Matthey, Matthew, or Matth-less: The Question of JM Products Parent Company (Hank Mills)

The following post has been submitted by Hank Mills

Andrea Rossi has previously stated on his blog, the Journal of Nuclear Physics, that the customer utilizing the heat provided by his 1MW plant during the year long test was affiliated with a company based in the UK with factories across Europe. This was verified by the President of JM Products, Henry W. Johnson, in a statement included in the documents provided to the court as part of Leonardo Corporation’s initial complaint against Industrial Heat. The statement read, “JMC is owned by an entity formed in the United Kingdom, and none of Leonardo, Dr. Andrea Rossi, Henry W. Johnson nor any of their respective subsidiaries, directors, officers, agents, employees, affiliates, significant others, or relatives by blood or marriage has any ownership interest in JMC.”

Individuals on blogs and internet forums have debated for some time if JM Product’s parent company — if that is the best term to describe their relationship with the entity formed in the United Kingdom — is actually Johnson Matthey. If so, having a connection with a large, established, and extremely well respected company like Johnson Matthey would bring a measure of instant credibility to JM Products, their activity at the Doral, Florida site, and perhaps to Andrea Rossi’s technology as well. Although previous tests conducted by Andrea Rossi and additional third parties (Songsheng Jiang, Alexander Parkhomov, N. Stepanov, and others) seemed to verify the reality of the Rossi Effect, having a mainstream company like Johnson Matthey involved would be like a small privately owned computer repair shop having a contract to provide services to a company like Intel or AMD. Even without any form of direct endorsement, the connection itself would be noteworthy.

Until now, the evidence that Johnson Matthey had “something to do” with JM Products was limited, but highly interesting. For example, the logo of JM Products and Johnson Matthey were extremely similar; an alleged representative of JM Products at the Doral, Fl site claimed that metal sponges were being produced which are a product Johnson Matthey is well known to manufacture; the metal sponge process is one that would be comptible with the use of low temperature steam to be used in the leeching process; a Johnson Matthey plant that produces sponge metal is located only one state away in the stage of Georgia; the names of the two companies Johnson Matthey and JM Products were similar; some forum users have claimed to have performed research and determined that there are no other company based in the UK that fits the description of the parent company other than Johnson Matthey, etc.

Despite these apparent clues, Rossi has stated on his blog that they have nothing to do with Johnson Matthey and they only purchased a few things from the company. However, as part of Industrial Heat’s latest response in the legal battle with Leonardo Corporation, they have stated that Andrea Rossi and his lawyer told them that JM Products did indeed have a connection to Johnson Matthey. Furthermore, they published an invoice from JM Products to Industrial Heat with the letter head including the following description.

J.M. Products, Inc. “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthew Platinum Sponges.” (See image below which is Exhibit 18 in Industrial Heat’s recent filing responding to Rossi’s lawsuit against them — all Exhibits can be seen here)


Rossi’s denial of any involvement with Johnson Matthey seems strange after seeing the above description. This is for a number of reasons, including the fact that the UK based company Johnson Matthey ends with a “y” and not a “w.” This brings up a number of questions which I have posted a few of to the Journal of Nuclear Physics. My hope is that Andrea Rossi will approve the post and answer the questions.

Dear Andrea,

You previously told me in response to a question:

“Andrea Rossi
April 24, 2016 at 4:22 PM

Hank Mills:
Your comment contains a big mistake: Johnson Matthey has nothing to do with us. We bought from them some materials but that is all. Please do not diffuse false information.
No further comments.
Warm Regards

Now, Industrial Heat claims that the customer sent them an invoice with the letter head identifying their company as,

“J.M. Products, Inc. “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthew Platinum Sponges.”

Here are my questions:

1) Does J.M. Products have anything to do with Johnson Matthew? (Note, I mean Johnson Matthew with the name Matthew ending in a “w.”)

2) Does Johnson Matthew, ending with a “w” have anything to do with the large well known UK based company Johnson Matthey ending with a “y”?

3) Do you confirm that J.M. Products has a verifiable connection of some sort — as a subsidiary or affiliate — with Johnson Matthey, related to the production of a chemical product manufactured or processed at the Doral, Florida location?

4)If the answer to all the above questions is that JM Products never had anything to do with Johnson Matthew (with a “w”) or Johnson Matthey (with “y”), will you identify the company based in the UK that is connected to JM Chemical Products — which you described had facilities across Europe?

I think the answers to these questions are important as the overall situation becomes more bizarre and incomprehensible by the day.


I’m not an attorney or have any legal experience, so I don’t claim to be capable of decifering legal documents. But Industrial Heat seems to allege in their latest response that Johnson Matthey has no connection with JM Products and no manufacturing took place at the Doral, Florida site. I realize that if there is a connection between JM Products and Johnson Matthey, the relationship may be confidential and sealed with non-disclosure agreements. However, I personally feel the overall situation has reached a point that demands for JM Product’s parent company, owner, or affiliate based in the UK to be revealed openly.

The LENR “landscape” on the blogs and forums grows more toxic each and every day that the battle between Leonardo Corporation and Industrial Heat wages onward. With relatively little factual information to go on — for example the ERV report has yet to be published by either party — individuals supporting both sides strike at each other viciously like cobras ready to dig in with their poisonous fangs. Their snide remarks, extreme hostility, and often outrageously rude and inappropriate behavior (personal attacks) are doing damage to the entire field, potentially pushing interested parties away and making the whole field of cold fusion (LENR) appear unappealing to become involved with. For a area of research struggling to be accepted by a mainstream scientific community that has already expressed total contempt, this is totally unacceptable.

I have no idea how Andrea Rossi should address the issue of JM Product’s parent company in the legal arena; however, I have an idea what might help in the so called “court” of legal opinion. And that would be answers to the questions I’ve posted to the Journal of Nuclear Physics, along with some form of verification from the parent company — whomever they might be.

Please let me make one final issue clear before I close. I’m not specifically claiming one way or the other if Johnson Matthey is the parent company of JM Products or has anything to do with Leonardo Corporation’s customer. But with so much information being made available that would push the average person’s mind towards the idea, the true identity of the parent company should be revealed to prevent the overall LENR “bloodstream” from becoming totally septic.

This needs to happen immediately and without delay. Otherwise, the simple truth is that continual witholding of JM Product’s parent company only makes a bad situation, a community ready to fray apart at the seams due a lack of verifiable information, even worse.

Hank Mills

  • Ged

    What’s on second?

  • Engineer48

    Hi Jed, who wrote:
    “JMP, however, has never been a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey, was not operating or planning to operate any manufacturing process in Florida, ”

    Is there a statement from Johnson Matthey that supports this claim? If so I must have missed it. Link?

    Is there any association between Johnson Matthew and Johnson Matthey?

  • Publius

    This is one of those situations where either Rossi and Johnson committed fraud or IH is lying and Jones Day, one of the premier law firms in the word, is allowing misrepresented allegations to be brought before the court. Jones Day is not going to open themselves up to possible sanctions by introducing cross claims they have not properly vetted. The bar for fraud is very high and not lightly introduced into federal court.
    The curious JM letterhead with an amateurish typo “Johnson Matthew” does not help Rossi and Johnson.

    • Omega Z

      Jones Day wouldn’t do this, that and the other thing because- Why?
      Because their Big, Powerful and Influential?

      Actually, large Entities such as them tend to become arrogant and think that Rules don’t apply to them. They can do and say as they please. Everyone knows this. Merely read what comes across from the blog posts. Their Big and Powerful and Might makes Right.

      I witnessed this interview-
      Al Gore presented with the fact that his CO2 footprint is that of 50 to 100 average people stated- You can’t compare him to the average person… He’s important.
      Wonder how he views the average person? Wait, I think I know…

      The top 10% income bracket in the U.S. contributes 48% of the CO2 in the U.S.

  • wpj

    Damn auto correct!

  • Billy Jackson

    Not sure if its been discussed.

    JM Products & Johnson Mathews are 2 separate entities. Johnson Mathews may be personally interested and investing time and equipment into the test of the E-Cat on his own volition. That is not the same as JM Products endorsing or supporting said experiment officially. We keep trying to link the two together when in truth.. the fact that Mathews owns JM Products may have nothing do with the test, he may be interested in the technology on a personal level. An endorsement by one entity does not mean an endorsement by the other.

  • GiveADogABone

    A google search on ‘johnson matthew’ returns nothing.

    That would be very surprising for a trading company.

  • sam

    I think the Ecat is real at some level and I.H. and A.R. should
    be going all out at this time to
    take it to a higher level instead
    of playing there mixed up legal
    But boys will be boys.

  • Andre Blum

    nice writeup, hank.

  • Mats002

    Andrea Rossi
    August 7, 2016 at 2:17 PM
    Luis Navarro:
    Thank you for the link, anyway, as I always said, Johnson Matthey is NOT the Customer.
    Warm regards,

    • Curbina

      ecause the customer is JM products Inc., so Rossi is technically not lying. The right question would be “is Johnson Matthey the UK company of which the customer is a subsidiary?” I think Rossi is bound by an NDA To this respect. If this question is asked It probably will be spammed.

      • If the greatest discovery in mankind’s history has now descended to its inventor indulging in ‘legalese’ hair splitting of this kind, I think I’d rather like to resign from the human race and set up shop as an independent species.

        • Mark Underwood

          🙂 Such is the nature of the beast when one is in the arena of legal agreements and politics. Cringeworthy. Also cringeworthy is the language that inventors have to use in LENR patent applications to have any hope of getting past the what-is-scientifically-acceptable establishment police.

        • Curbina

          I share your sentiment. But then Rossi already did the same before, back when we were discussing who was the partner that later turned out to be IH, he plainly denied it when asked directly if the new flagship (as he liked to call it) was Cherokee, which was technically true as the company was Industrial Heat LLC.

  • Publius

    A better analogy would be MS Products – Advanced Derivatives of Nicrosoft and then deny any affiliation with Microsoft.

  • I’m inclined to agree. It could be proven if the exact font is identified (it’s not the Times New Roman posted above, but close) and then overlaying Johnson Matthey on the existing one to see if they match.

    Probably just a half-hearted attempt to preserve plausible deniability for Johnson Matthey.

    • Ged

      Michael is also correct that the W is slightly vertically out of line with the rest (lower). It’s very slight, but not like how the remaining font functions. Odd things can happen, but it is a curious bit of potential unusualness surrounding an important part of the document. Anyone versed in forensic analysis of typography would be able to put it to rest quite quickly.

  • Andrew


  • A paragraph in Hank’s article stands out strongly for me:

    The LENR “landscape” on the blogs and forums grows more toxic each and every day that the battle between Leonardo Corporation and Industrial Heat wages onward. With relatively little factual information to go on — for example the ERV report has yet to be published by either party — individuals supporting both sides strike at each other viciously like cobras ready to dig in with their poisonous fangs. Their snide remarks, extreme hostility, and often outrageously rude and inappropriate behavior (personal attacks) are doing damage to the entire field, potentially pushing interested parties away and making the whole field of cold fusion (LENR) appear unappealing to become involved with. For a area of research struggling to be accepted by a mainstream scientific community that has already expressed total contempt, this is totally unacceptable.

    If the IH shenanigans have been largely driven by an intent to quietly capture relevant IP, and to delay the general progress of CF, then it would be logical to simultaneously try to drive people away from the whole topic – followers, inventors and potential customers and investors alike. The undue aggression, misinformation and downright unpleasantness exhibited in widespread commenting by Dewey Weaver and Hody/Yugo, and to a lesser extent by Rothwell, Lomax and others, seen in this light would make a great deal of sense.

    • georgehants

      Morning Peter, would you agree that the whole situation would be completely different, if after five and a half years Mr. Rossi had allowed a single fully independent third party, open, repeatable, test of his most basic claims.
      If Mr. Rossi had any patent application etc. showing the necessary details for a repetition by anybody skilled in the art etc.
      One must stay open-minded, I am just asking what seems the most obvious questions.

      • Hello George, I hope you and yours are well.

        In principle, yes to your question, but I fear that even the most solid, incontrovertible proof would still have been lost in a mire of synthetic FUD, and nothing would have been gained or changed.

        As to the rest, while I have no doubts whatsoever that LENR is a real phenomenon, that Rossi has at least some of the answers, and that this knowledge has yielded a workable but probably flaky CF boiler system, any faith I had in AR actually marketing a viable product in the forseeable future is at a very low ebb, as he is up against forces too powerful for one man to overcome.

        In addition I have extreme doubts about (to be frank, don’t believe) the customer/secret production story, many reservations about the ‘quark x’ narrative on JoNP (due simply to the so far total lack of physical evidence) and I remain neutral about claims or inferences of new partnerships, factories being designed and built, additional heaters being assembled to order, etc, etc.

        All will be revealed in due course, but I no longer hold any expectation of seeing the world transformed by Rossi’s reactors within my lifetime, as I believe that TPTB have won, by successfully using Darden and cronies to delay the introduction of CF until a time of their choosing. Infinitely sad, but that’s the world we live in, and it will take a miracle to shake off the parasites.

        • georgehants

          Morning, yes it all started out so well years ago, with these pages full of all the possible uses for Cold Fusion soon.
          Forgetting Mr. Rossi’s dreams of riches beyond compare, it would seem that, as in the beginning, only a free release of the technology (if genuine) is going to get things moving.
          As you know this has always been my position allowing that Mr. Rossi must be “fairly” rewarded and recognised for his achievements (if genuine).
          As you say we are all getting older, but I still have that HOPE that things will before to long start to bring benefits.
          On the down side not a single open report Worldwide of any repetition of Cold Fusion clearly, reliably and repeatably above COP 1.
          All the best.

          • Agreed. OZ’s post above in reply to AlainCo explains the suppression mechanism in play. The only question seems to be whether Darden is acting on his own behalf, or (as I’m inclined to believe) as a front for other, larger, players who prefer to remain hidden from view.

            ONLY the release online of fully detailed, working instructions for making a CF reactor can now break these tactics. Otherwise the scenario I’ve been putting forward for years – of monopoly control by the PTB, slow, centralised introduction for metered powergen only, and suppression of all private/small scale useage – will play out unopposed.

    • IH is not at all deterring people to look for LENR.
      They support scientists and report “some succes”, among which E-cat is not.

      Why is it so hard to admit I’ve been fooled like many have been.

      The story details are ridiculous, ham-handed (funny term) as say Jed…
      It remind me DGT.
      I hope yet another (credible) inventor do not organize us such a theater.

      • The alternative take on that is that they are engaged in acquiring all available CF IP, but have no intention of using it themselves. There are several viable explanations for such behaviour which have been explored on this blog.

        As to the rest, I can’t argue with that.

      • Omega Z

        IH/Darden is helping LENR, OR more likely one of those Controling LENR.

        IH/Darden are Venture Capital. They are not your freind. They are a necessary Evil. This has always been the case. However, Old time Venture Capitalists will tell you that(And have stated this), Compared to today’s Venture Capitalists, those of the old days look like saints.

        Note: Brillouin Energy / Robert Godes retains only 5% of his IP.
        In 2017 should Godes announce high temp success with COP>10 and he intends to go to market, Think again. It is not his decision to make. Even if they let him believe that for the time being. Those who control the 95% will decide- If it comes to market and how much per KW they will charge. Not Godes.

        Strange that in the IH/Rossi contract, Rossi would have retained 50% of the World Market. However, an examination of the contract and IH/Dardens actions indicate they intended to remedy that. Thus Industrial heats international Patent application without Rossi’s approval.

        Incidentally, Had that patent been approved(It was rejected in January), there was nothing Rossi could do about it as they included his name on it. All he could do is go along and hope they paid royalties to him. Extremely unlikely as they have no intention to market it. Rossi is then blocked as with Godes situation, Rossi would no longer control his IP.

        Perhaps the above situations are why some in the U.S. are pushing for a change in the U.S. patent laws. That change would specify if you have a patent of a beneficial technology, you must bring it to market. Alternatively if you don’t, The Government could declare the patent null and void…

  • Alain Samoun

    “the customer sent them an invoice”
    It’s not the customer who sent the invoice but the customer asking IH to send him (JM) an invoice based on the heat it had received. Anyway that the way I understand it… Not usual that a customer asks to be invoiced but it happens. The question then is: Did IH invoiced and received the money from JM?

    • SG

      Yes, the Answer was sloppy at best, or misleading at worst, when describing the “invoices.”

      • jimbo92107

        Within the framework of a big con, the clever fraudster might invent a company that bore a strong resemblance to one that was well known. He might even vigorously deny any connection to the famous company, hoping to encourage rumors.

        • He most brilliant, idiotic, genius, ham-handed fraudster there ever was!

    • An invoice from IH would have been ‘proof’ that they had received the amount of electrical power stated, and also tacit recognition that ‘J M Products’ was both a real entity and a ‘customer’. It would have been quite a valuable document for Rossi if he was already collecting ‘evidence’ at this stage. I doubt very much that Vaughn would have fallen for this move.

  • Alain Samoun

    If there are no invoices and no payments,this shows that right at the beginning of the test IH knew that it was no customer – This may have an impact on the judgement…