Rossi’s E-Cat and Big Oil (Mason Ainsworth)

The following post has been submitted by Mason Ainsworth

The recent Stockholm demonstration astounded me. By design, intuition, or simple luck, Rossi appears to be taking advantage of, if not pushing Big Oil towards a fracturing of a sense of coalition by presenting the means for attaining and possibly maintaining a competitive advantage for many years to come.

It is constructive to place this impression in context by quickly summarizing a personal perspective of the history of the E-Cat and Rossi starting with his 2011 public demonstration in Bologna. Consequently, relevant trends become evident, rendering a picture of important forces supporting this opinion. To do otherwise is to open one to imaginative arguments.

First, there is an abbreviated history covering the progression of the following: the E-Cat technology, the growth in reported COP, the forms of investor involvement, the forms of 3rd party and public demonstration and validation tests, the degree of acceptance for LENR science, Rossi’s use of outside consultants, and the apparent changes in Rossi’s public posture. It is abbreviated so as to not get caught up in analyzing the details.

Then, I address the current moment and what came out of the Stockholm demonstration. Due to the presence of Mr. Hurley, I layout my impression of the strategic health of the global Oil Industry, the economic impact of the QuarkX, a back of the envelope assessment of the oil industry strategic state of mind, and the political climate.

Finally, an opinion is then presented which hopefully is faithful to the picture painted.


We have patiently seen the progression of Rossi’s technology going from the original E-Cat to the Low and High-Temp E-Cats, and now to the recent E-Cat QuarkX. This progression includes the actual size of the reactor module, the refinement of the materials used for the reactor housing, as well as the controllability and reliability of the technology, which has just recently passed a 5σ threshold and shows “light switch” On/Off performance. Also, the E-Cat was originally presented as a heat engine. However with the very recent development of the Quark configuration, the forms of output have expanded to include heat, light, and electricity. But, Rossi is maintaining a focus on developing the E-Cat QuarkX as a heat generator

Of key interest to the practical minded, there has been a progression of the COP over the different incarnations. It seemed to start at around 3, then jumped to 10, and with the relatively recent 1-Year test 80. Now we have 500. This is not to ignore the Gullstrom-Rossi test with COPs of 2000 and 22,000. As a reminder, the following is a rough approximation of the impact of high COPs upon the transition from heat generated from grid-provided electricity and LENR generated heat.

COP stands for Coefficient of Performance and is equal to Energy Out/Energy In. A COP=80 means a significant economic benefit to an industrial operation that uses grid electricity to generate heat. When this operation switches to a LENR heat engine, $1.00 of grid electricity will generate “$80” of LENR generated heat, or the business will now only need to buy $1.25 of grid electricity to generate “$100” of heat. A COP=500 means this business now needs to buy $0.20 of electricity to generate “$100” of heat. Please note, in this simplification, the actual cost associated with the purchase of an E-Cat QuarkX heat supply is excluded.

The progression of different forms of investor involvement reflects a raw beginning with franchise investors and ending with the dissolution of the IH-Rossi license arrangement preceded by the buying out of most franchise investors. Now, there appears to be a new partner where the legal and financial relationship is undefined but presented in a positive light by Rossi, who implied that the recent 5σ effort was suggested by this mysterious partner. It is important to recognize that the final mutual agreement between IH and Rossi at the end of the IH-Rossi legal action fulfilled Rossi’s expressed goal, the full termination of all IH rights to the IP.

The progression of 3rd Party demonstrations and validation tests begins with the 2011 Bologna demonstration. In addition, with this progression, it should be noted that for each of these tests the number of new people directly involved with Rossi and the tests grow. There followed the two academic oriented tests by those who have been called the Lugano team, in 2013 and 2014. Then, there was the 1-Year test ending in early 2016, and now we have the recent 2017 Stockholm demonstration. It should be noted that the 2014 Lugano report presented information that simply baffled the supervising academic scientists. Nothing in their backgrounds enabled them to understand the isotopic transmutations of the isolated elements . . . and their conclusion indicated their acceptance of what they saw but a lack of ability to describe the mechanism, calling for further experimentation.

The progression of LENR science started with simple disbelief and now is accepted as a mysterious fact of nature, though this is not acknowledged in the mainstream. Many will say that Rossi helped to forge the way, citing the reported duplication of the Rossi Effect as an effective factor in this progression.

All of the above has had an effect on the progression of arguments presented by the Trolls/Skeptics, at least as seen here at E-Cat World. They first started with the grand posture of “it goes against the Laws of Physics” and “Rossi went to prison for wicked disreputable fraudulent reasons”. Now with the passing of time they have narrowed the focus on how each test/demonstration is unable to answer the flood of questionable questions, or lacks the validation of “true science” due to Rossi’s physical involvement and his withholding of critical proprietary IP information. The question of the LENR phenomena is no longer the question, only Rossi’s integrity. The attack is focused on specific details and not the broad inclusive context summarized here.

Rossi’s attitude has changed over the years. There seems to be a growing use of outside consultants on how to improve the E-Cat. We have seen that constructive outside perspective has aided in selection of the materials suitable for the extreme temperatures within the reactor (about 2600C), and the modification of the structure/form to support efficient heat dissipation. Rossi has described their expertise as coming from Aerospace, Robotics/Manufacturing, Nuclear Plant testing, and with the physical presence of Mr. Hurley at the Stockholm demonstration, Big Oil (Oil Refining)

Rossi’s change in attitude can be tied to a key moment, the successful resolution of the IH-Rossi legal action. There is the before. Now Rossi is clear that there will be no more direct involvement in outside validation or demonstrations. He no longer looks to academia for validation; he looks to the ultimate test of product acceptance in the free market. His focus is upon the industrialization with the strategic goal of being the extremely low cost producer. To this end, he is/will be contracting with the necessary engineers to optimize, to “productize” the E-Cat QuarkX and control box.


From the above, it is clear that Rossi has something real to share going into the demonstration. And his intent was to capitalize on the opportunity in pursuit of industrialization. He was focused upon signaling his intent. His choice of Stockholm is interesting and implies his wish to convey openness to a global audience and global opportunities.

The demonstration was astounding. Rossi told the story and demonstrated his ability to control a plasma which generated a COP=500. Further, he had William S. Hurley, an expert in oil refineries and an associate of a Fortune 100 Big Oil corporation Andeavor Inc., sitting to his right, in the “forbidden zone” behind the table.

As has been shared elsewhere, Andeavor is a corporation with about 1.2 Million barrels/day oil total refining production from multiple locations. William Hurley’s presence invites the question of how would Andeavor benefit from a LENR heat source with a COP=500? Estimates of annual costs saving have ranged between $1 and $4 Billion; estimates which, depending upon Andeavor’s strategic intent, could support debt of about $10 to $40bBillion, assuming a 10% cost of money, for various uses such as the ability to expand through price competition and/or purchase of other refinery assets.

The big problem Rossi arguably faces is “what would trigger the question in the mind of a corporate board of directors: would we be negligent or incompetent if we avoided LENR as an opportunity to address the growing pressure to act?” Rossi’s choice of staging the presence of Big Oil raises questions on the challenges the oil industry faces, challenges facing these corporate board of directors.

I won’t detail out formal responses to structures for analyzing competitive strategy that encompass: the threat of new entrants, the bargaining power of suppliers, the bargaining power of buyers, the threat of substitute products or services, the rivalry among existing competitors, and the formation of complementary coalitions or grouping of corporations. But, most of us are already aware of the changes impacting the global energy industry. Alt-energy sources such as solar have reached price parity with the least expensive forms of existing energy sources and are now moving towards a growing price advantage. There is an increasing probability expressed in the MSM for electric vehicles to dominate new vehicle sales in less than 10 years. The transition away from oil is an accepted though contested fact. The question is “When?” given there is a growing probability for global flat demand in 10 years or less and a growing probability for declining demand quickly after onset of this global flat demand. All of this suggesting that in 30-40 years oil demand will be driven primarily as chemical feedstock rather than as a source of energy.

This hypothetical board of directors also faces a global political landscape supporting these changes. Rossi has shown he is not isolated to USA. His outlook is global. He is willing to partner with those who behave as a trustworthy and trustable buyer, presuming a much stronger contract as compared to that of IH-Rossi. India and China are looking and are pursuing solutions to existing extreme air pollution problems. There is a growing emphasis on “quick” transition to electric vehicles and alt-energy. The examples are endless.


If the “Tipping Point” reflects a rebalancing of existing forces, then Rossi’s QuarkX’s evolution of a COP=80 to COP=500 materially changes the economic pressure supporting the implementation of LENR.

Rossi’s work with a representative of Big Oil integrates the simple unacknowledged fact that Big Oil is now planning, organizing, and acting in recognition of a foreseeable downsizing of global demand. A fact that nurtures the competitive mindset which is open to “creative destruction”; a mindset open to protecting the US oil industry at the expense of competitors, whether corporations or nations; a mindset that says “I’m going to eat your lunch and my lunch, before you can eat my lunch!”

Further, Rossi has the implicit threat of COP=22,000 for those holding positions of authority who act on the belief of protecting/managing the Status Quo, pushing them to accept a starting point for the integration of a new source of energy into the existing structure, guiding them to deal with the “small” rather than the “large” destabilizing force.

By design or intuition or simple luck, Rossi is forcing those industries and/or investors which care to put up or shut up for the simple reason: a COP=500 enables market place domination.
Will Rossi succeed? I want to believe so. Will his partner be with Big Oil? I don’t have an opinion either way aside from Hurley’s presence. Time will tell how Rossi’s story peaks.

  • sam

    Interesting article Mason.
    I wish someone would have been
    allowed in the “forbidden zone” and
    had a look at controller with top off.
    Would a trained eye learn a lot by
    seeing inside controller?

    • Buck

      Thus . . . the forbidden zone.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I think that when COP goes beyond 20, its value has decreasing importance. COP=6 is rather poor, 10 much better, 20 already nearly perfect because then one can produce primary electricity with good margins.

    • Buck

      Pekka, I think you might be evaluating the incremental benefits from your perspective rather than the perspective of a corporation like Andeavor.

      If you where Andeavor with an assumed annual electricity bill on the order of $4.5B based upon it taking about 6kWh/gallon for refining, what is the incremental benefit in cost savings between 40 and 500? The jump from 40 to 500 saves over $100M/year. It is a matter of scale.

      • Omega Z

        You need to discard the Fossil fuel cost structure.
        Then separate the energy cost from the E-cat technology;

        Ultimately, cost per KWh will be determined by the cost of the fuel divided by the number of KWh’s of energy extractible from it plus the small percentage of that energy produced to operate the plants.

        When you have a LENR Grid System powered by itself, Any COP beyond 20 becomes pretty much insignificant. Long ago, Rossi said the energy cost based on the energy density of the fuel would be around $0.003 per KWh. This will be included in the cost of the hardware.(QX) which will make up the bulk of the cost.

        • Buck

          What is the timing of your suggested changes. Today, 5 years, 10 years? How is the timing of change tied to the initial sales of the E-Cat QuarkX?

          How does your assessment change if the initial sales are to specific industries outside of the electricity production grid suppliers such as the oil industry or food industry or etc.?

          • Omega Z

            Well, obviously, E-cat tech will be used for heat 1st. Electric will come some time later. Andeavor adapting the tech early would have a substantial savings. If Electric power came 1st, it’s quite possible Andeavor wouldn’t see the savings justifing the investment.

            I would suspect 5 years before much happens. We are talking huge business investments. Many will cautiously watch for results from 1st adapters.
            I would say this. In 30 years or so, people will look back and say wow. That happened fast. However, from this point in time, it looks like a snails pace.

          • Buck

            I agree. Rossi’s decision to focus on heat is the smarter choice. Further, I can easily imagine the same hindsight view 30 years down the line.

            Regarding the 5 year point, I don’t know. I don’t have a definition in mind for “much happens”. For me, I am looking at the first installation at something the scale of Anderavor and then 12 months later when there is experience to assess the actual impact on the business. Given what has been said so far, I can imagine this happening in the 2-4 year range. Of course this is heavily dependent upon the ability to optimize the controller and the QuarkX housing.

    • ARM

      A COP > 1 is all that’s needed say it is a COP = 1.2 then you feed it to power up 20% more devices and so on the output of all the devices at level four will be a little better than 2. So now enclose all these in a new device with COP = 2.
      Now let’s put these COP = 2 devices to work the same way we did with the 1.2. Your output will have grown to 16 times the original and so on. I would become very rich if I had a machine with a COP of 1.2.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Rossi is talking about recovering heat dissipated by the control box. Hard to think why he would do that if the COP would really be as high as 100 or 500, or even 40.

    • Dr. Mike

      A very good point. It is interesting to note that in his discussion of the demonstration Mason states that Rossi “demonstrated his ability to control a plasma which generated a COP=500”. Actually Rossi demonstrated that he could “control” a plasma in a system with a COP probably much less than 1.0.

  • Warthog

    Couple of quibbles. Any legal agreement will between the “partner” and Leonardo Corporation. Leonardo officially owns the IP. Andeavor as a corporate entity was only established this year. Formerly they were “Tesoro”.

  • artefact

    OT: Brilliant Light Power
    December 1st video

    “Video of hydrogen compound formation in a reaction chamber displayed at
    10X speed with an insert of filaments of the compound in air displayed
    at normal speed. Detonation of a hydrino reaction mixture produces an
    energetic power release and forms filamentous chemical products
    comprising a metal and hydrogen. Each product is ferromagnetic and each
    comprises a metal not known to form a hydride or to be magnetic.”

    BTW: Does someone know what happend to Mills Yahoo group “SocietyforClassicalPhysics”? Did it move somewhere else?

    • Dr. Mike

      I don’t know what the purpose of this video is. Seems like BLP should be close to showing a prototype SunCell outputting heat.

      • cashmemorz

        The Suncell is just the third of a reasonably close to commercialization item of six items based on Mill’s theory. The theory was actually started in 1986 by Herman Anton Haus, electronics engineering professor at MIT. The first item developed by Haus was the Free Electron Laser, developed for and in use by the military. The second was the Millsian, a molecular modeler, in use by several thousand downloaders since 2012, based on the formulas in the theory.

        Fourth in line would be the extremely inert plastics, which link by artefact shows one of the core production processes for such materials.

        A fifth item would be the antigravity device being developed by senior lecturer Huub Bakker, at Massey University. Bakker gave a balanced discussion of the physics in a lecture, leading up to the device. Then the sixth, a flying saucer with seemingly “alien” abilites, in terms of flight, achieved by manipulating gravity, based on the antigravity device and the inert plastics might be a later device.

    • cashmemorz

      I originally found SocietyforClassicalPhysics at the following link a few years ago and that link still works today Dec. 1. 2017.

      • artefact

        Works for me now, too. Yesterday and earlier today I had problems. Thanks.

  • Buck

    I found Alan Smith’s comment about his conversation with William Hurley very interesting:

    “I had a word with the oilman. I asked him what his interest was, a politer version of ‘wtf are you doing here?’ His reply was – ‘I work for a huge refinery company with plants all over the USA. We use a lot of heat.’ ”


  • roseland67


    Forget it amigo, deaf ears

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Anon2012_2014

    How do we know William S Hurley is associated with big oil? Does anyone have his CV/resume? I can’t find anything on Endeavor Los Angeles linked to Mr. Hurley, or a refiner or energy company. There a many Mr. Hurley’s, but the guy from Photonics is likely not the one we are talking about, as he is an executive, not an energy.

    • Buck

      I found Alan Smith’s comment about his conversation with William Hurley very interesting:

      “I had a word with the oilman. I asked him what his interest was, a politer version of ‘wtf are you doing here?’ His reply was – ‘I work for a huge refinery company with plants all over the USA. We use a lot of heat.’ ”

      • Anon2012_2014

        Sounds like Hurley works for someone like the Koch Brothers, i.e. a large private refinery only business. We do have to think about their motivations which are simple — make and keep as much money as possible. While they would make some money from selling the Rossi device, they face a large loss in the value of their refineries being accelerated by a switch away from fossil fuel. It would be in their interest to hold off the market penetration of anything that would prevent them from recovering what they feel is full value from their refineries. They already know that the refinery business has something like a 40 year useful life going forward due to the penetration of electric vehicles. You can model their behavior as “what would they do to get the most money out of those refineries” between now and 2060. It is interesting.

        I am still waiting for more conclusive proof of power in/power out on the ECat-X. Maybe so are Hurley’s masters.

        • Stephen

          There is little doubt I think that the calorimetery showed 20 W output.

          So its a question of the supplied power.

          I think this might be the proof:

          What do you think?

        • Omega Z

          Andeavor refines 1.2 MBL a day. Just over 5% of the U.S. refinery capacity. Including Natural gas, that number rises to about 2 MBL equivalent. They also appear to have ownership in a 50MW CHP power plant and like 350MW CHP plant, but I don’t know the status of them.

          What would their motivation be. An Energy transition will take decades. Even after that, the world will continue to use it as feed stock.

          Before the Gulf spill, BP had already stated they had ZERO intentions of building new oil refineries. That they may expand capacity to some extent in existing plants, but mostly tweak them to increase capacity.

          There reasoning was that
          1st, it takes about 40 years to recover the cost of a new refinery and they don’t think economically viable oil will be available that long.
          2nd, Existing plants would likely outlast the economically extractible oil.

          In 40 years, 90% of all known oil reserves will be depleted. While they will obviously discover additional oil, they will also discover some existing reserves don’t actually exist. For over a dozen years it seems what they find is excluded elsewhere. Obviously as these reserves are depleted, the price will only go up.

          We do need to get off oil for transportation. Ir should be preserved for feed stocks, because while there is a lot of noise about making synthetic oil’s, they are not cheap. And LENR or Not, they will never be cheaper then what nature provides free.

          • Anon2012_2014

            How do we know it is Andeavor. His signature said:

            “William S. Hurley
            Senior Engineer- Endeavor
            Los Angeles”

            I think they are different companies. Andeavor is the old Tesoro Petroleum. Endeavor sounds like an engineering consulting company operating out of Los Angeles. See bottom of:

          • Buck

            I asked this question of Mats Lewan. He confirmed the correction to the slide.

          • Omega Z

            It stated refinery. Read Bucks post above about Alan Smith’s convo with Hurley

        • Buck

          Yes, it is in their interests to protect the value of their business. However, they recognize that there will be a contraction in oil demand, therefore a contraction in the demand for refinery capacity. I believe the argument is that the first mover gains an advantage for protecting and ensuring the maximization of capacity utilization . . . other refineries will experience reduced capacity utilization.

  • LarryJ

    Sounds like you’re whistling while walking past a graveyard. The lineup of experts Rossi fooled has become embarassingly long. Your nightmare is coming true.

  • Curbina

    Good to see I’m not the only former Rossi suporter that has come to the same sad but true conclusion.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    First of all, COP the ratio of power out over power in. The only way it can become “negative” is if the sign of one of the power terms changes. To do so would imply that the device “absorbs” energy (when the power out is negative) and would be a great refrigerator. Alternately, the device might actually produce power (power in reverses direction and the device is a generator). That would be even more useful.

    The only thing that I care about at this stage in the development is to measure the actual power into the device and heat out of the device — intrinsic COP. Since Rossi would not let anyone measure the voltage and current across/through the device in a manner that would definitively show power consumed, it is open to question. WIth a high intrinsic COP, the power for the controller can be reduced to nothing relative to the intrinsic COP by proper engineering.

    Let’s ask the hot fusion people if they are really measuring “wall power” with their apparatus — do they take account the cooling, vacuum pumps, etc. or are they simply measuring the peak instantaneous power in and thermal power out?

  • Anon2012_2014

    And we know that (that Hurley works for Andeavor) because of what evidence? His signature said Endeavor. Not the same.

    • Buck

      I asked this question of Mats Lewan (Andeavor rather than Endeavor). He confirmed the correction to the slide.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Maybe the spell checker changed it.

    • catman

      Did you missed my post just below?
      It comes clear from Lewans slides.
      BTW I was also present in Stockholm while it was confirmed.

      • Anon2012_2014

        Thank you, I got it that Lewans corrected the typo from Endeavor to Andeavor.

  • Buck

    Interesting Point. Rossi is saying that going from 30% of the rated output for a Quark to 100% raises the COP in the same proportion.


    Marco Serra
    December 2, 2017 at 4:33 AM

    Dear Andrea

    congratulations for the great demo you did of your invention. The world is no more the same. I was waiting this moment for years and now that it’s happened it seems to me impossible that everything still go on the same way. I was expecting a great emphasis and a global media coverage. First pages in newspapers and TV news and things like that. But …. nothing! Mah?! We must be patient Andrea, the world don’t really understand the relevance of this event. Wasn’t there scientific reporters attending the demo in Stockholm ?

    Another technical question, you stated that the QuarkX was at 30% of its potential and it was reported a COP near 500. Does it means that the COP con be over 1500 when QuarkX operates at its full power ?

    God Bless you

    Marco Serra


    Andrea Rossi
    December 2, 2017 at 8:15 AM

    Marco Serra:

    We want not to have a great emphasis while the product is not on the shelves. Then we will apply the necessary force to the emphasis.


    Thank you for your kind attention to our work,

    Warm Regards,


  • Buck

    ABB is still part of the story.


    December 2, 2017 at 3:22 AM

    Dr Andrea Rossi:

    Can you tell us who will make the robotized lines of the E-Cat factory? Are you still working with ABB?




    Andrea Rossi
    December 2, 2017 at 8:21 AM



    Warm Regards,


  • Omega Z

    ->”None of his inventions have worked in the past, not even his biofuel machine”

    Says Mr Krivitz….

    Thermal depolymerization(TDP): So Rossi broke a perfectly good technology. The 1st industrial process was designed and patented in the late 1920s.

    Claiming it didn’t work was disingenuous of Krivitz. It was never a question of it working. An intelligent person would have asked an intelligent Question. Was it profitable? My guess that at the time, given Rossi was paid for the disposal service and the oil situation and price of oil, it probably was profitable at that time.

    The profitability of Thermal depolymerization even today has it’s ups and downs. When sources of waste can one day pay you for disposal to suddenly being a feed stock for another process and then commands you pay a fee. Profitability also depends on the price of crude.

    Mr Krivitz also indicated that the Rossi’s Thermal Electric Generator didn’t work. First that was Military exploratory research contracted with LTI of which Rossi was one of the co-founders and in collaboration of many people including a University. The TEG that Rossi hand built was found to be close to specs.

    The Army then commissioned 2 manufacturers to build around a dozen each. It was those TEG’s that failed to meet the required specs. The Army report recommended additional funding for material sciences and advanced manufacturing technics based on this exploratory research. Which was exactly the purpose of the research from the start.

  • kenko1

    The oil industry will still need heat to refine for chemicals, fertilizers etc.. That’s roughly 1/3 of today’s refinery output. Rossi is integrating where e-cat heat energy will replace fossil fuel heat energy INCLUDING refining. He’s letting the big boys in on the action rather than shutting them out. smart.

    • ARM

      minor problem there are no takers so far

    • roseland67

      I should have been more clear.

      LENR, If it works as stated, will take a significant market share away from the oil industry, so ultimately, Big Oil
      Will not want to see LENR come to market.

      • Buck

        corporations within an industry facing a decline in demand as with fossil fuel industry, doesn’t behave as a coalition/cartel . . . especially when there is a technology line LENR.

  • LarryJ

    You forgot , or he’s a genius that wants to actually make this happen.

  • ARM

    A- fraud
    B- selfish
    C- all the above

    The correct answer is C.

  • Buck

    I have a more optimistic outlook.

  • Buck

    Fortunately, there is Mats Lewan who confirmed the typo and need to correct. In addition, to Allan Smith’s conversation with Hurley.

    Sometimes Google doesn’t know everything like that time where recently for about a week it did not “know”” existed.

  • Buck

    And would this be the song Rossi and his wife are dancing to? (I am guessing that Rossi and wife wouldn’t mind being compared to Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.)

  • Omega Z

    Probably William Hurley scrubbed his presence from the internet. Taken a page out of Fulvio Fabiani book who’s Rossi connected activities were outed on Facebook, LinkedIn among others multiple times…

  • Buck

    It is hard to be more clear about the consequences of the Stockholm demonstration and the subsequent financing agreement with the mysterious new partner.

    Great set of questions Frank!


    Frank Acland
    December 18, 2017 at 9:06 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    So if I understand correctly:
    1. You are working now to develop the first E-Cat industrial product?
    2. You are working now to develop the robotic system to make the first E-Cat industrial product?
    3. You will only present the product when both 1 and 2 are accomplished?
    4. After success with 1 and 2 and 3, you plan to expand the production capability for massive production of E-Cats?

    Thank you,

    Frank Acland


    Andrea Rossi

    December 18, 2017 at 3:28 PM

    Frank Acland:

    1- We are working now to start the industrialization of the E-Cat QX for industrial applications
    2- yes
    3- yes
    4- yes

    Warm Regards,


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