Leonardo Corp. Press Release: “Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified – Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC” (ERV is Fabio Penon)

The following Press release has been published by Leonardo Corp. Source here: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cold-fusion-lenr-verified–inventor-sues-industrial-heat-llc-300247317.html

MIAMI, April 6, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Leonardo Corporation announced today that on March 29, 2016, Leonardo Corporation received independent third party validation of the overwhelmingly positive results of a nearly yearlong test of Leonardo’s 1MW Energy Catalyzer (“E-Cat”). According to the inventor, Andrea Rossi, the E-Cat generates a low energy nuclear reaction (“LENR”) which produces excess heat energy at a cost substantially below more traditional energy sources. According to the independent third party report, over the 352 day test period, the E-Cat consistently generated energy at a rate in excess of six (6) times the amount of energy consumed by the plant, often generating energy exceeding fifty (50) times the amount of energy consumed during the same period. According to Andrea Rossi, Leonardo Corporation considers the results of the third party test to be “an overwhelming success” and that “the world is one step closer to the realization of a commercially available new, clean and efficient energy source.”

The independent third party validation test was performed by Dr. Ing. Fabio Penon, a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering, at the behest of Leonardo Corporation and one of its licensees, Industrial Heat, LLC. as both desired independent third party verification of the sustainability of the energy production of the E-Cat over a prolonged period. “The results of Dr. Penon’s test was consistent with the measurements taken by the representatives of Leonardo Corporation and Industrial Heat respectively during the course of the test” said inventor Andrea Rossi.

“Leonardo Corporation is working diligently with its licensees, corporate partners and material suppliers to implement a production and distribution plan consistent with the expected demand for the E-Cat units when they are made commercially available” stated Rossi.

Notwithstanding, Licensee Industrial Heat continued involvement in the development and manufacturing of the E-Cat is uncertain at this time. As stated in a lawsuit filed by The Silver Law Group, P.A. on behalf of Leonardo Corporation on April 5, 2016, Leonardo Corporation believes that Industrial Heat breached the terms of its license agreement and misappropriated Leonardo Corporation’s intellectual property relating to the E-Cat. Additional information is available regarding the E-Cat at www.ecat.com. The lawsuit can be viewed at www.pacer.gov, Case No. 16-CV-21199-JLK, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida. Leonardo Corporation does not anticipate that there will be any delay in the commercial release of the E-Cat technology as a result of the lawsuit.

Contact: Leonardo’s attorney John Annesser, Esq. [email protected], 305-664-3955

SOURCE The Silver Law Group, P.A.
Related Links


  • Alan Smith

    I think it important to note that part of the ‘long test’ agreement was that the customer would pay IH (not Rossi) $1000/day for heat during the period of the test. Supplying 1MW of purely electrical heating around the clock at 12c/Kwh would cost close to $3000/day – a big difference.

    It has long been known that the customer was originally using gas boilers, whose running costs (including oversight and depreciation) must have been somewhere between $1000/$1500 per day. They changed over to electrical heating specifically to accommodate the E-cat.

    I think it extremely improbable that anyone would fail to notice that the customer’s heat energy costs had more than doubled during a one year period. In fact such a discrepancy would have been obvious after a few weeks, because someone would be picking up the tab for it. Even if that someone was Rossi (which seems unlikely) it is impossible to believe that IH’s own expert representatives would never check-read the electricity meters.

    Something smells very fishy here, and in my opinion the smell is coming from somewhere a long way north of Miami,

    • yes, it is not on the electric bill that can be the mistake.
      Maybe it can be on the calorimetry, but if the heat is really used, the industrialist will see it immediately as the power demanded is the lowest before the job is not done.

      for me the trick if there is is simply written in the report :
      the average COP is low, and unpredictable ?
      the reliability is very low ?
      the ERV think it is OK, but the client disagree -> one of the two is dishonest or incompetent… and the client cannot be incompetent.

      we need the report.

    • Pweet

      That is assuming the customer had a factory process which was up and running before the e-cat was installed.
      I have a feeling from other comments made, the customer specifically set up this facility to test the 1MW plant. If this was the case then there would be no previous energy bills to compare with. That would mean any comparison could only be made with what they estimated the energy costs would have been without the use of the ecat.
      While that does not in itself negate the test, it does present another facility whereby the results could be fudged.
      Is there any information which conclusively shows the test site was previously running for some years and the ecat was put in to replace a previous heat source?

      • Alan Smith

        Bless you Pweet, if we had conclusive information (in our possession) about almost any of this we would all either be building E-cats or taking up embroidery.
        The best we can do is say that is is fairly certain that the customer was Johnson Matthey and that they have a need for steam/hot water for making their version of Raney Nickel Sponge. They have never manufactured this material in Miami before.
        JM also have other plants making this material and know precisely how much energy the process requires and what it costs. They set up a line in a factory space in Miami, used the E-cat to feed it with heat, and at the end of the test dismantled and removed it.
        Remember it was JM who supplied P&F with Palladium – they have form for being interested in the LENR game. They are a very profitable business with global reach – they could certainly afford to do it.
        Also, something else to consider. JM is not a branch of Dunkin’ Donuts. They have a highly technical view of the world – and can lay their hands on plenty of smart people to analyse just how good any new technology is. They work for the Space business, the military, for hot fusion and nuclear energy companies too.
        My Saturday thought.

  • Jarea

    hey, what do you think about Darden now? Is it still your heroe the savior of the world?. That was the reason i had to wait until we have the product.

  • Brent Buckner

    I think they’d already handed over $11.5 million, not $61 million. (You might have seen a reference to $50 million – the claim is that amount was invested in IH, not an amount paid to Leonardo).

  • The relationship is very unclear, and may have changed at some point. It’s hard to see how IH could have been Rossi’s employer and his licensee at the same time.

  • Rossi may be quite inclined to move his operations to Europe after his US experience.

  • BillH

    The problem with that is since AR is currently suing IH no product is likely to be put on the market in the US till that is resolved.

    • HS61AF91

      Perhaps, however, like the “Trump” effect, the news about this will penetrate further into the public knowledge domain, than without this press announcement. When faced with a choice, doing something, even if fraught with risks is better than doing zilch. AR moved, first!

  • SG

    What you say is correct, and doesn’t contradict my statement. The agreement states that IH will have a license to all versions and improvements of the e-CAT. Later on in the clause it states that IH (the Company) will own its own improvements.