Prometeon, Srl, Addresses E-Cat Licensee Status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In our case this is ridiculously false!

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

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

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

  • Ged

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

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

    • Chris I

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

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

      • Ged

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

        • Chris I

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

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

          Yes, they appear to be irreconcilable logics.

          • Ged

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

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

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

            • Chris I

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

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


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

              • Ged

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

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

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

                Now, let’s look at an actual licensing agreement from the real world wilds:

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

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

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

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

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

                • Chris I

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

                • Ged

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

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

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

                • Chris I

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

          • Ged

            Here, this may be helpful, check out page 10 of this US law IP licenseeing guide on changes-of-control

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

          • Ged

            Here we go, I found a much easier to read resource

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

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

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

  • bitplayer

    I’m actually a fanatic for reality. Which we have to approximate with our ability to know. Which is limited to our ability to model. Which is always limited to a certain scope. Within which the most useful models consist of networks of causes and effects. Which are most useful when they account for all the observed phenomena to a high degree of refinement. Which is always limited by availability of information, subjective sources, and our own projections. And which we then compromise by translating them into metaphorical language, using words like “fanatic”, Which are always anchored by pre-existing emotional convictions.

    In other words, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s either a duck, a robot duck, a holographic projection of a duck, a hallucination of a duck, or a chicken in a duck costume. But something that belongs to a network of causes and effects.

    My issue with the Rossi anti-fanatics is that they never produce an alternative model that accounts for even a small portion of the available information about Rossi’s work. It’s like, “Hey, I’ve never seen it swim or fly, so it must not be a duck”. Or, “That didn’t sound like a quack to me, that sounded like a honk, so it must not be a duck.”

    I find it interesting to note that the network of causes and effects works right into the brains of the people doing the modeling. For example, a choice to use the word “fanatic” would come from a set of causes. Lacking any empirical evidence to support such an appellation, a possible cause would be the sense of the word “fanatic” pre-existing in the mind of the person who chose to use that word. And since we’re all primarily looking at the world through the lens of our self-models, and we’re all primarily focused on our self-interest (but we can try!), that pre-existing sense would likely pertain to one’s self, or at least one’s close personal experience.

    So, do you deal with a lot of fanatics?

    • you make a good explanation of the problem about cargo cult skeptic. they are conspiracy theoris who don’t admit it.

      they often call us conspiracy theorist.
      some of us use conspiracy assumption like oild conspiracty…

      but the evidence don’t match …
      today I support the theory of groupthink, and of public availability of tha data.
      the fraud of Taubes is not even secret and publicly denounced… just this fact is ignired. same for the fraud of MIT… the incompetence of Caltech, the clear premature insult of APS board agains cold fusion is public.
      the evidence of McKubre are public, and the absence of any published paper that support the skeptic theory without being refuted alredy by mainstream calorimetry.

      the absence of theoretical foundation to the impossibility of cold fusion, match the absence of theory to explain it as much…

      al is public.

      the groupthink is a phenomenon as clear and mainstream as was the foundation of Subprime crisis, as is French miseconomics culture, ..

      there is no question about groupthink, except blindness…
      but it is also well documented that groupthink, and much as paradigm, cannot be recognized by those who suffer from it…

      it is funny that we are told to be unscientific while we have the most evidence, and we even have a mainstream model for the mental disease of scientific and media community, with a long file of historical support…

      what is happening on cold fusion is also happening on ….. biiiiip… cannot say too much.;-)

      • bitplayer

        Works for me! 🙂

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Very well said, bitplayer. To be open-minded means not to exclude any possibility. That’s basically what Rossi means when he refers to Husserl’s phenomenological “Epoché”. This is, by the way, not only a hint for the skeptics; some of the believers who tend to classify everybody who asks a legitimate question as a “troll” should as well think about it.

    • psi2u2

      “For example, a choice to use the word “fanatic” would come from a set of causes. In the absence of delineated empirical evidence to support such an appellation, a possible cause would be the sense of the word “fanatic” pre-existing in the mind of the person who chose to use that word. And since we’re all primarily looking at the world through the lens of our self-models, and we’re all primarily focused on our self-interest (but we can try!), that pre-existing sense would likely pertain to one’s self, or at least one’s close personal experience.”

      Brilliant. I have followed a similar type of misuses of language, of prejudging the discussion with one or a few emotionally charged words, and noticed that this typifies a position that can’t be defended more openly and honestly. But this is the best description of the exact process of the genesis of such images, revealing their self-generated and self-descriptive character, that I have read.

  • Omega Z


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Hello Omega,

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

      Those publications and others are detailed on

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Omega Z

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

        Note of interest. On Rossi’s JONP-Board of Advisers.
        Richard Noceti, Ph.D. (

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

        Info as to LTI & Ampenergo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Kevin O

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

      • Omega Z

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

      • JEFF

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

    • Obvious

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

      • Omega Z

        OMG, What was I thinking? 🙂

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

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

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

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