Rossi vs. Industrial Heat — How is Boeing Involved?

A couple of new documents have been posted in the court documents recently regarding a hearing that is scheduled to be held on February 9th in the office of magistrate John J O’Sullivan in Miami. The documents are 133 and 135 here. In my mind there is nothing too remarkable about the documents — they announce scheduled hearings regarding documentation submitted to the court by Fulvio Fabiani and James A. Bass — except for one item on the the second document which is signed by Andrea Rossi’s attorney, John Annesser whch reads:

“Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order as to the deposition of J.M Products, Inc., United States Quantum Leap, LLC, Fulvio Fabiani, and the Boeing Company”

I believe this is the first time I have heard mention of Boeing in connection with Rossi, and Boeing has not been brought up in the court case until now. The only possible connection that I can think of is that Rossi has said in the past that he had been doing some kind of research involving a jet engine, and there was some kind of connection with an aerospace company — but as usual he was pretty vague about it all.

It sounds like whatever the depositions here are, that Rossi’s team is seeking a protective order, which means they don’t want the information in the depositions to be made public. So we might not find out what Boeing’s involvement might be. But it’s interesting to see them mentioned.

  • hempenearth

    Keeping up with/ahead of the Airbus work?

  • LindbergofSwed

    I just realized $89M is small potatoes

  • Buck

    Remarkable . . . Presuming Rossi’s revocation of IH’s license to the E-Cat IP & technology holds up in court, I can only imagine Darden’s regret. Like many have noted, $89M is small potatoes compared to what will be the immense economic value of Rossi’s IP over the next 20 years.

  • Gerald

    I had noticed it to, but I wonder how official is name in such a document. So what is needed to use it is a case. I guess Rossi’s lawyer has to have a signed agreement from the legal department of the Boeing company? Probably get the name official in the contact list of the case somehow? Who know this stuf?

  • According to Dewey (investor in IH) Boeing was testing the E-Cat together with IH:

    • wpj

      Does that guy ever go to bed? Just checked your link and he has posted again which would be 4.30am in NC…..

      He claims that Boeing also failed to duplicate.

      • maybe he was in Western europe, or UK.
        or late night in California.

        • sam

          Huey Duck (red clothes) – Huey is particularly brave, and serves as the general leader of the trio.

          Dewey Duck (blue clothes) – Dewey is arguably the most clever of the three and sometimes fills in the role of leader over Huey.

          Louie Duck (green clothes) – Louie is probably the most creative thinker of the bunch and more laid-back than his brothers.

          Do you know where Louie is?
          We need a creative thinker.

      • Maybe he’s an early bird? 😉

      • Ged

        This is the first we have heard of this… Dewey is also extremely biased and has already heavily and intentionally mislead with statements about all this before, as we have seen as more data is released (as well as used absurd hyperbol like the place melting and the heat being visible from space).

        In short, I don’t believe him or anyone till we get more actual information. Could be Boeing just made or leased some important piece of equipment and that is the extent of their involvement. Considering they are showing up on Rossi’s side and not being brought out by IH, that also is suggestive.

    • Obvious

      I wonder how many devices were tested.

    • Mike Rion

      Firstly I wouldn’t believe anything Dewey Weaver says. Besides having a conflict of interest as an IH investor there is the distinct possibility that he is being paid by IH to do exactly what he is doing. At most I regard his posts as an irritating distraction.

  • Ged

    Not to dampen anyone’s spirits, but most likely the only role Boeing would have had here is consultation, as Frank points out. We know Rossi was investigating the use of the QuarkX output for jet engines. Boeing most likely would have just consulted Rossi on what output, tolerance, and other design conditions would be necessary to work with different jet engine designs, and seen the data regarding all that. Maybe they even went as far as doing simulations. This would explain why Boeing is appearing on the Leonardo’s third parties’ side of the table. But I very very much doubt they ever would have touched an e-cat, and not without Rossi hinting about it–and we don’t see them on the list of visitors to the plant (unless they used JMP for visiting).

    Nevertheless, if this were true, IH could be interested in getting the QuarkX data from Boeing (as they would need a full spec and data readout for consulting) under the pretense of this lawsuit, while Rossi would not want that as he has made it plain he doesn’t want IH getting the QuarkX IP.

    We may or may not find out, and I could be very wrong about the extent of their involvement. But at least it is another exciting twist for the movie adaptation.

  • FYI.

    Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

    (c) Protective Orders. Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending may make any order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense that justice requires, including one or more of the following: (1) that the discovery not be had; (2) that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place; (3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery; (4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters; (5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court; (6) that a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the court; (7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way; and (8) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court. If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery. The provisions of rule 1.380(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.

    In keeping with wanting to protect trade secrets. What Boeing has to do with this is anybody’s guess.

    • Bruce__H

      LENR G has focussed, in a speculative way, on a particular possibility within this rule but I would like to draw everyone’s attention to another part.

      Near the top it says “Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought …” the court may make a protective order. How does Rossi qualify as the party or person from whom discovery is sought? It seems to me that the motion could be denied on this basis.

      • Brent Buckner

        I think that the “a party” in “Upon motion by a party” is a party seeking discovery. (compare with the use of “parties” at beginning of the rule 1.280 (a) or the use of “party” in 1.280(2) at ). On my reading the party seeking discovery may request a protective order and the person from whom discovery is being sought may also request a protective order.

        • In any case both sides were subject to discovery once IH counter-sued.

        • Ged

          It’s more that the affected party of the discovery can make the motion to protect secrets from being made public or abuse of the discovery system against them through a third party.

      • Ged

        You understandably misunderstand the obtuse legalese. Again, for a specific example showing how this works, see:

        And for a more pragmatic discussion see:

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Well, in simple terms, this is just a request to limit the scope of discovery. I mean, perhaps they call Rossi’s next door neighbor to testify? The issue is really much who is/are the parties that are claiming to have suffered damages. They not trying to limit discovery of Rossi – but any dog, person or people involved with Rossi.

        So this is just a request to limit discovery here – what is next, e-cat readers are subpoenaed?

        Now of course some of this comes under trade secrets and an attempt to limit discovery that could harm Rossi – be it discovery or even the fact of disclosing other business partners.

        While I think that Boeing can be left out of this, I don’t think Pennon and the other engineer can be left out of this discovery process since they are the ones that provided data that being disputed. It also not clear if this request is in regards to Rossi and Boeing, or IH and Boeing.

        If it is IH and Boeing, then they “may” be able to introduce some evidence, but it proves little since IH is in the difficult position to show that the data collected is somehow invalid – and without the test on-going, that going to be HARD to do unless they have some clear data that shows otherwise.

        A day of some glitches proves nothing give the overall data dump they have (and so far given nothing that shows such data is wrong). The problem is no means exists right now to show the data is wrong or right – it just data but data that will be supported by testimony of who and how they gathered that data. Again I going to watch CLOSE as to how that data is dealt with. (since I am in a similar legal case right now).

        If IH insists the data is wrong, they really cannot show as such (or have not so far). I mean I have some temperature data from 5 years ago – how you going to show that data is wrong when you have no means to determine how the data was collected? (Answer: you get testimony from the people who collected the data – that’s all you can do).

        A smart judge would simply order the machine re-started and weeklong test to occur before the 80 million is handed over.

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Vinney

          There is not going to be $89 million handed over, according to OmegaZ (mentioned a month or two back, with links to contract clauses) the court case is now over ‘forfeit’ or IP and licensing rights, the suspension of commercial licenses and compensation and damages of up to 3 X the $89million (so close to $200 to $300 million).
          If true, AR will own IH and IPH, as they will be bankrupted.

  • Ged

    Basically. Particularly in regards to stopping trade secrets from being exposed publicly during discovery:

    IH is apparently trying to use discovery on something related to Boeing, which may be a trade secret (e.g. unrelated consulting for QuarkX applications, but who knows).

    See for an specific example:

    And for an interesting practical view on it:

  • GiveADogABone

    Is Boeing UK the UK entity behind JMC?
    …and Boeing Engineering, Operations & Technology, which helps develop, acquire, apply and protect innovative technologies and processes.

    What would Boeing want a lot of cheap steam for?
    Air Products’ advanced nitrogen supply system includes three 15,000-gallon liquid tanks and a steam sparged water bath vaporization system.

    • I can’t see Boeing setting up a company through Henry Johnson.

      A more natural Boeing connection would be the jet engine testing Rossi hinted at multiple times. Of course that presumes Rossi has something that gets ridiculously hot.

      • Buck

        Does 1500-1600 centigrade count as rediculously hot?

      • GiveADogABone

        If you were the production manager and were offered heat at 1/50th the price of natural gas to power three of these beasts and a seat in the front row of the stalls at the one year test, so you had all the data and knew it worked, what’s the problem?

        Where did those three E-cats that the customer ordered end up?

        Perhaps Boeing could fly the court to Everett and let them see the E-cat in action, if the first autoclave has commissioned? A scary thought for IH?
        First 777X autoclave ‘busts a move’ to the future at Everett site
        First of three wing fabrication autoclaves now in place
        September 08, 2015

        • Do you claim to know something, or are you just imagining possible applications?

          • GiveADogABone

            Neither. I would call it informed speculation.

            The informed part comes from a lot of research using Google. Starting from a search on ‘boeing steam’ I got to ‘boeing autoclave’ and ‘aerospace autoclave’. ‘Using ‘boeing steam nitrogen’ I got to :-
            ‘Air Products’ advanced nitrogen supply system includes three 15,000-gallon liquid tanks and a steam sparged water bath vaporization system.’

            It is the ‘steam sparged water bath’ that stands out. An ideal application for an E-cat. Imagine the JMC hidden plant as a ‘steam sparged water bath vaporization system’ supplied with liquid Nitrogen. The water side of the bath has an outlet temperature of 70C by design and operation. As long as you continuously supply liquid Nitrogen and 1Mw of steam from the E-cat, you get a continuous flow rate of Nitrogen gas.

            It turns out that 1Mw or 2Mw of steam is about right for the filling rate for the Boeing autoclave. That is just for the Nitrogen vaourizing. The autoclave needs another 1Mw or 2Mw for internal heating. These autoclaves cycle from hot to cool and vaccum to perhaps ten bar as part of normal operation and the Nitrogen inside is vented on every cycle, so the energy demand for Nitrogen vapourization is high.

            Then there is the question of where those three E-cats that the ‘customer’ ordered ended up. If the ‘customer’ was Boeing, the timing for a fit to the autoclave install is pretty much perfect. I consider such an application for the E-cat to be credible but proof or otherwise is for the future.

          • Interesting. Thanks.

      • Omega Z

        Rossi does have something that gets ridiculously hot. The E-cat at 1400`C to 1500`C. Jet engines start self destructing beyond 900`C.

        Rossi’s idea for the Quarks may actually have been concieved of because of the Jet engine concept. Quarks due to their size would allow for much greater and faster heat transfer.

        A 60% heat transfer of 1500`C would give you 900`C turbine temperatures. Something far less likely using the larger Hot cats.

        • Gerard McEk

          Hot cats can only on-off controlled. To contol a jet, you need many small QuarkX’s, individually controlled. Large quantities require high reliability to ensure a large majority switch on or off when needed and that is what AR is now doing.

          • US_Citizen71

            Easier control and faster response time would be acheived by using a ducted electric fan and throttle the motor up and down for most of the thrust control.

          • Omega Z

            Quarks have the advantage of turning off/on in minutes or less instead of hours.
            Quarks also greatly increase surface area for heat transfer.

        • US_Citizen71

          Forget turbines in the tradition sense. If the QuarkX for the sake of simplicity can reach a COP of 100. Then you could put current high temperature TEGs on the outside and blow air across them. Current TEGs are about 3% efficient so for a 1MW output QuarkX core I would need 10kW of electric in and get out 30 kilowatts electric and 900 plus thermal kilowatts out. You can blow a lot of air with a 20 kilowatts electric fan. Add in an expansion chamber and a thrust nozzle and you should have some decent thrust. While keeping the high speed moving parts nice and cool at the intake.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Let us recall that some time ago Rossi was talking many times (almost constantly) about an U.S. engineer with connection to an “important aerospace concern” who worked with the jet engine application of E-cat, for example Jan 21 2016 . It was also discussed on ECW, for example … It may also be that Rossi has had connections with more than one such aerospace and/or military contractors or perhaps retired engineers in connection with “jet” engine development. Boeing could well have been among them.

    • Jonnyb

      If it is really these guys then IH has potentially made a big mistake.

  • Omega Z

    Why would Boeing be sticking their nose into this.

    Anyway, If Boeing is checking into LENR, You can bet that Airbus will soon follow suit.

    Oh Wait ???

  • sean

    I believe that Boeing and along with manufactures like Lockheed and Airbus may be interested in the LENR technology, however these people make fuselages and wings and that kind of stuff and are experts in their field. But for Jet engine manufacturers, well they have specialists in their field. So we have General Electric, Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce that are well established in what they do and are very good at it and have there own secret source. If you see a report of an engine manufacturer being involved then you are really going to see something massive develop. Airbus has just proven the E-Fan electric aeroplane. It is possible to prdhase off the shelf electric motors, fans and batteries which would make more sense if you were to go LENR / battery combinations. Keep in mind that magnetic forces are far greater than thermal chemical generated forces. So when it happens it will revolutionise aviation. There will be no need for a hot exhaust ever again. Also if the EM drive ever comes to fruition, well here you have it. I believe the final and best job these LENR technologies will do for us, is to make electricity with great power in reserve. You can do anything you want with EMF.

    • US_Citizen71

      “There will be no need for a hot exhaust ever again.”

      Sure there will be a need for two reasons. One, thermoelectric conversion will never be 100% efficient so you will have waste heat to dispose of. Two, disposing of the waste heat in the air stream behind a ducted E-Fan will increase the thrust. So ideally you would design the engine to house the reactor inline with the air stream to cool the reactor and provide addition thrust.

      • Sean

        Good idea. I get your point. So like a hybrid, you are using all the available energy to convert to thrust. I like that. However I would like to see a near 100% thermal to electric converter invented one day if not for other uses like the space program. Cheers.

        • US_Citizen71

          100% efficiency would be nice but from my understanding of physics I do not think it is possible, I believe 80% is the theoretical maximum. TEGs require a temperature differential in order to operate. For space use you can radiate the heat away with large black body radiators facing away from the sun.

    • doug marker

      sean, thanks for mentioning the E-Fan – hadn’t seen it before. It really does open new possibilities for mobile ‘new energy’ generators that are lightweight and could supply ample energy to electric fan engines as shown on the E-Fan. The current range of 1-2 hours could be >greatly< extended by a small generator such as a LENR unit of perhaps a SunCell unit.

      Doug Marker

  • sam

    February 9, 2017 at 1:58 AM
    Dr Rossi, Now there comes a new claim that Boeing tested the Ecat for/with IH, and it did not work for them, were you present during this demonstration?

    Andrea Rossi
    February 9, 2017 at 7:41 AM
    I never knew of this demo and I do not know with which apparatus it has been done. I apprehended of it during the litigation. The replications I have been informed of from September 2013 through February 2016 are the ones on the base of which Cherokee Fund Partners-IH have collected 250 millions in UK and China. No further comment.
    Warm Regards,

    February 9, 2017 at 6:06 AM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Do you have evidence that IH has replicated your effect under your direction?
    Thank you,

    Andrea Rossi
    February 9, 2017 at 7:34 AM
    Yes. Many times under my direction and many times without informing me.
    Warm Regards,

    February 9, 2017 at 4:15 AM

    Andrea Rossi
    February 9, 2017 at 7:35 AM
    I am satisfied so far. Important check this morning.
    Warm Regards,

    • Interesting. So basically the situation seems to be that Industrial Heat brought in Boeing to test E-Cats and Rossi’s legal team is moving to limit, in some way, discovery related to that testing.

      On LENR Forum, Dewey asserts that Boeing’s test(s) did not find XSH (either). Perhaps then this is an effort to get that info excluded, rather than protection of any IP.

      • Ged

        That would be a twist, but… uh… why -Boeing-? This is not their field of expertise, and how would IH have a connection with them enough to get them to test something behind Rossi’s back (and test what, exactly?). Doesn’t add up with what we know so far, at all, so I don’t believe it.

        • Obvious

          Boeing has amazing ceramic manufacturing and heat testing capabilities. A bunch of reactor tests would be fun for the R & D team.

          • Ged

            Plenty of better and easier choices such as any company that runs a power plant or makes industrial heat exchangers or works with steam. Boeing is far fetched as none of that is really its field, especially when we already have their more suitable involvement as advising jet engine applications (and thus knowing trade secrets that discovery coukd cleverly bring out via them).

            If the evidence shows it is real, then so be it, but surely you can. See how bizarre and unlikely this seems? Sounds more like a conspiracy theory at the moment (though, those can indeed be true).

            Until proof comes out, I don’t believe it. But if someone can show a direct connection between IH and Boeing, that would help to build a case, rather than them appearing out of nowhere.

        • That’s a good question but it could be something as simple as somebody in IH had a buddy who worked at Boeing and the ball got rolling that way.

  • f sedei

    I believe IH grabbed hold of the proverbial Tar Baby in this case, and they are going to lose big time.

  • LION
    • Jonnyb

      I don’t think this article is particularly accurate. The launch sites listed are mainly for Horizontal Launch Vehicles. Because of various reasons, such as Air Traffic Control Vertical launch sites are being investigated in the far North of Scotland, such as Melness and South Uist. As I live near a proposed site I am not too pleased, I came here to get away from this sort of life, now it is following me, arhhhhhh.

    • Sean

      I wonder if Reaction Engines are behind this for testing their concepts. I think it would be better to test these in Nevada U.S.A. LENR could be useful in these Hypersonic Vehicles to provide power.

      • Jonnyb

        No it has nothing to do with this whatsoever. It is about Space Tourism and small Satellites for Horizontal Launch and Polar Orbit Launches for the Vertical Launches. There are a few nasty dictators that need monitoring.

  • Ged

    Boeing is not named in the suit. If it is, can you point me to it?

    Also, did you read the second link?

  • Ged

    No, it says “Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought”, do not reword it.

    You are mistaken here. The party can be an outside party about whom discovery is sought, see: In particular, “If a party is abusing discovery rights in a case, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26(C) lets the other party or outside party to ask the court for a protective order.”

  • Brent Buckner

    I haven’t seen you ask that question of me, I just volunteered my reading!

  • Ged

    But do you not see an enormous, glaring problem with that theory?

    If IH commissioned a test with Boeing as some claim, then they would have all the details and would not need to use discovery to get the information from Boeing. They also could just ask their Boeing partner, or use what they have; a protective order is Only for the formal discovery process, which is unneeded if they are on “the same side”.

    So, this is information that IH is not privy to, and which Boeing is not giving them, so Discovery has been called at Boeing to get it, and Rossi is countering with a protective order.

    But we’ll see what Judge O’Sullivan thinks. And I can always be corrective if actual evidence appears to the contrary–but none at all has as yet.

    • Obvious

      Dewey has been dropping hints about a very respectable lab (or similar characterization) having been used to confirm IH testing of Leonardo tech, for many weeks, if not months.

      • Mike Rion

        Again, Dewey Weaver has no credibility at all by this stage.

      • Ged

        There are coutnless better labs other than the avianics labs of Boeing. And if they were working with IH, then no formal discovery request would need to be used on them (as IH could just ask them through their own connection and put it in their Answer/Defense or exhibits), which a protective order could be used to counter.

        Seems to me the Dewey claim is getting incorrectly crossed with this protective order against discovery on Boeing to create a conspiracy theory. The evidence and logic do not so far align.

        • Obvious

          There are many labs, true.
          NASA, the US Navy, the Italian military, National Instruments, the one where Randombit/Rander tested emissivity, CERN ( where is rumoured Bert Abbing worked)…
          And don’t forget the magnificent Leonardo factory and lab.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Well, it also possible IH wants information about Rossi’s dealings with Boeing. So it might be the other way around!

  • sam

    Dewey Weaver said this on Lenr forum.

    BTW – no Chinese funds in any of the IH companies.

    • US_Citizen71

      Probably because they formed another subsidiary like International Industrial Heat IIH, China Industrial Heat CIH or something else. Those guys seem to love to create companies. So he would not actually be lying but not telling the whole truth.

      • Omega Z

        Darden creates a new LLC with every bowel movement.
        Appears to be a connection between the 2 (feces)

        • US_Citizen71

          That’s one way of putting it!

      • LilyLover

        No, they did not. The “insurance professors” of China/India are the “anti-assassination” tools for Rossi. IH realizes that those countries will and do have parallel and more successful “anti-IP” companies that will eject “IH” into trash. So, if they enforce IP, they’ll do that for the native companies. If they flout IP, they’ll do it for the native companies. IH does not matter. Therefore IH will not waste money in futility. They have no presence in China.

        They’ll simply “try” to fund “six different” technologies, in hopes of patent-trolling within USA; still to no avail.

        I again maintain that Cherokee is gonna do all it can to cut the losses by chopping off TD.

  • Brent Buckner

    That’s not how I parse the sentence. The way I parse the sentence is that it refers to “a party” or to “the person from whom discovery is sought”. In my parsing, “from whom discovery is sought” modifies only “the person” not “a party”.

  • lkelemen

    your big oil friendliness comes trough clearly

    • Fossil fuels are keeping us all alive, and we should stop demonizing that gift of nature that is feeding us, clothing us, sheltering us, and allowing all of us, our children, and our beloved pets and farm animals to live another day. Without fossil fuels we would not have even been born, and there would be no human civilization for radical environmentalists to complain about. I have never once seen any incident of oil companies trying to destroy a replacement for fossil fuels. Right now there is no replacement. If we do find one, it will be nuclear, not wind, solar, or biofuels. You cannot replace a three course meal (high energy density fossil fuels) with a single potato chip (low energy density wind, solar, and biofuels). That is the basic mathematical truth our politicians are not telling us.

      • Jas

        Have you watched Tony Seba’s video presentation on the Always open thread? You won’t like it one bit.

        • Buck

          Fantastic video ! ! !

          As strange as it sounds, Seba’s lecture, though he does not discuss LENR in any fashion as being imminent, suggests that the advent of LENR into the marketplace wont change the direction of change dramatically. Too many other disruptive technologies are already driving disruptive change.

  • Steve D

    “Despite lawsuit, Industrial Heat continues mission, investor says”

  • Jonnyb

    Very good Question!

  • sam

    Drew G.
    February 17, 2017 at 5:02 PM
    Dr. Rossi:

    Has a firm date been scheduled for the beginning of the jury trial between Leonardo and IH?

    Drew G.

    Andrea Rossi
    February 17, 2017 at 5:40 PM
    Drew G.:
    Yes, it will be in June.
    Warm Regards,

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.