should know that by now.

    • Mark Szl

      The problem with your analogies are that those companies you have mentioned either have a proven tract record and are mostly trusted and/or they do not have a checkered past and are not promoting a technology that go beyond or are implausible under current scientific understanding.

      Let’s get the anomalies cleared up with this last report or get another investigation going. Otherwise, early hopeful adopters will not put up with another episode of vaporware the Ecat crowd.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        I don’t think the report matters. Microsoft or any other company does not necessary in public need to have some technology vetted out by others to make other people feel good. They know what they have, they know what works. The world is not some huge baby sitting service!

        The existence of LENR is certainly not based on the witness and testimony of Rossi. The technology exists, been replicated many times. Heck there was a 101 LENR course at MIT.

        The only real issue here is commercialization of this energy source.

        I certainly agree that the other companies I mentioned have a track record, but the “process” of how technology moves forward was my real point. This “problem” or “process” occurs EVEN when a company has a long time proven track record.

        So Microsoft failed to deliver on their promise of the new file system. Apple failed to deliver on their new scratch proof glass. In these cases, the technology existed, and proven track record of such companies did not matter at all!

        The above failure example(s) were ideas and goals based on technology that exists. And the goals were based on sound judgments by their engineers. However after all was said and done they STILL failed to deliver that technology. And if you want to go work for a company that never has failure, you might as well get some bureaucratic government job in which everyone blames everyone else and failures don’t occur.

        It is VERY said that our culture does not grasp how a culture of failure is GREAT and GOOD! This does not mean we like to fail, or you PLAN to fail.

        This “culture” of failure concept ONLY works if you are surrounded by GREAT intelligent people. If you are working with a bunch of dumb people, then everyone attempts to NEVER fail at anything and thus they NEVER achieve anything of great value! And they NEVER try anything JUST beyond their reach because they are too afraid of failure. (it called being a mediocre person).

        Great people see everything as a problem. And they reach high without fear of failure, since any failure was just the wrong turn on your way to the final goal! People like Rossi are ABSOLUTE fearless. The way people view setbacks tells me MUCH about their character.

        And if Apple (or the Microsoft example) were given more time, then they likely could have brought those technologies to market. So they not implausible, but required more struggle then the group of people attempting to deliver on their promise.

        In fact Apple, Microsoft and many technology companies DON’T in public now state some of their technology goals, since by not delivering is seen as a failure. For example, there was a project at Microsoft to re-write word. (and it failed big time – thankfully they kept the old team around busy doing maintains on the existing version). So once again, the concept here is technology has a “process” of failures that results in the failure to deliver on legitimate ideas. The fact that people don’t know how technology processes work then are thus shocked by Rossi because they think Apple and every other technology companies works different – they don’t, but you not exposed to how they work!

        In most cases the falling or missing of delivery dates is due to over optimism, or not realizing how big the challenge is, or both. And often the other issue is lack of resources.

        However VERY RARE are such failures based on something that does not work altogether!

        In just the few past years, we seen a rapid change in Rossi’s reactors. They made rapid process.

        And did Rossi likely promise too much too fast? Sure, no question, but as I stated, this often happens in technology. And I not trying to defend this “horrible issue” of broken deliveries that occurs so regularly in the technology industry of which I am so fortunate to be a part of.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Obvious

    Please do not construe my above comments to be an endorsement of Rossi, Leonardo Corp., or IH’s actions in this case.
    All I meant to convey that a new business of this sort is very risky, and the probability of a disappointment by one party or another was almost certainly very high.
    I do not know enough of the story to comment further.
    Perhaps a finders fee has been arranged, should one of these customers be satisfied in the future? I do no know. There is typically some sort of “area of influence” or purchase of “good will” (ie: customer lists, etc.) clause or some such similar thing in cases resembling this one. I know not the answer to that. Probably the answer is buried in NDA’s.

  • Curbina

    This kind of statements is as infortunate as it is expected. I would like to be much more sure of how complex is the relationship between Rossi, Leornardo Corporation, EFA, and IH. I’d like to know what the other Leonardo shareholders have to say about this, just to understand well who is paying back and if really IH has to do with it directly or not. This kind of news only feeds the pseudoskeptics with ammunition to claim fraud and scam, while many of us here know this is only expected in the battle to reach market.

  • Curbina

    This kind of statements is as infortunate as it is expected. I would like to be much more sure of how complex is the relationship between Rossi, Leornardo Corporation, EFA, and IH. I’d like to know what the other Leonardo shareholders have to say about this, just to understand well who is paying back and if really IH has to do with it directly or not. This kind of news only feeds the pseudoskeptics with ammunition to claim fraud and scam, while many of us here know this is only expected in the battle to reach market.

    • mehut

      don’t forget, that the recent 1MW plant was called the first under load. WTH have the secret sales been, they did before, museum objects?

      • Curbina

        The only one was the alleged for a military customer.

  • bkrharold

    I don’t believe Rossi is a crook. When he sold the licences I am sure he honestly believed he was very close to having a working model. Since then we know there have been setbacks at the customer site where the first ecat has been installed. What he is attempting to do is extremely difficult, pioneering a new technology without a clear understanding of the underlying physics and without a patent protection. The original licencees are understandably angry and frustrated at the delays, but they have been made whole. Perhaps they might be offered another opportunity in the future when the problems have been corrected and the e-cat is working reliably, if they are still interested.

  • bkrharold

    I don’t believe Rossi is a crook. When he sold the licences I am sure he honestly believed he was very close to having a working model. Since then we know there have been setbacks at the customer site where the first ecat has been installed. What he is attempting to do is extremely difficult, pioneering a new technology without a clear understanding of the underlying physics and without a patent protection. The original licencees are understandably angry and frustrated at the delays, but they have been made whole. Perhaps they might be offered another opportunity in the future when the problems have been corrected and the e-cat is working reliably, if they are still interested.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Does anyone have stats on how many licenses were sold?

    • Ged

      I remember 1 for each major continental region (minus Antarctica), with 2 in one of them, for 6 total, with Leonardo servicing the US. But that was sooooo long ago. The Australian one was pretty vocal way back when…

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Thanks, I think you are right.

    • hempenearth

      No stats but these are the ones I can remember:
      – E Cat Australia (Roger Green) – Australia, SE Asia, Pacific Islands and more
      – AmpEnergo – America
      – Prometeon (Aldo Proia) – Italy, San Marino
      – New Man Consult (Gerd Neumann) – Germany
      – TransAltec Inc (Adolf Schneider) – Switzerland
      – Hydrofusion (Magnus Holm) – Northern Europe (Sweden based I think)

  • Omega Z

    Have you never worked on a project that Issue’s arose. And were sure the answer would come quickly, only to find the answer at a much, much latter time.

    Rossi merely over promised & wasn’t able to deliver at the time or even now. Having the goods & integrating it into a useable product are 2 totally different Issue’s. The later being developed at this time with the Pilot Plant. 1 year if all goes well?

    Being overly optimistic afflicts everyone. First the Inventor & then all those that follow. Most of those here want their 10Kw E-cat & intend to get 100Kw of energy out of it. Electricity, heat their homes, melt the ice of their sidewalks, Etc. While in reality, 10Kw will only heat about 500 sq.ft. of their homes or 1000 sq. ft. if used only as supplemental heat. 10Kw is a lot until put into perspective.

    Take Note.
    As to the license buy back, we have no financial data to make a judgement on, However, If I new the technology was real & even if you repaid me double what I put in, I would be very discontent.
    Most people I know would be tickled to death to get their money back(without extra) if they thought this a scam. These people seem discontent for being shut out of a great opportunity.

    Some are concerned that the so-called Powers That Be will monopolize this technology. This situation just confirms their fears. For me this was always a forgone conclusion. It will literally take 100’s of Billions to bring this to market. Last I checked, I & everyone here is a little bit short a few dollars.

  • All Prometeon Srl, have to do, is show us the reciept for the License Fee they paid for and a copy of the Cheque from IH/Leonardo Corp that IH/Leonardo Corp paid them to sell back their License.

  • All Prometeon Srl, have to do, is show us the reciept for the License Fee they paid for and a copy of the Cheque from IH/Leonardo Corp that IH/Leonardo Corp paid them to sell back their License.

    • Anon2012_2014

      Why should they {Prometeon] “show us the reciept for the License Fee they paid for and a copy of the Cheque from IH/Leonardo Corp”. I am sure that it is under NDA and would subject Prometeon to damages. If they go to court, there is a chance this will become public.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Rossi, if he is sensible, will seek either market validation or scientific validation for his device. The two “independent” reports are the nearest he has to scientific validation. Neither is conclusive, as of now. The authors of the Lugano report have the data available to clarify the anomaly and make this evidence much stronger. For example, they certainly have data of the heater resistance change during the active phase warm-up. This will either validate the figures, or show that they have made a mistake. Almost certainly – if they have stored all the PCE-830 data – they can determine what mistake it is if there is one.

    All teh previous tests have had question marks which could never be resolved. this test is different. The question mark can be resolved. I can see no reason why the report authors, and Ropssi, should not wish for such resolution, if the device works.

    The fact that they have not for so long is not a good sign.

    Without this the score is:
    industry validation – no
    science validation – no

    • NT

      I wonder if the Lugano testers are still running and testing the reactor Rossi provided to them? I asked Rossi on his blog if it had been returned and my question has not yet been answered. So what is the status with that reactor and the two backups he provided the Lugano testers? Are they possibly still working it to provide answers to some of these pressing questions? There is much more testing they could be still doing as their initial Lugano tests were just a scratch on the surface of this devices LENR potentials…

      • US_Citizen71

        They might still be testing them depends on what the negotiated agreement was. Most seem to be of the opinion that the last test was done for our benefit so that we could view the report. When in truth the testing was done for the benefit of Elforsk. We are lucky to have access to the report, IH/Rossi owes us nothing! They maybe be boiling pot after pot of tea over one of them right now as demos for the elite members of the Elforsk consortium and we will never know.

        • NT

          Yes I understand and your response fits my suspicions they are still testing as Rossi has not responded to my question I put up on his blog last week. We may never know is correct, unfortunately…

          • US_Citizen71

            It is my feeling that ‘IPH International BV’ was created to funnel cash in from Elforsk and its members. The why could be anything from additional testing to commercial licensing of plants for their own up close real world tests. Much is going on behind the curtain.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Please see our latest Facebook post, it may answer your question

            https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

          • NT

            Appears the high temperature camera shortages and unavailability from the testers just enhances the mystery. I do not see where it answers the question as to wether or not the test reactor and two backups have been returned to Rossi and IH. What am I missing here Bob?

          • Bob Greenyer

            We were told that they were not using the camera testing an E-Cat.

      • Omega Z

        No. I believe that reactor was cut open with a diamond saw to extract the ash. Destroyed. I also imagine “everything” has been returned to Industrial Heats Lab for their own analysis.

    • Freethinker

      Thomas Clarke,

      “Neither is conclusive, as of now.”

      That is your opinion. I happen to disagree. They both show clearly, that the Ecat – in two different incarnations – infact does generate energy with a COP of 3.

      The question mark is yours to find if you venture outside your scope, as you always do. You look at data taken out of its context, and conjecture. With this comment you continue to drive this in the direction you have done all along. You want there to be ambiguity so the report will continued to be questioned, when it is all clear to most that there was never a problem with he power measurements, and there is no problem with the thermal measurements either.

      The reports has treated the Ecat as a black box, and there are two observables, both well accounted for, that give at hand that the energy density in the fuel by orders of magnitude outpace any chemical fuel, and that the power out vs power in exceeds a factor 3.

      As the report has been conducted by seasoned scientists and engineers, it can absolutely be said that the Ecat has been scientifically validated. As much as any device can be validated in a black box test like these.

      So your scoreboard is wrong, but that doesn’t come as a big surprise.

      • Mark Szl

        You keep peddling this outside-the-scope garbage like a broken record when Thomas Clarke actually does have issue with important, relevant and within the scope problems with the report. You sound silly.

        • Omega Z

          And many people still seem to think these tests were done for them. It hasn’t yet dawned on them that they are just observers who are just along for the ride. Regardless what anyone has to say on the blogs, This endeavor will carry on.

          As Clarke himself has pointed out, “The authors of the Lugano report have the data available” As does, Elforsk & Industrial Heat.
          Rossi/IH can make this available with those they think are important. In this manor, They are also not sharing this info with competitors & to them, that’s all that maters.

          • Mark Szk

            The question then is whether this data will give away any IP. I have asked this before and the response i got was NO.

            However, giving this data will clear up whether there was a serious measurement error which directly related to the COP reported and could be serious enough to totally disqualify Ecat as a LENR device. Which is what this report was mean to show to investors, people like us or even aliens on a UFO that travelled back in time from the future.

          • Thomas Clarke

            Yes. The data has been published anyway. The extra data to resolve this anomaly does not expose any IP. If IH had any concern about IP then an exact chemical analysis of both the fuel and the ash, in the public domain, is the one thing they would not allow. It makes no sense.

          • Thomas Clarke

            IH have said that the report is independent, and nothing to do with them. So we don’t know whey they would have been given the data. It would seem very unnecessary – after all IH must have much more extensive in-house testing.

          • Omega Z

            IH would require a copy of ALL the data as part of an agreement.
            As to what Data IH/Rossi already have, additional Data is also of great importance. It can show a different perspective from anothers point of view.

            The ash analysis is an example of the unexpected. Considering all Rossi experiments were aimed at on/off SSM mode, It is highly improbable that he ever ran a reactor for an extended period of time full powered as in the test. An easy oversight considering his focus.

        • Freethinker

          You might think me repeating the concept of test scope as “silly”. It’s OK by me. I don’t really expect anything else.

          It does not change the fact that looking at data applied outside that scope, in situations that vastly differs, in an environment where there is no new data forthcoming, and ignoring the two key observables being properly measured that are inside the scope, are conjectures and confabulations by minds that already “know” this cannot work, and is driving an agenda to keep this and similar work in limbo.

    • Obvious

      There is no super resistor.
      It is a special one that doesn’t melt at ~1400°C for 20+ days.
      Maybe not oxidize at that heat also.
      But that is as special as it gets.

    • Omega Z

      “The authors of the Lugano report have the data available”

      As does Industrial Heat & Elforsk considering they were the major sponsor of the test. Considering all the negative attacks after the 1st(Preliminary) test, I can understand the professors not providing much info.

      Besides, It is not us that needs convincing as we are just outside observers. For those with an actual need, the raw data is available. Their the ones the test was done for.

      Rossi said before the report, the E-cat would be proven in the market & even McKubre has said trying to convince the Science community was a waste of time as they will not even look at the data. Therefore, Those in this field would aim for the market.

      • Thomas Clarke

        What the profs said was that they wanted an independent and scientific experiment that would let the rest of the world know what was what. That is also consistent with what they try to do in the report, and the fact it is published.

        The only inconsistency is the lack of reply to the X3.3 criticism which could so quickly be answered by an extra 1% data. If you see the care with which they have tried to dot is and cross ts in the report it is really very difficult to understand the silence now.

        • Omega Z

          The professors have been here before.
          In the 1st (Pre)Test, they were harshly criticized even tho they responded relatively quickly to questions.

          Aside from the fact they are scattered around in different cities & countries & have to make arrangements to connect, They are not likely to be in a hurry to respond. They know that regardless their response, Many will still criticize them. There are those who have their minds made up. No proof will suffice.

  • ecatworld

    From the Industrial Heat press release: “Mr. Vaughn confirmed IH acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to Rossi’s LENR device after an independent committee of European scientists conducted two multi-day tests at Rossi’s facilities in Italy. ”

    So it would seem that Industrial Heat is in charge of licensing decisions now.

  • Frank Acland

    From the Industrial Heat press release: “Mr. Vaughn confirmed IH acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to Rossi’s LENR device after an independent committee of European scientists conducted two multi-day tests at Rossi’s facilities in Italy. ”

    So it would seem that Industrial Heat is in charge of licensing decisions now.

    The licensing setup was made when Leonardo/EFA was in control of the E-Cat, and things are different now.

  • Freethinker

    Thomas Clarke,

    “Neither is conclusive, as of now.”

    That is your opinion. I happen to disagree. They both show clearly, that the Ecat – in two different incarnations – infact does generate energy with a COP of 3.

    The question mark is yours to find if you venture outside your scope, as you always do. You look at data taken out of its context, and conjecture. With this comment you continue to drive this in the direction you have done all along. You want there to be ambiguity so the report will continued to be questioned, when it is all clear to most that there was never a problem with he power measurements, and there is no problem with the thermal measurements either.

    The reports has treated the Ecat as a black box, and there are two observables, both well accounted for, that give at hand that the energy density in the fuel by orders of magnitude outpace any chemical fuel, and that the power out vs power in exceeds a factor 3.

    As the report has been conducted by seasoned scientists and engineers, it can absolutely be said that the Ecat has been scientifically validated. As much as any device can be done in a black box test like these.

    So your scoreboard is wrong, but that doesn’t come as a big surprise.

    • Mark Szl

      You keep peddling this outside-the-scope garbage like a broken record when Thomas Clarke actually does have issue with important, relevant and within the scope problems with the report. You sound silly.

      • Omega Z

        And many people still seem to think these tests were done for them. It hasn’t yet dawned on them that they are just observers who are just along for the ride. Regardless what anyone has to say on the blogs, This endeavor will carry on.

        As Clarke himself has pointed out, “The authors of the Lugano report have the data available” As does, Elforsk & Industrial Heat.
        Rossi/IH can make this available with those they think are important. In this manor, They are also not sharing this info with competitors & to them, that’s all that maters.

      • Freethinker

        You might think me repeating the concept of test scope as “silly”. It’s OK by me. I don’t really expect anything else.

        It does not change the fact that looking at data obtained outside that scope, in situations that vastly differs, in an environment where there is no new data forthcoming, and ignoring the two key observables being properly measured that are inside the scope, are conjectures and confabulations by minds that already “know” this cannot work, and is driving an agenda to keep this and similar work in limbo.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Well, IH need validation of ecats enough to get the investment they want. That, I would guess, was the main reason for the third party reports. Whether they are enough I guess we will not know for some time. If not, there will be another independent test…

    • Mark Szl

      Yes indeed. Either the anomaly is resolved or another better fully independent test has to be done. The upside is that the test are improving in quality as more issues are discovered.

      • Obvious

        You can resolve the anomaly yourself with a pencil, ruler, and some graph paper.
        No math (almost).

        Yes, the tests are improving. Too bad, since I’m not sure we will see another one for quite some time.

        • Mark Szl

          Did you get it finally right this time?

          I do not see to many going with your analysis yet but they have corrected you before.

          Many already did the analysis, ivanc, thomas, mike, etc and they agree with each other but none seem to agree with your analysis … yet. They all have EE experience and you do not have an EE degree.

          Hope you understand but it is hard for me to swollow what you post.

          • Obvious

            Yes. Worked it out. The problem is a GIGO thing.
            My fault for listening to the rest, instead of myself, then mixing myself up with mixed ideas. And a few wrong turns that were all my fault.
            Then I had a smart idea. Start over.
            Stick to the facts. Measured quantities. Doubt all calculated quantities. Especially doubt extrapolated stuff from calculated quantities.
            Once you see what is wrong, the rest falls into place. Then you can actually start to solve for the source of the error. (this is harder)
            Seriously, use a pencil, ruler, and graph paper. Plot points of measured quantities, on an X Y with whatever units, and draw a line through them. If they all line up (more or less), they are probably OK.
            Now try calculated quantities. See if everything will line up.
            I did it first with regression analysis, because I am used to it. I don’t know why I didn’t do that weeks ago….but the line is so simple no special tools are needed anyways.
            Try it, and see if you can work out at least the source and magnitude of the error on your own. (shouldn’t take too long) It will be more special than having the answer handed out on a platter.
            The others may be still trying to get phase voltage to equal line voltage without a fight. (This is another unrelated problem)

            Edit: If everyone reading this page did this, we should have about 20 to 30 close answers by morning for at least the problem point on the line.

          • Mark Szl

            See if those before that posted on your work agree and if so then maybe Frank would consider an article from you about this. I would like first to hear from Mike, Thomas, Ivanc, US Citizen, etc.

            I have not used my EE background for almost 3 decades and i am to lazy to research this myself. But the logic should be enough if the algebra, vector math, geometry and possibly some calculus is correct.

          • Obvious

            Did you find the bad point or points?
            I’m not talking about drawing a vector, or any of that stuff.
            Some fancy math does need to be done to actually solve the problem properly, but start with identifying the problem.
            I’m saying “some of these points are not like the others…”.
            Seriously. I’m not pulling anyone’s leg.

            Put W on the X axis, and Jh on the Y, plot points, draw line through as many points as possible. Extend line towards the origin (zero) corner. (It does not have to go right to zero, it goes where it wants to go in that direction.)

            You can even put the steroid-powered, 3x times size new input Watts that some were suggesting as a fix, if your paper is wide enough or you scale the X axis nicely.

          • Thomas Clarke

            Obvious – perhaps you’d like to clarify what you are saying on the other thread.

            If you plot Ptot vs Pjoule you will find there are two differently sloped lines, from dummy and active tests.

          • Obvious

            I’ll do a long post with calculations, etc. over there on the “clamp upside down denied” thread.
            I was hoping that this would be easier to explain without digging though the whole works, and I could just make a simple point…..best laid plans and all that…

            There is no line for the dummy run. It is just one point. Extend the line from the 16 points towards towards the dummy run. Why anyone would attempt to extend a line from one data point I don’t understand. If my financial advisor did that and said all the numbers up-slope must now become three times larger, and not what they are reported, I would fire her because it would be obvious BS.

            I’m proof-reading my long post now, offline. It is complicated.

      • Omega Z

        Mark
        They don’t need further tests. They merely need to show the raw data to those of concern. Incidentally, that does not include us & having the raw data available is enough for big business to take action and Maybe a private test.

        The only test we may see is information on the Pilot plant in about a year.

  • Put up or shut up.

  • Fact Prometeon Srl were paid enough to sell.

    They Chose the Bird in the hand.

    The Independent Third Party Report came out.

    Now all of a sudden they want the Birds in the bush.

    They might have been able to get in on a later deal but they have commented, probably against their own interests and the NDA, not a sensible thing to do.

    Big companies do come along with bigger pockets and better lawyers, it is high stakes poker and if you cannot cover the bets then you fold.

    I feel Sorry for them but only a bit because IMHO I think they made a small profit, it just was not the big payout they dreamed of, in all honesty, I do not think their pockets were big enough.

    • Anon2012_2014

      The business model may have changed.

      Before, the model was essentially you get the rights to distribute for a profit all ECATs in your territory. The ECATs were suppose to be both home and small industrial units. So if there was to be “an ECAT in every basement”, it looked very profitable.

      Now the new model might be “an ECAT in only a few 100 megawatt scale powerplants” because we don’t know how the COP 3 hot ECAT can extract power. Further, it is taking longer than promised to deliver anything.

      So as a result, it might be rational to take cash up front and let IH sell to the GEs and the Siemens. We don’t know, but that is one reason why a small guy may have sold his rights out.

      • There may no longer be anything physical to sell. IH will be desperate to keep a grip on their IP, even when reactors are in place in various large scale plants, and to begin with, the reactors will require constant monitoring and adjustment (and guarding) by people trained to do this. Also the cost of these devices is likely to be so high that, given that the technology is relatively unproven, there will be great reluctance on the part of potential customers to stump up that kind of loot in one go.

        The only business model that meets all these needs is leasing of reactors complete with trained staff, most likely on the basis of heat produced, charged at some competitive rate. This would allow high initial capital costs to the customer to be avoided, knowledge of operation and maintenance (which might otherwise compromise IP security) to be kept ‘in house’, and would enable IH to retain complete control of each reactor in the field.

        However, as the capital flow from such a model would be relatively unpredictable (replacements and upgrades might eat up most of the income initially) it would be highly undesirable to have to pay contractual amounts to an unnecessary layer of people – the agents – regardless of profitability. In any case, the contracts they will have signed would not be relevant to such a business model, probably don’t cover the developed products that will go onto the market, and were not made with the current owners of the IP, so a clean break (no matter how morally dubious, and also possibly expensive) was therefore inevitable.

      • Hi all

        In reply to Anon2012_2014

        You need to actually read the report (s). COP is 11.+ for the Hot Cat first report and in the patents:
        http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

        http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/14/surprising-ihs-patent-application-shows-a-cop-11-tom-conover/

        As stated in the 2nd of the third party tests it was run at low power for those tests to avoid using the power cycling mode used to run the Hot Cat when in normal use. This being because it complicated verification of positive COP which was all that the second test was about. Essentially the second test is an addendum to the far more important first report above, simply done to answer the false accusation of a wire hidden within a wire.

        http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/1/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

        From Page 7 of the report I quote:
        “Upon completion of the gradual startup process procedure, the thermal camera indicated an average temperature for the body of the reactor of 1260°C, while the PCE recorded an electric power input to the ECat fluctuating at around 810 W. Although we had been informed that the E-Cat was capable of operating at higher power values, we had previously decided to keep to the lower value, and for almost 10 days no adjustments to the apparatus were made.

        After this initial period, we noticed that the feedback system had gradually cut back the input current, which was yielding about 790 W. We therefore decided to increase the power, and set it slightly above 900 W.

        Thereby, we also obtained an important second measurement point. In a few minutes, the reactor body reached a temperature close to 1400°C. Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted. The speed with which the temperature had risen persuaded us to desist from any further attempt to increase the power input to the reactor. As we had no way of substituting the device in case of breakage or melting of internal parts, we decided to exercise caution and continue operating the reactor at ca. 900 W.

        We also chose not to induce the ON/OFF power input mode used in the March 2013 test, despite the fact that we had been informed that the reactor was capable of operating under such conditions for as long a time as necessary. That power input mode, however, would have caused significant temperature increases during the brief intervals of time in which power was fed to the reactor. Moreover, the emissivity of alumina is temperature-dependent: this would have made all calculations troublesome and rendered analysis of the acquired data difficult.”

        It amazes me the amount of people who comment and put their foot in their mouths without actually reading, never mind understanding the reports and their purpose.

        Once again COP of the Hot Cat is 11 + stop say 3 it misinforms people, I recognise you are using an anonymous ID, for whatever reason, but it does not give you a right to fail to check your facts.

        Kind Regards walker

        • Anon2012_2014

          Walker,

          While the ECAT may (or may not) be capable of operating at COP 11 in actual practical economic use, COP>5 is required to self sustain using electricity to run the heater due to losses of about 60% even in the most efficient heat to electricity plants. (I.e. a self-sustaining ECAT would capture a portion of the heat output of the LENR reaction to run the ECAT without any significant power being used from the wall.) My hypothesis (as good as any without further information) is that the lower practical COP is why Rossi is now favoring a natural gas “stimulated” (i.e. the heat added by the resistor) Hot ECAT — natural gas is significantly cheaper than electricity per joule. Thus a COP 3 would be 3X cheaper to run a power plant or a basement furnace on natural gas than whatever it replaces. My point is that would change the business model from a self sustaining unit in every basement (which if COP of 6 was available that model worked) to a unit that is more like “an energy multiplier”. At 3X cheaper assuming the cost of the ECAT and the fuel is negligible, ECAT energy multipliers are not as revolutionary as self sustaining hypothetical ECATs; any more than heat pumps are revolutionary as compared to conventional furnaces. Plenty people still use electric baseboard heating, although both oil and gas are cheaper; and plenty people still use fuel oil heating, although natural gas is cheaper. No doubt the ECAT will have its place, but it will no longer be an ECAT in every basement if the unit is not self sustaining.

          • US_Citizen71

            The reactor used in the 2nd TIP test is not a practical reactor that would be used for power generation or even heat generation for manufacturing processes. It is a one off design made for table top testing of the over unity claim. It’s design seems to be more about protecting IP than performance.

          • Omega Z

            I have similar Thoughts. It is practical for R&D. Not so much as an End Product.

          • Hi all

            Once again there in the reports and patent for the Hot-Ecat:

            Hot-Ecat COP = 11+

            and that is the tested COP of the E-Cat there in black and white in the first report. Any other COP for the E-Cat is down to people not reading the report and going off reports from those who do not understand basic English.

            It was turned down to COP 3 for verify that there were no hidden wires or secret phase DC additions to the current, this was as an addendum to the first report, to answer those rather foolish sceptics, now with egg on their face, saying there were hidden wires inside other wires.

            As I said this was detailed on Page 7 of the Lugano report.

            COP 6 is the Original E-Cat.

            Kind Regards walker

          • Omega Z

            Anon
            I’m confident that the E-cat can produce much higher COP then 3. Using N-Gas at this time is just practical at this time due to certain factors. One is that it is much cheaper then Electricity produced in Fossil plants. Once most Electricity is produced by E-cat technology, things will change.

            Otherwise, for fun, consider this.
            You use 3Kw of N-gas to produce 1Kw Electric in a fossil plant.
            So you can use that 1Kw Electric to produce More heat.
            Even with COP-6,8,12 it does look silly, Especially when you can use 1Kw of N-gas powering an E-cat to obtain a similar heat & COP output.

            Besides that, The Darden Family is heavy into Natural Gas.

    • deleo77

      The licensees, including this one, may have put a lot of sweat equity into finding customers with the belief that if they could, then Rossi would ship a unit over to them to complete the sale. So while I agree that this licensee did not lose money, they might have seen some of their hard work go down the drain, and they worked hard to sell a product that was never going to realistically arrive at their customer’s doorstep. To the extent that Rossi knew this was happening, I think he had a responsibility to be honest with these licensees and keep them from going on a wild goose chase. It just reflects poorly on Rossi, and even IH to a certain degree.

      • ivanc

        He did state he lost money!!!!!!! read carefully

        • Omega Z

          He didn’t say that.
          He questioned the additional compensation. Considering they could make $300K off a single sale for the cost of $100K for the License, Yes, they lost a lot of potential money.
          However, If IH has determined to just license manufacturing rather then produce a product for sale themselves, At least they got their investment+ back.

  • Obvious

    There is no super resistor.
    It is a special one that doesn’t melt at 1400°C for 20+ days.
    Maybe not oxidize at that heat also.
    But that is as special as it gets.

  • jousterusa

    This message is very concerning. I would certainly like to see Rossi’s response, because the actions described are those of a con game in process. What possible reason would Rossi have to turn down a bunch of lucrative orders if not that the device could not deliver on his promises? I hope Frank will ask for an explanation ASAP, because this kind of commentary could sweep the rug from under our feet in a matter of weeks.

    • Bob Greenyer

      When a big investor comes in (and they want a 100X return on their investment) they’ll make it difficult for the people that got an inventors product to the point at which they became interested to continue to claim any rights – they’ll do it as fast as possible, because the previous investors will want more and more as the “big” investor adds value (like patents and better versions of the product).

      This is how it works.

    • Daniel Maris

      It certainly does weigh in on the scam side of things. I’d like to hear Rossi’s response.

      More than that, I’d like some info on the pilot installation.

      • EEStorFanFibb

        It doesn’t weigh in on the scam side of things to me. It weighs in on the side of there being something to fight over. And also points to Rossi being unrealistic on when he’d be done tinkering and ready to go to market – not an uncommon trait for an inventor. I also believe that once Rossi got funding from IH and a team of engineers behind him, further time-consuming improvements were inevitable.

        • Daniel Maris

          Well that would be more convincing if Rossi had ever shown to the licence holders a working plant. He didn’t.

          What conclusion do you draw from that?

          I don’t draw a positive conclusion. I draw a negative – pro-scam – one.

          Of course that conclusion can in turn be cancelled out but we are dealing with what is said here.

          • EEStorFanFibb

            Huh? Rossi semi-publicly demoed a working plant at least a couple of times…

            If Rossi is scamming anyone he’s scamming IH.

            How do you supposed Darden and Vaughn are still fooled after a year and half or more?

            When IH says F it, it’s bullsh!t, then it’s over.

            Proia even praises Rossi at the end of his rant about what he’s done for the LENR industry. Proia never insinuates that Rossi is scamming, why would you?

          • Freethinker

            I agree with EEStorFanFibb, because this is only the natural continuance of the path chosen. And as Fibb, continues below, Proia never says Rossi is a scam. To the contrary. Also, likely this is the doing of IH, not Rossi.

            As far as Proia has not seen a working 1MW plant, well, it depends on he qualify that statement. Would he commit so grandly had he not had some evidence that the ECAT is working? Nobody has seen a fully working, ready to be commissioned, 1MW plant, except possibly for the people at IH and the current customer. Does it make Rossi into a fraud? Only you can answer that, as to what you think. In my eyes, it does not make the ECAT work less, because he has been overly optimistic in his projections.

            Otherwise, I agree with you, that it would be good to have some information on the pilot installation, if for no other reason that it would be interesting.

    • Buck

      It reminds me of the darker, controversial side of Thomas Edison’s relationship with and treatment of Nikola Tesla.

    • Omega Z

      Rossi/IH have a Pilot Plant that they are struggling to work out operational control issues so obviously, It is not ready for market in a useful manor at this time. Likely as not, there is some Big Money in the background. Rossi having sold all rights to the IP, Maybe a hostile takeover of sorts is at play.

    • ecatworld

      Joe, I did send a copy of this statement to Andrea Rossi, and the response I received was ‘no comment’

      • Daniel Maris

        Frank

        Well Rossi may regret that “no comment”.

        Subject of course to whether he can show a convincing pilot scheme in operation – which would make all this supremely irrelevant.

    • Well said. This is, indeed, a very serious matter and from a number of standpoints. Adopting a purely legal (versus ethical) viewpoint, it surely depends totally on the exact wording of the contracts the original license holders signed. It would not surprise me if lawyers specializing in class-action suits were not already in contact with remaining original license holders. Such a development could, in itself, put the LENR cause back at least a decade and give the skeptics of both the E-Cat and Rossi an ongoing field day.

      If, somehow, legal action is averted (or, more likely, settled out of court) there remains the very dubious issue of ethics: It just “ain’t right” to treat your original backers like Prometeon that way. And, if you really can’t see that, I won’t bother to convince you.

      The point is that Rossi wants it both ways and in every possible way. Patent protection without specifying the catalyzer details, money from license holders before any products are available, a secure income from IH while he develops the prototype, glib commentary, only loosely moderated by IH, and both the accolades and the riches for the E-Cat despite the many other LENR workers who have so far not only contributed their hard work over decades but – crucial difference- openly published all their findings.

      To conclude, I’m going to repeat what I’ve just said in my own blog (www.thinktankreport.com): “If only by the “shotgun” approach of exhaustively testing every remotely likely cocktail of chemicals that have been mentioned (H, Ni, Li, Al, Fe, etc), rival parties will inevitably discover the exact set of chemicals, percentages, preparations and procedures to match or even exceed the E-Cat’s performance.”

      Said “rivals” might include the entire nation of China – the largest command economy in the world, after all. If any of their key people, like President Xi Jinping, decides that LENR is “serious”, it would require little more than a snap of the fingers to mobilize China’s huge R&D resources in a “Manhattan Project” – like approach – and don’t try to tell me that Rossi’s “ghost patent” would stop them.

      • Fortyniner

        Replication is, as you say, inevitable, and the ‘window’ in which IH can produce massive profits for investors is necessarily limited. However I don’t think any of this is likely to set back the cold fusion ’cause’ at all – in fact it is more likely to spur on efforts to reach the market ASAP, both on the part of IH, and on the part of the various ‘dark horses’ that we haven’t heard much from yet.

        However, what might become a cause of problems is excessive litigation when there are a number of competing manufacturers of different CF reactor designs, as claim and counter claim are made in an effort to damage rivals and grab some small advantage – at least for a while. Lawyers will probably be among the big time winners, as consortia of deep-pocketed backers fight for control of some design detail or principle of operation that will allow them to exploit the truly astronomical profit potential of this technology in their chosen niches. Any patents that are granted will simply be fodder for these battles, and will be subject to technical ‘workarounds’ that may or may not be challenged – as always..

        The current whining of the trolls and shills is probably intended to delay the commercial introduction of CF reactors for as long as possible, while the scenery is shifted, and is likely to morph into fake cries of ‘danger’ as soon as the first commercial e-cat reactor is installed by a customer.

        • Obvious

          Did you find the bad point?
          I’m not talking about drawing a vector, or any of that stuff.
          That needs to be done to actually solve the problem properly, but start with identifying the problem.
          I’m saying “some of these points are not like the others…”.
          Seriously. I’m not pulling anyone’s leg.
          Put W on the X axis, and Jh on the Y, plot points, draw line through as many points as possible. Extend line towards the origin (zero) corner.

          • Thomas Clarke

            Obvious – perhaps you’d like to clarify what you are saying on the other thread.

            If you plot Ptot vs Pjoule you will find there are two differently sloped lines, from dummy and active tests.

          • Obvious

            I’ll do a long post with calculations, etc. over there on the “clamp upside down denied” thread.
            I was hoping that this would be easier to explain without digging though the whole works, and I could just make a simple point…..best laid plans and all that…

            There is no line for the dummy run. It is just one point. Extend the line from the 16 points towards towards the dummy run. Why anyone would attempt to extend a line from one data point I don’t understand. If my financial advisor did that and said all the numbers up-slope must now become three times larger, and not what they are reported, I would fire her because it would be obvious BS.

            I’m proof-reading my long post now, offline. It is complicated.

      • Freethinker

        And on you go, droning.

        Wow, all people EE unite all over the world. Exactly what in the education of an electrical engineer is it that qualify such an individual to draw the conclusions you and your illustrious fiends draw? How long must one have studied electrical engineering and at what eminent schools should one have a degree to be counted?

        Nobody can deny your arithmetic eminence when it comes to compute the non dimensional quantity (Pin/Pjh)a/(Pin/Pjh)d for which you use data from two very diverse situations generally and in power/temperature especially.

        I am sorry if I am not blinded by the excellence in this expertise.

        Your problem, I have stated this quite many times now, is that you fail to realize a number of things critical for the worth of your find.

        This is what you have:

        * Measurement of the input power, that has been confirmed being done correctly.

        * Thermal camera measurements and computation of the output temperature, having a high likelihood of being correct, regardless of your attempt to discredit it based on your emissivity reasoning.

        * An unknown voltage/current/timing situation from the control box. There are some current values given for the dummy, but only hand waving for the active reactor.

        * You have the computed joule heat values, that likely is wrong, no doubt these has proven most important to you and your friends, as you have computed currents from those in your numerical games. The joule heat powers has not really mattered much to the team, as they were used to show that joule heating in the copper cables could be basically ignored in the overall output computation. Rather, by assuming it to be zero would make their end power out be more conservative, so it is a wonder they did it anyway, but they did it in an effort to be thorough, I am sure.

        * Your expression is using data from two different input power ranges, one lower for the dummy, one higher for the active reactor, and the temperature and the environment, in so many more ways than we understand, is different in these two situations.

        * You have no clue as to what is inside the reactor in terms of material, generated em fields inside the generator, how that would affect the material in the inside of the reactor, conducting the current, possibly inducing also electric power, or if it would manifest itself in a lowered resistance in the coils, whether made of inconel, doped or otherwise, or some magic pixie alloy or SiC.

        * And of course your never dying conviction that LENR is fake, the ECAT does not work, and likely Rossi is a scam, and the testers are gullible and incompetent. And then some, because it has to include the entire field of LENR research and the people there in over the last 25 years that are not only gullible, corrupt but also flat out incompetent. The whole lot of them.

        Hence you have a large number of unknowns, beginning at the control box, and ending the very core of the reactor, and preconceived notions on what is possible in terms of the fundamental principles at hand.

        So instead of looking at the black box concept, the scope of the test, and get confident in that they have indeed manage to measure the input power correctly, which they of course have, and in using the thermal camera, they have managed to get a decent grip on the output power, and realize that they in fact can support their claim from the black box perspective, you, Thomas Clarke, has to to god objective go the other way.

        The way that contains some lacking information, on which you form your eminent expression (Pin/Pjh)a/(Pin/Pjh)d=3.3, claiming that you have irrefutable evidence of wrong doing.

        Of course you are wrong. It is my opinion, naturally, but nevertheless, you are wrong. I infer, probably to your great amusement, that what you have there is likely a proxy for the COP rather than any evidence that something been done wrong.

        No, Thomas Clarke, you have already shown your face, and you continue to do so in other fora, among others Mats Lewan’s blog, where you relentlessly drone on about your misconceptions – like you do here – and spread lies together with some like minded shills.

        It doesn’t matter that you keep a level face and language, you are still wrong, and you are still trolling, pushing for that agenda to incapacitate the work of the test team. Ohh, and this is not ad-hominems, this is just my very honest opinion.

        • Thomas Clarke

          Your saying I’m wrong is your opinion. And honest. But wrong.

          How do I know what I (and other EEs) say is true:
          (1) Ohms Law
          (2) KVL
          (3) KCL

          It don’t need more than that!

          • Freethinker

            Ohm and Kirchov are great, but won’t suffice here. It is not their laws that are wrong, it is your application of them without questioning the data you plug in, while ignoring the clear cut measurables showing you it is so. Again, knowing it cannot work is taking presidence. But Ivan is agreeing with you. Surprise.

        • Omega Z

          IH would require a copy of ALL the data as part of an agreement.
          As to what Data IH/Rossi already have, additional Data is also of great importance. It can show a different perspective from anothers point of view.

          The ash analysis is an example of the unexpected. Considering all Rossi experiments were aimed at on/off SSM mode, It is highly improbable that he ever ran a reactor for an extended period of time full powered as in the test. An easy oversight considering his focus.

      • Omega Z

        “crucial difference- openly published all their findings.”
        NOT. They have “ALL” held back certain details.

        Likely circumstances on the License buy back is that the new owner, Industrial Heat does not intend to manufacture, but license to manufacture. Thus no product forth coming for licensees to sell.

        Obviously, this requires a buy back with “Legally” justifiable compensation. Tho Prometeon may not be satisfied by this compensation due to possible income of the product sales, They have apparently been compensated enough that they’ve determined that they have received “Legally” justified compensation. No lawsuit to follow.

        There is Legal Precedent for this. The most recent was the Car companies, GM, Ford Etc, Forced Car Dealer’s to Forfeit their License. Obviously, there were some unhappy people.

        As to China, It’s not the bogey man everyone is lead to believe.
        This Technology is bigger then anyone Company or Nation. Industrial Heat is aware of this. That’s why the will license to manufacture instead of manufacture.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I don’t read it like that, but that is because I have seen the exact same process before when a later stage and bigger investor sees the huge value in IP that was sold to starry eyed initial investors for a song and works to reign in those necessary but inconvenient first divisions of potential profitability.

      I have seen initial investors seek 100X their first input and the new investor fight tooth and nail to avoid that – deliberately testing the resolve and legal where withal to fight… once they have sized them up, they’ll calculate what they know the small guy will sell out for and offer. The irony is the big investor is seeking a 100X return too!

      This is just standard practice

      This is capitalism.

  • jousterusa

    This message is very concerning. I would certainly like to see Rossi’s response, because the actions described are those of a con game in process. What possible reason would Rossi have to turn down a bunch of lucrative orders if not that the device could not deliver on his promises? I hope Frank will ask for an explanation ASAP, because this kind of commentary could sweep the rug from under our feet in a matter of weeks.

    • Buck

      It reminds me of the darker, controversial side of Thomas Edison’s relationship with and treatment of Nikola Tesla.

    • Omega Z

      Rossi/IH have a Pilot Plant that they are struggling to work out operational control issues so obviously, It is not ready for market in a useful manor at this time. Likely as not, there is some Big Money in the background. Rossi having sold all rights to the IP, Maybe a hostile takeover of sorts is at play.

    • Frank Acland

      Joe, I did send a copy of this statement to Andrea Rossi, and the response I received was ‘no comment’

    • Well said. This is, indeed, a very serious matter and from a number of standpoints. Adopting a purely legal (versus ethical) viewpoint, it surely depends totally on the exact wording of the contracts the original license holders signed. It would not surprise me if lawyers specializing in class-action suits were not already in contact with remaining original license holders. Such a development could, in itself, put the LENR cause back at least a decade and give the skeptics of both the E-Cat and Rossi an ongoing field day.

      If, somehow, legal action is averted (or, more likely, settled out of court) there remains the very dubious issue of ethics: It just “ain’t right” to treat your original backers like Prometeon that way. And, if you really can’t see that, I won’t bother to convince you.

      The point is that Rossi wants it both ways and in every possible way. Patent protection without specifying the catalyzer details, money from license holders before any products are available, a secure income from IH while he develops the prototype, glib commentary, only loosely moderated by IH, and both the accolades and the riches for the E-Cat despite the many other LENR workers who have so far not only contributed their hard work over decades but – crucial difference- openly published all their findings.

      To conclude, I’m going to repeat what I’ve just said in my own blog (www.thinktankreport.com): “If only by the “shotgun” approach of exhaustively testing every remotely likely cocktail of chemicals that have been mentioned (H, Ni, Li, Al, Fe, etc), rival parties will inevitably discover the exact set of chemicals, percentages, preparations and procedures to match or even exceed the E-Cat’s performance.”

      Said “rivals” might include the entire nation of China – the largest command economy in the world, after all. If any of their key people, like President Xi Jinping, decides that LENR is “serious”, it would require little more than a snap of the fingers to mobilize China’s huge R&D resources in a “Manhattan Project” – like approach – and don’t try to tell me that Rossi’s “ghost patent” would stop them.

      • wonderboy

        I never thought of it that way, but Rossi does want it both ways. In all honesty, he wants it completely his way, even if he has to “screw” over his former partners. Comes across very underhanded.

        I don’t think he shows a con though, it shows a calculated, cold methodical man who is looking to cash in big.

        • We should try to remember that it is IH that is calling the shots at the moment, not Rossi. Either they or their backers wanted to be rid of this potential encumbrance left over from pre-IH days, and I doubt that Rossi’s opinions either way would have influenced the decision.

          • psi2u2

            Well said.

          • towerofbabel

            Precisely.

          • Omega Z

            49’er
            Having had time to soak in, I’ve determined that Industrial Heat other then Pilot plants for R&D purposes are not going to manufacture product, but License it for manufacture. With no product forth coming, Logically, they have to buy back the license to sell with compensation. Obviously, the licensees are not in a financial position to manufacture in mass.

      • Replication is, as you say, inevitable, and the ‘window’ in which IH can produce massive profits for investors is necessarily limited. However I don’t think any of this is likely to set back the cold fusion ’cause’ at all – in fact it is more likely to spur on efforts to reach the market ASAP, both on the part of IH, and on the part of the various ‘dark horses’ that we haven’t heard much from yet.

        However, what might become a cause of problems is excessive litigation when there are a number of competing manufacturers of different CF reactor designs, as claim and counter claim are made in an effort to damage rivals and grab some small advantage – at least for a while. Lawyers will probably be among the big time winners, as consortia of deep-pocketed backers fight for control of some design detail or principle of operation that will allow them to exploit the truly astronomical profit potential of this technology in their chosen niches. Any patents that are granted will simply be fodder for these battles, and will be subject to technical ‘workarounds’ that may or may not be challenged – as always..

        The current whining of the trolls and shills is probably intended to delay the commercial introduction of CF reactors for as long as possible, while the scenery is shifted, and is likely to morph into fake cries of ‘danger’ as soon as the first commercial e-cat reactor is installed by a customer.

      • Omega Z

        “crucial difference- openly published all their findings.”
        NOT. They have “ALL” held back certain details.

        Likely circumstances on the License buy back is that the new owner, Industrial Heat does not intend to manufacture, but license to manufacture. Thus no product forth coming for licensees to sell.

        Obviously, this requires a buy back with “Legally” justifiable compensation. Tho Prometeon may not be satisfied by this compensation due to possible income of the product sales, They have apparently been compensated enough that they’ve determined that they have received “Legally” justified compensation. No lawsuit to follow.

        There is Legal Precedent for this. The most recent was the Car companies, GM, Ford Etc, Forced Car Dealer’s to Forfeit their License. Obviously, there were some unhappy people.

        As to China, It’s not the bogey man everyone is lead to believe.
        This Technology is bigger then anyone Company or Nation. Industrial Heat is aware of this. That’s why the will license to manufacture instead of manufacture.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I don’t read it like that, but that is because I have seen the exact same process before when a later stage and bigger investor sees the huge value in IP that was sold to starry eyed initial investors for a song and works to reign in those necessary but inconvenient first divisions of potential profitability.

      I have seen initial investors seek 100X their first input and the new investor fight tooth and nail to avoid that – deliberately testing the resolve and legal where withal to fight… once they have sized them up, they’ll calculate what they know the small guy will sell out for and offer. The irony is the big investor is seeking a 100X return too!

      This is just standard practice

      This is capitalism.

  • Curbina

    The only one was the alleged for a military customer.

  • William D. Fleming

    It doesn’t seem prudent to sell licenses for a product before that product is proven to work and you have the means of manufacture. Great leaps forward are often made by imprudent people.

    • Publius

      I would say most of us have wanted to believe a commercially useful LENR device was coming a lot sooner than reality has shown us.

      • Omega Z

        “I would say most of us have wanted to believe a commercially useful LENR device was coming a lot sooner than reality has shown us.”

        Precisely. Everyone is prone to being overly optimistic. Not just Rossi. I’m sure that controlling 100 reactors simultaneously under load has proven to be harder then Rossi imagined.

        I learned a long time ago that, If I were working on a job that I was confident would be done Tuesday, I always told the client Wednesday. If it were done Wednesday, The Client was happy. If ready on Tuesday, he was ecstatic.

  • Fibber McGourlick

    Is it possible that the project had difficulties at the time the original licensees bought into it, but now that things have advanced and the technology is proving even better than originally thought and immense profits are in the air, it was time to squeeze out the (relatively) little guys that were there at the start? If so it’s good business but poor ethics, and it will be remembered sometime in the next few years when the accolades and riches are being handed out to the Johnny-Come-Lately generation of controlling investors.

    • towerofbabel

      That sounds right.

  • Pweet

    It’s hard to imagine what more proof people would need
    before they accept the original e-cat simply did not work. It produced either
    little excess energy or none at all. This fact is made obvious in all the
    original tests for which reports and videos have been available for years, and
    the 1mw unit is simply a grouping of the same devices.

    Had the 1mw e-cat worked as claimed, then Rossi would
    have been keen to get one into the market place and used as proof that the
    technology worked. From the above article, it appears there were numerous
    genuine offers.

    At the time the orders were coming in as detailed above,
    there was no cashed up partner with deep pockets offering to finance the
    operation.
    It was to be financed by the sale of the 1mw
    plants.
    So why weren’t these plants supplied to fill the orders
    from a licensee who clearly had put in the hard work to
    get the orders?
    Simply because it was essential the device did NOT get
    released to the market where it would soon be proven not to work.

    The current situation of buying back the licenses removes
    the high probability that Rossi would eventually be sued by one or all of them
    for non delivery on a promise and taking money under false
    pretences.

    My guess is that the current arrangement with IH does not
    carry the same liability because the agreement is based more on what the so
    called ‘third party independent report’ has arrived at, rather than what Rossi
    claims.
    Recently, Rossi has been very careful to always claim that
    the results could be positive or negative.
    The inclusion of a negative possibility will relieve him
    of liability when the penny finally drops and it is determined that the device
    doesn’t actually do what is claimed.
    The plan is by then, the previous licensees will have all
    been either been bought back, or at least offered to have been bought back so
    will have little claim for compensation.
    The only holder of risk will be IH, who bought into it
    with the clear proviso that the results could be either positive or
    negative.

    I think the licensees can count themselves lucky that they
    at least got their money back.
    There was a very good chance they would never have got
    back anything, because in my long held opinion, the 1mw e-cat was never going to
    be delivered to anyone,. including a secret military customer.

    Yes,.. I agree,.. Rossi is a genius, but not for the
    reasons that some people claim.

    I do however agree with the summation of Aldo Proia in the
    above text, where he says;
    “The only good thing we can say about Rossi is that he has
    the merit of having broken the wall around LENR.”

    • Its a strange world you picture, in which an inventor sinks years of his life and his entire savings into developing devices that don’t work, then a venture capitalist fools himself into thinking that his replica of the device actually works, and persuades his associates to spend a great deal of money to buy the inventor’s non-working IP, then a large European R&D concern also involves itself by committing research funds and engaging a group of scientists to test the device, who in turn also somehow fool themselves into producing a positive report.

      All those foolish people, totally bamboozled by a simple electric heater element – absolutely remarkable to say the least.

      I am continually astonished by the distorted logic and partial truth that some shills resort to in an attempt to introduce doubt and uncertainty, presumably for those who are new to this story and may not have enough knowledge to dismiss this kind of garbage for what it is. However I have to take my hat off to you for writing what is probably the most outrageous and selective piece of disingenuous word salad that I’ve seen for quite some time. Truly a masterpiece of the troll’s art.

      • “Never underestimate the power of denial” — Ricky Fitts (American Beauty)

        “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don’t rule out malice.” — Einstein

      • Publius

        There is a huge difference between replicating the Fleischman Pons Anamolous Heat Effect and having a commercially useful LENR device. What everyone needs to remember is that no one has a commercially useful device yet and if you believe otherwise, you are just speculating with your words and money.

      • Kevin O

        Well said, 49er.
        Here’s an excerpt of where I listed the probabilities that so many researchers had been in error over all those thousands of replications.
        http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg79674.html

        Joshua, …You argue that it is not real, but simply the result of many
        mistakes made repeatedly by many well trained scientists.

        ***In order to avoid a straw argument, I ask Joshua if you do argue this?
        If so, let’s examine the mathematical possibility of so many positive
        results arriving by virtue of mistakes.

        I would estimate the chance of making a mistake that leads to positive
        result to be 1 in 4. You can use whatever estimate suits your fancy
        afterwards. That means 3 in 4 are genuine, mistake-free positive results,
        right? So let’s be even more generous to the argument and make it 1 in 3.
        So if 3 independent labs generate positive results due to mistakes, it’s 1
        in 3^3 or 1 in 27 chance of happening. In my book, if there was a 1 in 10
        chance of a professional scientist generating such errors, he should be
        fired; but that’s just me.

        Since there have been more than 14,700 replications (see below), the chance
        of measuring errors or noise causing false positives in replication would
        be 1/3 ^ 14700, which is ~10^-5000

        Perhaps you do not realize just how ignorant this statement is. The
        mathematical definition of Impossible is if something has a chance of
        10^-50. Such a position is a whopping, gigantic, humungous four thousand
        Five Hundred and fifty ORDERS OF MAGnitude less than impossible. I tell
        you what, I’ll grant you 3 levels of impossible to be “conservative” with
        the numbers (which is about on the order of the number of molecules in the
        universe), that is 4400 orders of magnitude less than impossible.

        *
        https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com
        *

        Jing-tang He
        • Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
        • Frontiers of Physics in China
        Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8
        This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense
        matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions,
        self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications.

        Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of the Pons
        Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect.
        *
        http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)
        *

        • Thomas Clarke

          Detail matters.

          If there are unquantified errors in an experiment you’d expect positive results (higher than COP=1 heat out) half of the time.

          If these unquantified errors are related to the type of experiment, conditions, etc, you’d expect “successful” experiments to propagate – a type of natural selection for good errors. And not easily distinguishable from natural selection for a real but elusive effect.

          So the statistics above are wrong because they don’t consider this effect, nor do they consider the fact that a negative result will be regarded as having got something wrong, conditions varied, things tried again, till the result is positive.

          Now a collection of excess heat results could indicate a genuine effect. in that case you’d expect that as more care and attention was given to eliminating errors a definite replicable effect would emerge.

          MFMP are seeking such, but have not found it. If you think there is any replicable effect that is convincing I’d like to hear it – and I bet MFMP would like to hear it too!

      • Arc

        It may be a strange world but it’s happened before. Look at Pixelon or EESTOR!

    • C. Kirk

      ” It produced either little excess energy or none at all” Only in your opinion, which IMO couldn’t be more wrong…… Of course there was lots of excess energy as measured in independent tests… The only matter delaying mass production has been instability of the reactor

      • Pweet

        Only in my opinion? you say,..
        Captain Kirk,.. open your eyes and see what the general opinion is of the majority of the world.
        If it was just my opinion, then all the websites would be singing the praises of A.R. and beating a path to his door.
        I am pointing out the obvious when I say, my opinion is consistent with the vast majority. If not, the so called last ‘independent third party report’ results would be reported in detail on almost every scientific journal on the planet.
        And it’s nothing to do with any conspiracy to sink the technology.
        If it actually works, it will happen, no matter what big oil, big government, big anything says.

        Since A.R. was personally involved in the critical parts of the test, it was neither independent nor third party. Had it been genuinely independent AND third party, my opinion would have been softened somewhat.
        The agreements with the licensees has now gone the same way as the agreement with previous partners and investors, e’g DGT, much to their annoyance in similar manner as Prometeon now has. And this is not from a company which had previously been antagonistic towards A.R. Read their previous communications and see how they fiercely defended both Rossi and the technology.
        I confidently predict the IH agreement will go the same way within a few years. On all evidence so far, it simply has to. They are now left sitting ,.. waiting,. while A.R. supposedly works on his 1MW unit, making it ready for ‘mass production’ and ‘ready to market’. This is exactly where we were two or three years ago when Prometeon bought into the circus. Nothing has changed except the identity of the new cashed up partner. And what for? A new reactor with a lower COP which works at a temperature totally unsuitable for home and commercial heating, and the COP is so low that it is not suitable for electric power generation, which is the supposed reason for the change.

        IH will be even more peeved when they realise they have enabled the continuation of the circus by paying out the previous array of victims to circumvent legal action, and taken on the liability themselves.
        And for those who don’t think the previous partners and licenses were victims, read Aldo Proia’s response again.
        You can mark this page and refer back to it when the circus wraps up and leaves town. This will certainly happen when no more partners can be found to carry on the charade. For any who want previous examples, Inteligentry is a good example.

  • Omega Z

    “The authors of the Lugano report have the data available”

    As does Industrial Heat & Elforsk considering they were the major sponsor of the test. Considering all the negative attacks after the 1st(Preliminary) test, I can understand the professors not providing much info.

    Besides, It is not us that needs convincing as we are just outside observers. For those with an actual need, the raw data is available. Their the ones the test was done for.

    Rossi said before the report, the E-cat would be proven in the market & even McKubre has said trying to convince the Science community was a waste of time as they will not even look at the data. Therefore, Those in this field would aim for the market.

  • Obvious

    Yes. Worked it out. The problem is a GIGO thing. My fault for listening to the rest, instead of myself, then mixing myself up with mixed ideas. And a few wrong turns that were all my fault.
    Then I had a smart idea. Start over.
    Stick to the facts. Measured quantities. Doubt all calculated quantities. Especially doubt extrapolated stuff from calculated quantities.
    Once you see what is wrong, the rest falls into place. Then you can actually start to solve for the source of the error.
    Seriously, use a pencil, ruler, and graph paper. Plots points of measured quantities, on an X Y with whatever units, and draw a line through them. If they all line up, they are probably OK.
    Now try calculated quantities. See if everything will line up.
    I did it first with regression analysis, because I am used to it. I don’t know why I didn’t do that weeks ago….but the line is so simple no special tools are needed anyways.
    Try it, and see if you work it out on your own. It will be more special then having the answer handed out on a platter.

  • US_Citizen71
  • Fortyniner

    Its a strange world you picture, in which an inventor sinks years of his life and his entire savings into developing devices that don’t work, then a venture capitalist fools himself into thinking he can replicate this device, and drags his associates into the scam, then a group of scientists given a free hand to test the device also fool themselves into producing a positive report. All those foolish people, totally bamboozled by an electric heater element – absolutely remarkable to say the least.

    I am continually astonished by the distorted logic and half truth that some trolls resort to in an attempt to introduce doubt and uncertainty, presumably for those who are new to this story and may not have enough knowledge to dismiss this kind of garbage for what it is. However I have to take my hat off to you for writing what is probably the most outrageous piece of disingenuous word salad that I’ve seen for quite some time.

    • “Never underestimate the power of denial” — Ricky Fitts (American Beauty)

      “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don’t rule out malice.” — Einstein

    • Kevin O

      Well said, 49er.
      Here’s an excerpt of where I listed the probabilities that so many researchers had been in error over all those thousands of replications.
      http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg79674.html

      Joshua, …You argue that it is not real, but simply the result of many
      mistakes made repeatedly by many well trained scientists.

      ***In order to avoid a straw argument, I ask Joshua if you do argue this?
      If so, let’s examine the mathematical possibility of so many positive
      results arriving by virtue of mistakes.

      I would estimate the chance of making a mistake that leads to positive
      result to be 1 in 4. You can use whatever estimate suits your fancy
      afterwards. That means 3 in 4 are genuine, mistake-free positive results,
      right? So let’s be even more generous to the argument and make it 1 in 3.
      So if 3 independent labs generate positive results due to mistakes, it’s 1
      in 3^3 or 1 in 27 chance of happening. In my book, if there was a 1 in 10
      chance of a professional scientist generating such errors, he should be
      fired; but that’s just me.

      Since there have been more than 14,700 replications (see below), the chance
      of measuring errors or noise causing false positives in replication would
      be 1/3 ^ 14700, which is ~10^-5000

      Perhaps you do not realize just how ignorant this statement is. The
      mathematical definition of Impossible is if something has a chance of
      10^-50. Such a position is a whopping, gigantic, humungous four thousand
      Five Hundred and fifty ORDERS OF MAGnitude less than impossible. I tell
      you what, I’ll grant you 3 levels of impossible to be “conservative” with
      the numbers (which is about on the order of the number of molecules in the
      universe), that is 4400 orders of magnitude less than impossible.

      *
      https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com
      *

      Jing-tang He
      • Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
      • Frontiers of Physics in China
      Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8
      This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense
      matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions,
      self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications.

      Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of the Pons
      Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect.
      *
      http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)
      *

      • Thomas Clarke

        Detail matters.

        If there are unquantified errors in an experiment you’d expect positive results (higher than COP=1 heat out) half of the time.

        If these unquantified errors are related to the type of experiment, conditions, etc, you’d expect “successful” experiments to propagate – a type of natural selection for good errors. And not easily distinguishable from natural selection for a real but elusive effect.

        So the statistics above are wrong because they don’t consider this effect, nor do they consider the fact that a negative result will be regarded as having got something wrong, conditions varied, things tried again, till the result is positive.

        Now a collection of excess heat results could indicate a genuine effect. in that case you’d expect that as more care and attention was given to eliminating errors a definite replicable effect would emerge.

        MFMP are seeking such, but have not found it. If you think there is any replicable effect that is convincing I’d like to hear it – and I bet MFMP would like to hear it too!

  • Fortyniner

    We should try to remember that it is IH that is calling the shots at the moment, not Rossi. Either they or their backers wanted to be rid of this potential encumbrance left over from pre-IH days, and I doubt that Rossi’s opinions either way would have altered the decision.

    • psi2u2

      Well said.

    • Omega Z

      49’er
      Having had time to soak in, I’ve determined that Industrial Heat other then Pilot plants for R&D purposes are not going to manufacture product, but License it for manufacture. With no product forth coming, Logically, they have to buy back the license to sell with compensation. Obviously, the licensees are not in a financial position to manufacture in mass.

  • Hi all

    In reply to Anon2012_2014

    You need to actually reed the report (s). COP is 11.3 for the Hot Cat first report and in the patents:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/14/surprising-ihs-patent-application-shows-a-cop-11-tom-conover/

    As stated in the 2nd of the third party tests it was run at low power for those tests to avoid using the power cycling mode used to run the Hot Cat when used in normal use. This being because it complicated verification of positive COP which was all that the second test was about. Essentially the second test is an addendum to the far more important first report above, simply done to answer the false accusation of a wire hidden within a wire.

    http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/1/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

    From Page 7 of the report I quote:
    “Upon completion of the gradual startup process procedure, the thermal camera indicated an average temperature for the body of the reactor of 1260°C, while the PCE recorded an electric power input to the ECat fluctuating at around 810 W. Although we had been informed that the E-Cat was capable of operating at higher power values, we had previously decided to keep to the lower value, and for almost 10 days no adjustments to the apparatus were made.

    After this initial period, we noticed that the feedback system had gradually cut back the input current, which was yielding about 790 W. We therefore decided to increase the power, and set it slightly above 900 W.

    Thereby, we also obtained an important second measurement point. In a few minutes, the reactor body reached a temperature close to 1400°C. Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted. The speed with which the temperature had risen persuaded us to desist from any further attempt to increase the power input to the reactor. As we had no way of substituting the device in case of breakage or melting of internal parts, we decided to exercise caution and continue operating the reactor at ca. 900 W.

    We also chose not to induce the ON/OFF power input mode used in the March 2013 test, despite the fact that we had been informed that the reactor was capable of operating under such conditions for as long a time as necessary. That power input mode, however, would have caused significant temperature increases during the brief intervals of time in which power was fed to the reactor. Moreover, the emissivity of alumina is temperature-dependent: this would have made all calculations troublesome and rendered analysis of the acquired data difficult.”

    It amazes me the amount of people who comment and put their foot in their mouths without actually reading, never mind understanding the report.

    Once again COP of the Hot Cat is 11 + stop say 3 it misinforms people, I recognise you are using an anonymous ID, for whatever reason, but it does not give you a right to fail to check your facts.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Bob

    This is the most disappointing news I have had with the whole Ecat saga. Prometeon seemed like a professional group and they stood behind Rossi. While I am fairly sure Rossi has something now, it is clear he did not have what he was saying 2 years ago, at least to the level of advancement he stated.

    He has continuously made the remarks “it is a magnificense” etc. Yet is is undeniable that he had no commercially viable product in the the past couple of years. I always thought that if is was as he stated, there would be many companies knocking on the door to get a Ecat. If not just to tout how “Green” they were. It is now very apparent that there were companies ready to buy. There was just no product available.

    Now I hear Rossi using the same language about the size, etc. of his 1 MW plant. I have been a firm supporter, but now I must take the “Rossi says” with a very large grain of salt. (I wonder where that expression came from?) I still think he has something or the likes of Prometeon, Industrial Heat and the test team would not all be fooled. However how advanced the system is, i now in great question to me. I hope it is as Rossi says, but his past statements seemingly have been put in severe doubt. Along with his current statement that the licensees are “all happy”, when perhaps his biggest and most professional licensee/supporter has now publicly said otherwise.

    Andrea, get your statements in control….. it is not the skeptics that is damaging your reputation….. here it is your own words! 🙁

  • Bob

    This is the most disappointing news I have had with the whole Ecat saga. Prometeon seemed like a professional group and they stood behind Rossi. While I am fairly sure Rossi has something now, it is clear he did not have what he was saying 2 years ago, at least to the level of advancement he stated.

    He has continuously made the remarks “it is a magnificense” etc. Yet is is undeniable that he had no commercially viable product in the the past couple of years. I always thought that if is was as he stated, there would be many companies knocking on the door to get a Ecat. If not just to tout how “Green” they were. It is now very apparent that there were companies ready to buy. There was just no product available.

    Now I hear Rossi using the same language about the size, etc. of his 1 MW plant. I have been a firm supporter, but now I must take the “Rossi says” with a very large grain of salt. (I wonder where that expression came from?) I still think he has something or the likes of Prometeon, Industrial Heat and the test team would not all be fooled. However how advanced the system is, i now in great question to me. I hope it is as Rossi says, but his past statements seemingly have been put in severe doubt. Along with his current statement that the licensees are “all happy”, when perhaps his biggest and most professional licensee/supporter has now publicly said otherwise.

    Andrea, get your statements in control….. it is not the skeptics that is damaging your reputation….. here it is your own words! 🙁

  • Freethinker

    But you are mistaken, Thomas Clarke.

    The reports show clearly a COP > 3. It is your opinion that the COP is 1, based on your analysis of data of your picking, without having the knowledge of the details of the inner working, and there by conjecture that the COP is 1. You reject the obvious, that data is well measured, in the scope of a black box test, and that the claims are rather straight forward.

    As you already “know” this is a scam, as well as you “know” LENR does not work, you put all your effort in that which cannot be argued, as there will be no data forthcoming that detail anything inside the black box as it won’t need be, to forward your petty agenda to stall the work in LENR and Rossi’s work on the ECAT, like you desperately were trying to hinder this science and technology from emerging.

    That is quite a tall order for a single individual. So I wonder, where do you really get your motivation? As you so self assured refer to the work of Mr (W)right, who is, by and large, mostly Wrong, I can imagine where it comes from.

  • Mark

    I’ve said it more than once before and I’ll say it again, now that this new information has come up: I hope that Rossi is successful with the E-Cat, but I don’t like the man, personally.

    • Omega Z

      Mark
      What this says is that other then just a few pilot plants for R&D purposes, Industrial Heat is “NOT going to manufacture products. Only License the technology for others to manufacture.

      It is only a matter of time before even Industrial Heat will fall by the wayside. Their only chance of survival will depend greatly on building a highly advanced R&D center & staying on the cutting edge. Then license the technology improvements.
      It’s all just business.

  • US_Citizen71

    The reactor used in the 2nd TIP test is not a practical reactor that would be used for power generation or even heat generation for manufacturing processes. It is a one off design made for table top testing of the over unity claim. It’s design seems to be more about protecting IP than performance.

    • Omega Z

      I have similar Thoughts. It is practical for R&D. Not so much as an End Product.

  • Hi all

    Once again there in the reports and patent for the Hot-Ecat COP 11+ and that is the tested COP of the E-Cat there in black and white in the first

    It was turned down to COP 3 for verify that there were no hidden wires or secret phase DC additions to the current, this was as an addendum to the first report, to answer those rather foolish sceptics, now with egg on their face, saying there were hidden wires inside other wires.

    COP 6 is the Original E-Cat.

    Kind Regards walker

  • ivanc

    I have been banned by Frank….But if by any chance this is publised I want to say I fully agree with you.

  • bitplayer

    “It’s hard to imagine what more proof people would need”

    So, not much imagination and not much burden of proof, hunh?

    • Anon2012_2014

      Just like the proof that the ECAT-1, ECAT-2, or ECAT-3 worked. People are clearly willing to go on “trust the writer” in both directions! We know that the ash supplied to the laboratories for analysis was from the Lugano ECAT fuel residue because we “trust” the person who delivered the ash (Rossi). We know the device was capable of COP=11 because Rossi told us. Both of the above statements may be true.

      What we have to say is we know what we DON’T know. In this case of Prometeon, we know nothing beyond what we have read. In the case of Industrial Heat, we also know nothing beyond what we have read. Same with the Rossi vs. DGT — nothing beyond what both parties have announced to the public.

      We need to have a little patience and see how things fall out. No need to jump to conclusions or assign blame when we just don’t know what happened.

    • Omega Z

      “I would say most of us have wanted to believe a commercially useful LENR device was coming a lot sooner than reality has shown us.”

      Precisely. Everyone is prone to being overly optimistic. Not just Rossi. I’m sure that controlling 100 reactors simultaneously under load has proven to be harder then Rossi imagined.

      I learned a long time ago that, If I were working on a job that I was confident would be done Tuesday, I always told the client Wednesday. If it were done Wednesday, The Client was happy. If ready on Tuesday, he was ecstatic.

  • kasom

    When A.R. said, he is working on the FIRST E-CAT UNDER LOAD, it told me, that all blabla before was rubbish. This includes the secret customers he blabla_ed about over all the years.

  • kasom

    When A.R. said, he is working on the FIRST E-CAT UNDER LOAD, it told me, that all blabla before was rubbish. This includes the secret customers he blabla_ed about over all the years.

  • bitplayer

    This is a basically “when did you stop beating your dog” story. While Prometeon evokes sympathy, we only see Prometeon’s side of it and we don’t see the details of the contracts (unless I missed that, in which case it should be cut and dried as to who did or did not mis-behave). Plus there’s no reason why Rossi or IH would tangle themselves up in a response (“Well, no actually, I never started beating my dog.” “So, you could have potentially beaten your dog, is that not correct?”) As described in earlier posts, of course inventors oversell in early development when they’re starved for cash; did the licensees think they were buying General Electric stock? And of course the new major investors would want to reel in any early unfavorable contracts that were created; they’re not running a charity. And by the way, I don’t have an image of the Prometeon *investors* (i.e. people who are capable of funding and managing investments) suddenly reduced to rags and ruin. Too bad about missing an opportunity to become fabulously wealthy; when’s my turn? You notice they found another avenue to pursue; think that was from holding garage sales? Sainthood is a lot of work. I’m happy with Rossi focusing on getting LENR out the door. As for the doubters, it’s your choice if you want to complain about the race instead of watching the leaders close in on the finish line.

  • C. Kirk

    ” It produced either little excess energy or none at all” Only in your opinion, which IMO couldn’t be more wrong…… Of course there was lots of excess energy as measured in independent tests… The only matter delaying mass production has been instability of the reactor

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I don’t think the report matters. Microsoft or any other company does not necessary in public need to have some technology vetted out by others to make other people feel good. They know what they have, they know what works. The world is not some huge baby sitting service!

    The existence of LENR is certainly not based on the witness and testimony of Rossi. The technology exists, been replicated many times. Heck there was a 101 LENR course at MIT.

    The only real issue here is commercialization of this energy source.

    I certainly agree that the other companies I mentioned have a track record, but the “process” of how technology moves forward was my real point. This “problem” or “process” occurs EVEN when a company has a long time proven track record.

    So Microsoft failed to deliver on their promise of the new file system. Apple failed to deliver on their new scratch proof glass. In these cases, the technology existed, and proven track record of such companies did not matter at all!

    The above failure example(s) were ideas and goals based on technology that exists. And the goals were based on sound judgments by their engineers. However after all was said and done they STILL failed to deliver that technology. And if you want to go work for a company that never has failure, you might as well get some bureaucratic government job in which everyone blames everyone else and failures don’t occur.

    It is VERY said that our culture does not grasp how a culture of failure is GREAT and GOOD! This does not mean we like to fail, or you PLAN to fail.

    This “culture” of failure concept ONLY works if you are surrounded by GREAT intelligent people. If you are working with a bunch of dumb people, then everyone attempts to NEVER fail at anything and thus they NEVER achieve anything of great value! And they NEVER try anything JUST beyond their reach because they are too afraid of failure. (it called being a mediocre person).

    Great people see everything as a problem. And they reach high without fear of failure, since any failure was just the wrong turn on your way to the final goal! People like Rossi are ABSOLUTE fearless. The way people view setbacks tells me MUCH about their character.

    And if Apple (or the Microsoft example) were given more time, then they likely could have brought those technologies to market. So they not implausible, but required more struggle then the group of people attempting to deliver on their promise.

    In fact Apple, Microsoft and many technology companies DON’T in public now state some of their technology goals, since by not delivering is seen as a failure. For example, there was a project at Microsoft to re-write word. (and it failed big time – thankfully they kept the old team around busy doing maintains on the existing version). So once again, the concept here is technology has a “process” of failures that results in the failure to deliver on legitimate ideas. The fact that people don’t know how technology processes work then are thus shocked by Rossi because they think Apple and every other technology companies works different – they don’t, but you not exposed to how they work!

    In most cases the falling or missing of delivery dates is due to over optimism, or not realizing how big the challenge is, or both. And often the other issue is lack of resources.

    However VERY RARE are such failures based on something that does not work altogether!

    In just the few past years, we seen a rapid change in Rossi’s reactors. They made rapid process.

    And did Rossi likely promise too much too fast? Sure, no question, but as I stated, this often happens in technology. And I not trying to defend this “horrible issue” of broken deliveries that occurs so regularly in the technology industry of which I am so fortunate to be a part of.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Omega Z

    Phillip
    What one can say is this is kind of sad. However, Once Rossi sold out to Industrial heat, the Business Model changed.

    The former business model was designed around the possibility of no big money becoming involved & Rossi going it alone. Manufacturing in small numbers & hoping to scale up before being crushed by big money playing catch up. And have no doubt, they would catch up & Rossi & his little band of licensees would have ceased to exist.

    The New Business Model. Rossi/Industrial Heat have no intent to manufacture. “There will be no product from IH for the Licensees to sell”. The right to manufacture will be sold to Big Corporations & they tend to have their own network of sales & marketing.

    The only manufacturing you’ll see from Rossi/IH will be R&D prototypes & Pilot plants for their knowledge base. Information to provide initial data to those licensed to manufacture. Even this will become limited only for the purpose of Reactor R&D purposes as the Corporations will take over all R&D in harnessing the technology for it’s own product lines.

    At least the licensees are getting the investment back plus. However, I can see them being upset even if they received double their license fee. They stood to make 300% ROI on just a single sale. With multibillion$ Corporations stepping up, These 1Mw plants will probably sell for less then a Licensee would earn in commission. Basically, they were doomed once big money interests became involved. It’s just business.

  • Omega Z

    He didn’t say that.
    He questioned the additional compensation. Considering they could make $300K off a single sale for the cost of $100K for the License, Yes, they lost a lot of potential money.
    However, If IH has determined to just license manufacturing rather then produce a product for sale themselves, At least they got their investment+ back.

  • Omega Z

    Anon
    I’m confident that the E-cat can produce much higher COP then 3. Using N-Gas at this time is just practical at this time due to certain factors. One is that it is much cheaper then Electricity produced in Fossil plants. Once most Electricity is produced by E-cat technology, things will change.

    Otherwise, for fun, consider this.
    You use 3Kw of N-gas to produce 1Kw Electric in a fossil plant.
    So you can use that 1Kw Electric to produce More heat.
    Even with COP-6,8,12 it does look silly, Especially when you can use 1Kw of N-gas powering an E-cat to obtain a similar heat & COP output.

    Besides that, The Darden Family is heavy into Natural Gas.

  • Omega Z

    Most Licensees were sold for $100,000 or less.

  • Omega Z

    Phillip

    I agree much information has been released, but any that are still involved have undisclosed info. P&F had less to disclose because, well they didn’t know the details of what was happening themselves at the time.

    As to “Krivit”, Delete him from your list. He just wrights about CF/LENR & his only claim to fame in my opinion is his ability to put a good spin(HIS) on the articles he publishes.
    He is good at name dropping (In the Middle of a statement) implying credibility to what he is saying, when it is nothing of the sort. The casual reader or skimmer may never realize it & then repeat untrue statements.

    The Thermal Electric Converter is a great example of Krivit’s spin. Rossi was only 1 of many individuals along with a University & multiple companies involved. Many are aware of Rossi/Leonardo/E-cat link & Krivit makes due with dropping the name Leonardo being the 1 contracted for this project.

    This is not Rossi/Leonardo/E-cat but Leonardo Technologies International(LTI). LTI still today does $10’s of millions in contract work for the U.S. Government. Much related to Military work. Anyway, Krivit leaves the reader believing “Rossi” bilked the Government out of Millions. Krivit doesn’t like Rossi. Rossi refused to provide Krivit a private E-cat test.

    As to Russia, China, Japan, The U.S. is all over it & probably every other development LENR/CF. It’s done by backdoor means, Likely to be allowed plausible deniability if need to do so.

    Russia has it’s own Tokamak ITER project. Much of it paid for by the U.S. Via many different agencies by Science funding grants Etc & many components made in Italy I believe & being assembled in Russia. The same for LENR research only usually under different labels like Plasma research.

    You will find similar connections with China, Japan and any number of countries. Mitsubishi/Toyota LENR projects. Some funding channeled/provided by the U.S.

    With a little scrutiny, You will find U. S. personnel all over it, From Government R&D through Universities, NASA, NRL, DOD Etc. If & When someone brings it up it’s stated, These are just people’s personal interests. Funding+U. S. personnel=Not Us. Yeah, I believe that.

    Note: Industrial Heat does not need Salesmen. It is not their Intent to manufacture product to sell. Only License manufacturers. Revoking or Buy back of Dealer License not unprecedented. GM, Ford & others have done this not long ago. It’s business.

    I actually feel bad for “Aldo Proia”. He is 1 of only a couple of these dealers I felt had some integrity. Others not so much.

    • Hello Omega,

      Thanks for that comprehensive reply. There is a lot to digest here but, starting with Krivit, you’ll see from http://news.newenergytimes.net/about-new-energy-times/ that he is the publisher and senior editor of the New Energy Times News Service, editor-in-chief of the Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia, author of the chapter on LENRs in the Elsevier Reference Module in Chemistry, Molecular Sciences and Chemical Engineering, author of the LENR chapters in the Elsevier Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources, author of “A New Look at Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research,” published in the Journal of Environmental Monitoring, co-editor of the American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press LENR Sourcebooks Volume 1 and Volume 2 and author of the New Energy Times Special Report on Bubble Fusion/Sonofusion.

      Those publications and others are detailed on http://newenergytimes.com/v2/about/presentations-publications.shtml

      – So he has made significant contributions to the LENR cause and deserves some respect even if he, himself, gives Rossi none.

      LTI has a rather opaque website at: http://www.lti-global.com/ and I still haven’t worked out whether Rossi was one of the its founders or not. Please spell that out. Nor is there any mention of the Thermal Electric Converter. So what happened with that? Was is a not successful and is everyone now distancing themselves from it?

      You say “As to Russia, China, Japan, The U.S. is all over it & probably every other development LENR/CF. It’s done by backdoor means, Likely to be allowed plausible deniability if need to do so.”

      – So, you are saying that America is quietly following and/or paying for LENR research all over the world but is “in the closet” about it, presumably because the 1989 F&P witch-hunt is still echoing? That could very well be but that reminds me too much of pre-Sputnik America. Or even America’s early efforts on the A-Bomb before the Einstein letter to FJR. There were all sorts of geographically separate groups in the US and the UK that were pottering around until FDR authorized the Manhattan Project and put all of them into one very well funded place (Los Alamos). The brainstorming sessions among the best physics, chemistry and technical minds of the time were, reportedly, the most brilliant ever conducted. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not nuclear bomb lover at all(!!!) but the template of herding all the slightly dithering geniuses into a large room and telling them to get the “F” on with it, IMHO still has a lot going for it.

      Finally you say “Note: Industrial Heat does not need Salesmen. It is not their Intent to manufacture product to sell. Only License manufacturers. Revoking or Buy back of Dealer License not unprecedented. GM, Ford & others have done this not long ago. It’s business.”

      – OK, thanks, that clarifies that in my mind but it still comes back to the fact that IH do not yet have patent coverage of the only important part of the E-Cat, namely Rossi’s secret “herbs and spices” and they could be “pipped at the post” by one of the darker horses that maybe the US’s spy-network wasn’t “all over” after all. For all its fabled intelligence networks, the fact is that the US keeps getting surprised, both politically and technically.

      • Omega Z

        As to LTI, Yes, Rossi was 1 of 4 founders.
        Craig Cassarino, Robert Gentile, Richard Noceti

        Note of interest. On Rossi’s JONP-Board of Advisers.
        http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?page_id=2
        Richard Noceti, Ph.D. (LTI-global.com)

        Another person of interest on Rossi’s BOA- Prof. Michael Melich (DOD – USA) Multiple connections & my belief that he is 1 of Rossi’s protectors. As in hands off Rossi.
        I believe Rossi sold his interests in LTI to fund his E-cat research.

        Info as to LTI & Ampenergo
        http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece

        Note the Founders of Ampenergo & LTI. ((As I can no longer find the info, considered Speculation on my part) Rossi was an undisclosed founding member of Ampenergo.)) Rossi may also have sold his interests in this for E-cat funding.

        The Thermal Electric Converter. This was under a Military(Army I think) research contract with LTI, a University among a few other collaborators.

        These things are done periodically to push technology to have a sense of where we are at. This one was, Can “TEC’s” be designed that are 20% efficient, mass produced & cost effectively.

        According to the Military Report. The 1 that Rossi hand built was reasonably successful. I’ve seen reference to 15%+- a little. This is dependent on heat source quality verses heat sink.

        The Military then proceeded to have 2 different manufactures build 13 TEC’s each. One in the U.S., Another Italian, Neither associated with Rossi. Results weren’t very good. Many didn’t work,(bad contacts) & only 1 reached 4%. The rest even less.

        The Conclusion of the Military Report was, That Neither the materials or manufacturing process was up to the task for mass produced cost efficient TEC’s. That Material Science needed to advance as do Manufacturing technologies improvement.

        Krivit’s report on this was twisted in a manor(Note he didn’t say it) but to make it appear Rossi ripped the Government for a couple Million when he knew otherwise. The Fact that I was able to learn the real story by the info that Krivit posted is the proof. It did however take a lot of effort on my part & reading a 150 page Military report. Most people would not do this of which Krivit was also aware.

        Note, The Military has done at least 1 other research development in the TEC’s area since the 1 with LTI. Still not there yet, though the future is looking promising.

        The U.S. provides some funding along with others like in the ITER project. And, Yes, “America is quietly” funding LENR research as well among many other things. Note the ENEA Thread. It is done indirectly. LENR is Taboo, but specific links to it(Like Plasma research & materials involved) pass under the radar. There was the U.S. personnel who went to Mitsubishi Labs & claimed they were seeing contamination in their LENR test. Their reason for being there is to check on what their funding through back channels are producing. Oh, And Toyota replicated Mitsubishi’s test.

        The Manhattan Project. Are you sure there are not such projects today? I recently(few months ago) came across an interesting article. The Army was having electronic issues(Unaccounted for excess heat) in 1962 & was initiating research in this area. Nothing more since…

        Do you really think Stealth fighters cost $400 Million a copy or is it a way to funnel money into skunk works projects. Notice when to many people complain the price drops. Incrementally of course only to the point of appeasement. The known Stealth technology is 55 years old with only incremental improvements since then?

        Nano technology is relatively new to society, yet the Air force was already doing Nano tech R&D in the mid-50’s. It’s at least 60 years old to them.

        “US keeps getting surprised” Or do they merely feign surprise. I’ve seen things that should make them concerned, yet they appear nonchalant. Like is that all you got. That is so 50 years ago.
        Things are seldom what they appear…

        • Hello Omega,
          Thanks for that detailed, if delayed, reply.

          In the first half, it clarifies the facts behind LTI, Ampenergo, JONP and the TEC. It reminds us that 90% of all intelligence gathering is overt and only 10% is covert: most of the key facts are under our noses but we need to do the hard work of reading all the documents, all the way through. And, as you say, simply doing that, inter alia, catches out Krivit. So, good work!

          The second half (re “quiet funding”) is, in the absence of any covert info, more open to interpretation but I’ll need time to think (and read!) about the points you raised. Anyway, let’s revisit those issues, as appropriate, in comments to later articles on ECW.

    • Kevin O

      This is not Rossi/Leonardo/E-cat but Leonardo Technologies
      International(LTI). LTI still today does $10’s of millions in contract
      work for the U.S. Government.
      *** I doubt that. Leonardi/ecat//LTI failed to deliver on 1MW plants, and that is why they are buying back licenses at 110%.

      • Omega Z

        For clarity, Rossi’s Leonardo and Leonardo Technologies International(LTI) are 2 different entities.

      • JEFF

        Different company, they do have a presence with the military. Rossi does not.

    • Obvious

      …. wrights about CF/LENR….
      LOL
      Good one.

      • Omega Z

        OMG, What was I thinking? 🙂

        Yes, Let that be a lesson boys & girls. Don’t try to blog when your tired & being interrupted by people around you & a dog that only wants out or fed when I set at the computer.

        When giving my girlfriend my undivided attention, she has little to say. Let me on the computer or tune in a favorite TV show & suddenly she becomes a chatter box. Or you know, while your on there “Goggle blah blah blah”

        Not their fault.
        When I was young I could multitask like no ones business. I could watch TV, carry on a convo with someone in another room while conversing on the phone with another & never skip a beat while pondering the meaning of life.

        Not so much any more. Aging takes it’s toll. Yet I still attempt multitasking out of habit.
        Initially typed right, realizing it was wrong resulting in wright/WTF hitting send & not having access to edit(I should change that. 1 of these days, “write”)
        My 1st blunder ever. Seriously. 🙂 And it will never happen again…

  • Ged

    Chris, you aren’t making sense anymore. Read: http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/when-purchasing-and-existing-business–are-previou-1607381.html that explains, again, everything I’ve already said, as it seems you need another source. Change in ownership can straight up void contracts, and if not, the contract is still up for renegotiation if either party desires. Even more, buy back -is- an exit clause, one of if not the nicest ones at that. A contract typically has many, multiple exit clauses for multiple contingencies.

    Again, look at the computer industry where patents are shuffles around continuously and licensees oft times cut loose as a result. It’s risky business in all fields.

    • Chris I

      Notice that none of those 4 attorneys are really saying the contracts become void, if you sort out the confusion and also take into account what Proia and Rossi have said about it. Neither Leonardo nor EFA have ceased to exist. IH now controls them (did not buy just their assets). At the most IH might have required that Rossi assume liability for things they did not accept, but this doesn’t appear to be the case (buy what both he and Proia said). Things are certainly less clear cut in America than over here, still that link does not tell me the things you’ve been saying.

      I repeat, I do get your opinion, but not your logic. I’m also weary of a pointless debate. I you don’t get my opinion and even less my logic, I’m unable to be of any further assistance.

      • Ged

        I get your opinion–that you are surprised that IH would exit (or not continue) contract from Rossi’s old licensees rather than take the liability on themselves for what they didn’t choose nor negotiate, and that you don’t see how other people could have expected this outcome–but I do not get your logic at all. I guess we’ll have to leave it as irreconcilable logics.

        • Chris I

          That’s not my opinion, because it contains a part which I deem false: By negotiating with Rossi and choosing to accept a deal with him, they did so take the liability on themselves.

          If you purchase an entity which is a legal person, you take on what obligations it has; they come with it. Strictly speaking, they are not “Rossi’s old licensees” but those of the legal persons in question. At the most, the Cherokee partners might have reckoned on what options were available to change these afterwards, when and at what cost. How certainly they must have done so is your opinion.

          Yes, they appear to be irreconcilable logics.

          • Ged

            If you read my earlier link, you would have seen that when buying up a company IP, one doesn’t have to buy the liability. You do Not have to take on what legal obligations the entity you negotiate with has, that is false. But, it is an Insentive to the party you are taking IP ownership from to do so. But it is Not a requirement. You are misunderstanding contracts: the only thing that matters is what’s explicitly in the contract, there is no external necessity for all the fluff you are assuming. Not how it works. This is why business is treacherous. We are are seeing IH use exits to buy back, which they can because of the ownership change: notice how no one can threaten legal action?

            For all we know, everything IH is doing is for PR sake only, with no legal ramifications, and that’s what it sounds like according to the licensees who have no legal course with which to keep their licenses, which is part of their frustration. Didn’t you not notice that?

            So, that part of your reasoning is on a flawed assumption. We don’t know the details of IH’s ownership take over, and we don’t know the details of the licensee contracts which the take over may legally annul depending on the wording of the contracts–if IH even accepted them in the first place. As it is typical to Not carry along baggage from the people you buy IP from, these course of events are expected, hydrofusion is not.

          • Chris I

            Ged, seriuosly. Have you really nothing better to do? To me it all looks like the way I see it. Even page 10 of that pdf, it seems to me that your opinion is exactly the common misconception it talks about, but you read it your own way around. Thehe Ontario one is potentialy less relevant, but I read part of the section you suggested and it didn’t look the way you construe. BTW, perhaps the reason no legal action could be threatened is just aimply because no infringements were committed.

            If you want a bit more… ehem… “fluff”, read this:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality#Juridical_persons

            but I guess you’ll construe even that as meaning the obligations don’t come with the entity in question (especially as it is worded unclearly in parts). To me it supports the opposite; it talks about exceptions in which the physical people can be liable for what they have decided on behalf of the juristic one (especially necessary when it’s criminal responsibility), but these are for protection of creditors or damaged parties and clearly not of the kind you’ve been claiming.

          • Ged

            Your link has nothing to do with this, what so ever. A licensing agreement is saying someone can use your IP as long as you say they can to make a product and turn a profit while providing you a royalty. It’s a very loose relationship.

            Let me actually quote from the first link I gave to point out to you what’s in plain English. From page 10, “Although some change-of-control provisions purport to void the transaction, the more direct approach is to provide that a change of control is equivalent to a material breach of the agreement or grounds for termination, or both.”

            Doesn’t get much plainer. If you have a change in IP ownership (control), that generally terminates the licensing agreement. This is Common practice. Hence why it is expected for the old licensees to be cut loose, as renegotiation must commence and a new agreement reached as the old one is breached.

            Now, let’s look at an actual licensing agreement from the real world wilds: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1069489/000106299304000483/exhibit2-1.htm

            Note how the licensor and licensee have a right to early termination of the agreement at any time. Material breach is also grounds for immediate termination. Notice once again how from above that change of ownership is generally regarded a material breach.

            So there you have it. From the start, you’ve been trying to argue that it makes no sense that anyone could “see this coming”, that IH would let go of the old licensees after it took ownership of the IP, while I have said from day one that it is a common enough outcome to the point of being expected if one watches what companies do or reads agreements.

            And now I’ve given you links showing exactly how these agreements work, and shown you them working in the real world, spelled out. Your arguments have been completely unrelated and meaningless.

            Yes, this was an expected outcome. And no, it isn’t weird that “we” saw this coming. The insistence that one couldn’t predict this is what’s weird, not the realization that licensing agreements are built intentionally to allow this very event. They are a loose agreement that can be terminated at any time by either party, and change of ownership or control is generally regarded as immediate grounds for termination, and thus renegotiation to make a new agreement.

            I think maybe you just have had a strange notion about the nature of what a licensing agreement is.

          • Chris I

            If you are unable to connect the dots, I have contracted no obligation to do so for you and I’ve alredy wasted far too much of my time. Your quote from that pdf and “explanation” of it tell me that I had guessed correctly, that you construed it back-asswards. Sorry, I read no further.

          • Ged

            Right. I quote where it says change of ownership is grounds to void, breach, or terminate licenses as we’ve seen been happening; then I show you a real such agreement archived by the US government that shows the same written plainly. Yet you keep trying to push “corporations being people” as somehow having to do with this, when it’s completely unrelated unless you mean taxes or free speech.

            If you can’t accept reality, what’s plainly written, that’s your problem. Meanwhile, the rest of us will easily see what’s coming and not be surprised by what shocks you. Since you fail to give any arguments other than vague insults, you are officially beaten, and there’s no more point to this.

            But it was fun debating with you, and I hope you don’t feel bad.

          • Chris I

            I don’t feel bad, I only deel annoyed as long as you keep insisting when I’ve repeated I don’t have enough time. I’m too presumptuous to feel bad about not getting your logic (instead of feeling so certain that you’re not getting mine). Not that it’s much more presumptuous than officially declaring who the loser is. As far as I care you rest free to believe what you like.

          • Ged

            Here, this may be helpful, check out page 10 of this US law IP licenseeing guide on changes-of-control
            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=E-R9VIqRLPOLsQSBh4HgBg&url=http://www.skadden.com/sites/default/files/publications/Publications2679_0.pdf

            It’s not an easy read, but as you can see, changes in control generally lead to termination of the contract unless drafted to protect from that. I don’t know what happens to the licensee’s money in such a case, but IH is doing right to pay it back, PR or legal or not; and again, as you can see by law, this is the common outcome of such changes.

          • Ged

            Here we go, I found a much easier to read resource http://www.bbburn.com/pmart6.htm

            It seems that licensees are basically leasing a product in the eyes of the law. The licensor can offer a warrenty on that, but doesn’t have to. Licensees seem to have little rights if the owners decide to rescind the license, even if the licensee makes a down payment, the licensor can terminate if they wish (see the section on licensing agreements). All pursuent on the actual wording of the agreement, as I keep saying.

            Hopefully these detail are helpful in regards to US law. If the licensing agreement didn’t warranty it, then all the licensees are SOL upon change of ownership termination, it seems; even more so than I thought.

            Now it should be easier to see why this was so expected.