Rossi on Leonardo Scientific Committee Members

Andrea Rossi has mentioned that Leonardo Corporation has assembled a committee of scientific advisers to help with the development of E-Cat products and today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics he has given a little more detail about at least one member. Here are the relevant comments:

Andrea Rossi

Koen Vandewalle:
In our scientific commettee of Leonardo Corp. we have the honour to have a top level scientist that worked in the Caradache (sic) plant. Obviously we have always to learn . . .

Andrea Rossi

I agree with your analysis about the Hot Fusion. About the great scientist that hot fusion has given to us, obviously you talk of Dr Pierre Clauzon ( Commissariat Pour l’Energie Atomique, Paris- France) now also a member of the scientific commettee of Leonardo Corporation that soon will work with the QuarkX too. Here is a man from whom we can learn.

Rossi writes “Caradache” here, but I am sure Cadarache, which is a French nuclear research center (see run by the Commissariat Pour l’Energie Atomique (CEA) where they study nuclear fission, nuclear fusion and other alternative energy technologies.

Pierre Clauzon, mentioned by Ross,i is a retired nuclear engineer at the CEA, and also someone who has worked in the cold fusion field.

Andrea Rossi wrote this comment on February 16, 2015 on the E-Cat the New Fire Website here:

I just want to give information about CEA ( Commissariat Pour l’Energie Atomique) of Paris, an institution strictly in connection with Areva.
I had the honour to know two nuclear physicists that work there on the LENR, Dr Pierre Clauzon and Dr Jacques Dufour. They made a very good work with the LENR, visited repeatedly my factories in Bologna ( first) and in Ferrara ( eventually) and I learnt many things from both.
I am convinced that from them something important will be born in France in the LENR field. Dr Dufour also made a research on this field for Shell. I am in constant contact with Dr Pierre Clauzon.
By the way: he worked also in the Hot Fusion Caradache concern, but his intellectual honesty allowed him not to hold a hostile position toward my work, but, on the contrary, he has always been positive and collaborative. He also made a bet with some friends of him that within two years the E-Cat will be a commercial breakthrough. Don’t ask me how much he bet: an obscene sum.
Warm Regards to all,


  • Steve Swatman

    I wonder how the trolls are going to play this one?

    • kdk

      The crazy eccentric card.

      • Timar

        Yep. Just like they’re doing it with Brian Josephson.

        • bachcole

          Such thinking is a manifestation of very tiny minds. I don’t think that it is necessarily the result of malice or greed, although in some cases it could be. And I don’t care if such people can do integral calculus standing on their heads. They are still telling us that they have very tiny minds, pathetic minds, unable to see beyond their own little horizons.

        • Mats002

          Yep. But a deck have a limited number of jokers. They can claim a few but five? Ten? Naa.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Well, I mean… is the guy well-known? Important? Or just some random ‘dude’?

  • Nixter

    For such a committee to function properly, the scientists/researchers will need to have open (or almost), full access to all of the secrets behind the process. I feel that the prime factor behind the current Rossi – IH lawsuit is Rossi’s failure to really, actually give full disclosure regarding his IP. He may have felt it prudent to protect himself by withholding some key aspect of the invention, just in case IH broke bad on him. At some point in time Rossi will be forced to give up all of his secrets to insiders working with him in order to successfully out-engineer his competitors. It is doubtful that a small crew of designers working for Leonardo will be able to out perform a competent team of professionals with strong physics and science backgrounds with a big budget and support.
    For the Leonardo Scientific Committee to work as intended, (advance the science and hardware) the members will need to know the full story behind the technology. So I wonder, have we reached that point yet? Can Doctor Rossi force himself to divulge his inner most secrets to advance his LENR devices? Time will tell.

    • cashmemorz

      More likely Rossi didn’t give them a different aspect of the E-Cat, something he didn’t have, the actual theory of how it works. Without the theory of how it actually works neither Rossi nor Darden nor anybody else knows how it works for sure. This allows IH to use the term “unsubsatantiated” thereby covering the point that IH does not know and that Leonardo/Rossi does not know how it works. For due diligence on the part of IH all aspects of the E-Cat, that it works, that it works with a high enough COP(>2.6) and how it works are necessary to have in hand a “fully” viable IP with minimal risk for future earnings. To have IP that just works is OK for acceptable risk of future earnings on the IP. Based on this it becomes apparent why IH didnot try at all to get the one year test done. IH knew it most likely would work. They had that point covered by the earlier tests. The longer test would add very little to the IP. But the theory is the last piece that was and is till missing as far as everyone knows. Unless Rossi has that also which, if he does have it, is a major playing card that he would be wise to hold very close to his chest. For IH any other LENR IP is as good as Rossi’s without the theory. For that reason their actions make more sense than all that other cloak and dagger stuff about trying to rip off Rossi. They don’t have to. Without the final piece of the puzzle they feel in the right not to pay for the test or test results or who did the ERV because the test was not needed and the E-Cat still has not all of its important information, as the theory, given to IH. This sufficiently increases the core point that IH did not get all of the IP for the E-Cat and thereby gives IH the apparent right to claim that they did not get everything that allows IH to “fully” have the “whole” IP.

      • Omega Z

        This Theory argument is B.S…

        Theory is not part of the IP patent. Theories can not be patented. Theories are in fact no more then opinions. Most all theories are wrong and/or incomplete. And if theory Says A+B=C and experiment Shows A+B=D. Experiment Trumps Theory.

        Thing about theories is whoever comes up with a theory can be credited for the theory. You can’t give or sell it to someone. And once disseminated it is pretty much public domain.

        The Contract required 350 operating days out of 400 with a minimum specified COP. At no point is a theory mentioned. If it accomplished this task, then Darden should pay up. Otherwise, He should forfeit and relinquish any and all claims to the IP and any money exchanged to date and possibly pay damages.

        If Darden thought that Rossi owed them a Theory, then Darden should be required to pay double as a penalty for stupidity. If this is Darden’s argument, then he should pay Triple.

        • cashmemorz

          This is all my own personal opinion of what IH meant by “unsubstantiated” no more no less. IF substantiation is meant by them to try and include a theory then that is what I am basing my arguments on. As far as I know there is no theory that is acceptable to all, therefore it again is my own opinion. If a theory is required by IH then it could possibly increase the worth if the IP that the E-Cat is based on. That at core is why I am stating my opinion about the court case. That “could” in my opinion, make the IP that IH has be worth a bit more towards Cherokee’s investors. There is no need to be anti-science and say that theory is “just” opinion. A theory is the best model of what some physical process might be at bottom. No one anywhere has the absolute best idea of how the physical world works. All we have to go on is models like the standard model made up of theories. If you want to call that opinion so be it.

          • Observer

            “Unsubstantiated” means that the scientific advisors IH has chosen to guide their business decisions has refused to accept any proof as conclusive.

          • Obvious

            Substantiate means the same thing it has for the past 400 years.
            It is not a subtle word.

          • Observer

            What we communicate with human language is not as much in the meaning of words, but why we say them.

            The original meaning is lost out of context.

          • Obvious

            In this case it means:

            prove, show to be true, give substance to, support, uphold,
            bear out, justify, vindicate, validate, corroborate, verify, authenticate,
            confirm, endorse, give credence to

          • Mats002

            Yes but what comes after all the synonyms you listed:
            – money, IP or technology?

            That’s the question.

          • psi2u2

            Actually, you might want to look it up in a really good dictionary before you say it is ‘not a subtle word.’ This is like saying an opinion is same thing as a theory.

        • psi2u2

          “Theories are in fact no more then opinions.”

          Sorry, this is nonsense.

  • Josh G

    He sent them all of that info after they had signed the license agreement and paid him $11.5 million. In other words, that was the dowry; they were already married.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Yes, Rossi told so. It could be true, but still it might be that they have been unable to reproduce a 1MW plant which is more complex than the “toy” Lugano reactor. Perhaps the teacher was bad or perhaps the pupils, or perhaps the 1MW thing was just so complex that a larger team of good experts should have been involved to absorb the knowledge.

    Be that as it may, if there is lack of mutual trust, things tend to go bad. Problems can be traced back already to their contract, which looks rather bad for the inventor and also partly ambiguous. If the contract is bad, the inventor is likely to search for other partners.

    • Harvey Hamel

      Your comments are fundamental to the dispute between Leonardo & IH. I’m retired now, but a wise mentor of mine taught that “all contract relationships consist of three elements: a contract; a client and a contractor. For a successful outcome, only two of these elements need to work properly.” The court and the jury will decide which, if any of these elements have failed. All speculation in the meanwhile is dust in the wind.

  • Gerard McEk

    I am sure that AR was allowed to publish the cooperation of these two eminent scientist to the public. I hope it means that they believe in Andrea’s work and that they contribute and jointly and unbypassed build the Ecat/QuarkX to the new revolutionary Fire. I see this as a positive development!

    • Steve Swatman

      I might suggest that after Mr Rossi’s breakthrough with the quark test and the “Bluelight” offering a possible theoretical path, that these guys have gladly jumped on board.

  • Steve Swatman

    I remember Mr Rossi saying this and that IH built the reactors for lugano or some other test and the 1mw unit, and then he said, “IF they have forgotten how to do this, that is not my problem” or words to that effect, at the time I found that quite interesting, and I believe that there is a possibility that Mr Rossi did show them exactly how to make the COP 6 reactor and they have forgotten some implicit part of the process,

    • Observer

      What is IH’s technical turnover rate? It is always funny when a corporation forgets that what they are capable of rests in the hands and skills and minds of their employees. I have yet to see a SOP that was not a worthless joke without an experienced employee behind it.

  • Hum,
    At RNBE2016, one of those old-ape made a harsh pre-talk statement, that Mary Yugo would not have opposed… I have to search who it was… Ther was no ambiguity nor dampening in the statement I heard of, and only question is the name of the old LENr scientists who stated that.

    I’ll ask who it was, my memory is exhausted.

  • sam
  • georgehants

    It would seem that if the Chinese have not demanded their cash back from IH then they must still believe they have something to gain by staying in.
    Or if they have tried to get their cash back and failed we could see some assassinations with chop-sticks coming.

  • Frank Acland

    So far I have no final conclusion. It seems to do some unusual things, but products have not worked as they were supposed to.

    • Ged

      Probably going to take months of constant play to reach solid conclusions unfortunately. Did you ever get to have that Arduino setup to automate it? It would make life so much easier for the long term.

      Thank you again for all the data you have produced to date, Frank!

      • Jarea

        In fact, no conclusion is a bad conclusion for the orbo test. For a product that is so expensive it is expected that works 100%

        • Ged

          Completely true.

          But for the theorists, the question of is it a battery or something more complex is most interesting, and more time is needed to answer that as not enough energy has been extracted yet for its weight. Though it does behave differently than a battery, it is still potentially possible to replicate the strange behavior with clever battery-capacitor circuit designs according to the circuit experts in that thread, as far as we know. So, we can only rely on energy extraction to prove or disprove the battery hypothesis.

  • Steve Swatman

    Just as a matter of discussion, maybe Mr Rossi taught a IH employee exactly how to make an ecat and how to create the fuel mix, ( i do remember Mr Rossi saying that IH made the e-cat and Darden and co made the mix for a test) and then for some reason, maybe the employee no longer works for IH. Maybe, you know, because, maybe That person realised that IH were up to no good and so did not completely fill out the documentation, maybe, maybe, maybe…

    Maybe Darden and co did not document what they had learned.

    One could conclude that Mr Rossi fullfilled his part of the contract by teaching an IH apprentice and darden and co, IF the apprentice failed to document correctly or left/was fired would that be construed as the Fault of Mr Rossi or the fault of IH?

    • Omega Z

      I have taught people to perform a certain task and they do it quite well. However, once I walk away, they take liberties to short cuts and everything fails. They have trouble comprehending that small variances can be so criticle to success.

      I believe small variances can be very criticle to whether LENR works or doesn’t. It is the reason it is so hard to replicate.

      • Steve Swatman

        This is a problem whenever we teach, It has a good side of course, the student may experiment and come up with a better, more efficient process, however if they forget the actual process that works while playing around….

        I sincerely believe this happened with IH, and just around the same time that Mr Rossi became aware of the shenanigans. We have to ask “What would we do in such a situation?”

  • MasterBlaster7

    [Dr. Pierre Clauzon] made a[n obscene] bet with some friends of him that within two years the E-Cat will be a commercial breakthrough.

    ……as far as I know, that is the best evidence of an e-cat production time table yet established.

    ……and since it was an ‘obscene’ bet, I bet he gave himself a little extra runway.

    ……so, if production is plotted on a bell curve…I would have the peak at 1 year…trailing of to about 15% at 2 years…then continuing to slowly drop off to 5 years. I think that is the time frame we should all have in mind without further evidence.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Please remind me never to bet against you.

  • Roland

    Whether the Chinese succeeded in acquiring the IP is a separate, and interesting, question apart from whether any monies have been exchanged; presumably IH is aware of any financial transactions that have taken place, or not, but given the facility of the Chinese in this particular arena can the same be said for the disposition of the IP?

    Perhaps the upcoming hearings can address this as a matter of national security.

  • Steve Swatman

    These guys are long respected in their fields, your comment shows exactly how much negative bias YOU are employed to comment with.

    • Defendants’ latest rebuttal is here:

      I didn’t see anything new in it. Most of it is legal ping pong.

      It continues to paint a picture of an abusive relationship where defendants think they can sign but not sign, not even try to set up a test, file copycat patents with suddenly appearing co-inventors (which apparently is OK because it’s not granted yet, LOL), and invalidate everything because the wrong number of cylinders were used. Technicalities and behavior outside the spirit of the agreement. Nice.

      They are still skirting around the main issue of whether the thing worked or not and what the ERV report says. I hope we get there soon.

  • Steve Swatman

    I would suspect that somewhere there may be a patent in someone elses name that lays out the control mechanisms, something that might well be in the name of the engineer who invented it following the request and guide lines of Mr Rossi, maybe Fluvio and Rossi’s wife have that patent pending, “Almost exactly” is an interesting point, almost but quite.

  • cashmemorz

    Did I just lose the game ? Awww…

  • Steve Swatman

    If I remember correctly there have been many meltdowns in the last 5yrs from many different sources.

    I am not sure how many meltdowns it would take to convince a sceptic, however i would enjoy seeing a few sitting a small room for a demo when 1 or two reach meltdown.

  • cashmemorz

    Or a jack of all trades and professional in none? Welcome to my club.

    • bachcole