Rossi: Industrial Heat Offers to Sell Back License to Leonardo Corp.

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics Andrea Rossi made this statement:

Andrea Rossi
June 23, 2016 at 5:05 PM
Ruby Shale:
As usually, the guys of Industrial Heat are ready to sell what they do not own: now they are offering us to buy back our license, the license that they do not have anymore ( see the press release made few weeks ago from our Attorney John Annesser). I wonder if they will try to sell the Colosseum of Rome as well.
IH has no more any license related to out IP and whomever is interested to us in North America, Central America, South America, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Emirates must contact exclusively:
[email protected]
I have received other comments asking me what I think of the proposal made today by IH and this comments answers to all the others. I will not comment further issues to be discussed in Court.
Warm Regards,

So apparently Industrial Heat has contacted Rossi’s camp and said they are willing to sell back the license that Rossi granted them in the original agreement. We don’t know what they are asking, but I would assume it would be for at least the $11.5 million they have already paid Rossi. If IH is willing to sell back the license, it could signal that they are ready to move on from the E-Cat. However it does not sound from this like Rossi is interested in paying for the license, as from his perspective it is now void.

And Rossi now declares Leonardo is open to do business in all the world, including those parts of the world which were in the IH territory. I do wonder, however, how willing people will be to enter into business agreements with Leonardo Corp while the legal action is underway. Perhaps Leonardo paying for a clean break from IH would be worth it in the long run if that would mean all legal disputations would be over, and Leonardo would be able to operate without the cloud of the lawsuit hanging over them.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Andy who wrote:
    “It seems the end is near. So many of the faithful are beginning to voice their doubts.”

    Pardon? On ECW? I think not.

  • GreenWin

    how about a disclaimer as to why you continue to violate your own edict promising to never comment here again? YOu lead your flock to the abyss calling itself “science.”

  • Frank Acland

    Turbo, if you go back and look at some of Rossi’s comments during the test you will find that he was quite positive about it on a number of occasions.

    Just some examples:

    Mar 29, 2015: “The E-Cat this week has been good, with very, very extended ssm periods. I prefer to give data regarding the COP after the end of the test.
    From inside the plant,”

    April 9, 2015: “The Lady E-Cat 1MW is stable and the COP is very high, because we are mostly in ssm mode. I am writing from inside the computers container.”

    Sep 18, 2015: On the Journal of Nuclear Physics today Rossi was asked that if the test were to end today, would he consider the results positive or negative. His response was: “Positive with the potential risk to become negative.”

    From this thread:

  • Omega Z

    Rossi’s “F9” disclaimer was a proper position to take until receiving the Final “ERV” report. That does not say anything to what Rossi’s personal opinion was.

  • Brokeeper

    We need more open minded engineers as yourself in this energy society.
    When I base my faith on other men I also rely on knowledge, weighing all his/her positive vs negative works and traits, whether it be physical, Intellectual, moral, or spiritual. I find Rossi’s positive to negative ratio overwhelmingly positive. I have never yet seen ‘deliberate’ deception but redirection when required. His integrity, IMHO, is off the charts in comparison. Yes, we all realize the hidden human nature as well the hidden mysteries of nature itself.

  • psi2u2

    Well said, my feelings exactly, except maybe I a reserve some judgment on IH, but based on what they have so far shown I would agree even with that; they have some serious convincing to do at this point, more than Rossi does.

  • DrD

    Exatly, in fact most days (when asked) he said they were working well.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Why is it so difficult for a small production can be manually collected.

  • clovis ray

    wrong, once again, you actually don’t know what your talking about.
    ‘ it looking good so for’, he said as much many many times over the year.
    you need to go back and read a little of that years, comments here on E-cat world,

  • Mats002


  • Michael W Wolf

    No way in hell! If IH discovered fraud there would have been legal action taken to recover their stolen 11.5 million. You have tunnel vision. Use your peripheral vision. And you’ll see IH is playing semantic games. If everything you see is a scam, that makes you the scammer. Confucius said that.

  • Michael W Wolf

    The ERV report showed 50+ COP, Rossi did indeed say something like that. And do you think we care if Rossi achieved that 50 COP for less than the 350 days? Should IH not pay and hold the technology back from the world if Rossi only achieved the 50 Cop for 90 days? IH is hampering world changing technology if Rossi even got it on 1 day. IH doesn’t care about the world and saving it. Or this won’t be their argument. I think IH’s argument will be that they can’t build it as good as Rossi and feel he has violated the contract. I don’t see any other legit angle for IH.

  • Axil Axil

    There is another speculation about why negative written evidence of reactor non functionality and associated problems with the test did not find its way into the ERV report. IH presented the ERV report to the Chinese and Woodford at a late stage as proof of value during the test to solicit investment.

    It is possible that IH assumed they could just not pay Rossi at the end of the test and if problems arose with this strategy just go bankrupt.


    What can the Quark X be used for? Are they designed to be linked together? What would be the footprint of a 1 MW Quark X assemblage?

    • Omega Z

      1 MW Quark X assembly may be a small as 1 cubic metre. Possibly a little less. It will depend on other hardware requirement per the task it’s used for.

  • sam

    Frank is as smooth as this Frank.

  • f sedei

    Excuse me, but this is a seemingly ridiculous analogy to proclaim “reverence” to Rossi. I doubt that many others in this forum have perceived such an attitude. Acland lays out facts. Adults make their own determinations (logical and without accusation it, is hoped).

    • roseland67

      f sedai

      When we can purchase an Ecat that works as Rossi states, then we can all consider them facts, until then, Frank is repeating suppositions, internet rumors and “Rossi says”, this is an Internet blog after all, he has subscribers/advertisers.
      Hopefully in 2016 we will see a fact, but as usual, I ain’t holding my breadth.

  • On a point of fact. Industrial Heat LLC was incorporated in 2012, but the ‘contrived 1MW test’ didn’t begin until 2015.

  • I think that final sentence may be more wishful thinking on your part Andy, than any change in sentiment as one denouement at least approaches.

    There aren’t all that many ‘faithful’ here, just people who have come to a judgment that LENR is real and in development, based on the incomplete and in many cases anecdotal evidence available.

    Many have expressed some doubts about the story-line at various times, and often still hold reservations to one degree or another. The critical faculty is in general at least, alive and well I think.

    • psi2u2


  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Frank Acland June 25, 2016 at 5:45 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    You tested the QuarkX with a potential partner and reported your
    results. What has been the response of the testing partner since the
    test has ended, and what is the consequence for Leonardo Corporation?
    Thank you, Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi June 26, 2016 at 2:08 AM
    Frank Acland:
    The QuarkX is very promising, the work is developing positively, the reaction of the Partner is positive.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    • Brokeeper

      Very reassuring to hear “POSITIVELY” vs “positive or negative”. We are well on our way toward the finish line following our Champion Marathoner runner.

  • Axil Axil

    In general, if a contract calls for contractual requirement A, B, and C to be produced during a test and the systems integrator(IH) latter accuses the OEM(Rossi) that he has not meet one or more of those requirements, the Systems Integrator must have had to document that failure to meet the requirement during the test; i.e. requirement A was not meet. Each of the failed days with its date out of the 400 would need to be documented. If this daily document status is not prepared, it is assumed that the test was passed on that given day.

    IH has not documented that the 50 out of 400 day requirement was not meet in detail. I have not seen that failure to meet the daily performance requirement properly documented which asserts that the requirement was not met as presented by IH in the evidence so far provided.

    Rossi might have failed to meet the daily performance requirement, but IH has not show documented proof that Rossi has not met that performance requirement; at least that I have seen.

    In general, contemporaneous written evidence is far more effective as proof than blanket verbal assertions after the fact,

    • Turbo3

      You seem to not understand that during this part of the legal process IH is only responding to legal points. Once that is done and the Judge rules on which of Rossi’s claims are valid to pursue, based only on law (not any evidence), will they move on the next phases where evidence can be provided.

      The fact that IH has not provided any documents at this stage is expected.

      Whether such documentation exists might come out when they get to the trial phase but there is no point in IH providing it now. The Judge is not interested in see it now.

      • Axil Axil

        If evidence existed from IH, Rossi would have known at some point during the test that the performance requirements were not meet, There would have been documentation generated by IH dealing with 50 days or more of non performance during the test on the record.

      • Michael W Wolf

        IH did record each day. They paid the ERV, Penon to do that for them. They will have to claim Penon’s report was flawed or faked. As far as I can see, IH is going to claim they haven’t been given the IP as per contract to validate by building it. And they seemed to have to contradict themselves to make that claim. IH had no one outside the people we know who had the expertise to show lack of performance.

  • Pweet

    In fact Mr Rossi always said, right to the end, the results could be positive or negative, or in Rossicode, the ubiquitous ‘F9’. How can he now be so insistent that the results were always not only positive, but very much so. A COP of 50 would have been obvious to a blind man, if it were real. To now claim there was a long term COP of 50 is completely contrary to all that he said regarding the plant performance over the period of the test.

    • Michael W Wolf

      NDA, Rossi waited for the ERV report. Case closed.

  • Kevmo

    This isn’t science, it’s business. The Wright brothers didn’t give their secrets away until they had IP protection and then dozens of well funded a$$#0/3s like Glen Curtis and Samual Langley tried to steal it from them .

    • Fedir Mykhaylov

      Langley did not steal anything from Wright. Its airfield is absolutely the author’s work.

      • Kevmo

        Langley teamed up with Curtiss in a despicable attempt to circumvent the truth in the Wright/Curtiss patent battle by lending his prior failed aircraft to be flown, with very extensive post-learning engineering modifications to the extent that the original craft would never have flown.

        • Fedir Mykhaylov

          Langley Curtis, Kelly, Chanute, Lilienthal, Santos Dumont, Schwarzkopf and others – all working to solve the flight machines heavier than air

    • Michael W Wolf

      Nah, IH are a bunch of angels, protecting the world from that lying snake Rossi. I feel your frustration.

  • Frank Acland

    As with many other posts on this site, I have reported on something that Rossi says. I hope readers are able to see that this does not necessarily mean endorsement of what he says. Readers must decide for themselves, and your ‘wait and see’ approach is very understandable.

    • Andy Kumar

      Argon has a point. I appreciate your dedication to what you believe in. But you are ALWAYS so reverential to Rossi-says. When Rossi said that the Quark can generate heat, electricity and light at the same time, I would have preferred a little editorial raised-eyebrow from you.
      It is your responsibility to steer your flock to reality. We knew the game is over when a Republican Senator stood up on the floor of the Senate to speak against Nixon and when a Democratic Senator did the same for Clinton.

      • Omega Z

        A device that produces heat, light and electricity simultaneously isn’t so amazing. I can do this myself.

        The question should be about energy in verses energy out or COP>1… That I can’t do.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Andy, who wrote:
        “When Rossi said that the Quark can generate heat, electricity and light at the same time, I would have preferred a little editorial raised-eyebrow from you.”

        If the QuarkX reactor’s prime energy output is photons, which can be either thermalised to produce heat or to produce electricity, where is the issue?

  • Kevmo

    Penon worked for IH before he worked alongside Rossi. IH nominated him and Rossi agreed.

    • f sedei

      OUCH !

    • Michael W Wolf

      Yea, and Fabiani was an engineer for IH and confirms what Rossi has said on many things. 50 COP needs no special equipment. Why can’t people get this through their heads. SMH

  • Axil Axil

    The IH contract states that the E-Cat must produce a COP equal to or greater than 4 for 350 non sequential days out of a testing period of 400 days. Rossi must therefore meet performance specs on a day by day basis.

    This contractual condition begs for a daily reconciliation of each days performance results between Rossi, the ERV and IH. If IH does not agree with the ERV on a day by day basis, IH should have registered a complaint to the ERV in writing that the E-Cat performance spec was not met for that given day.

    I am not aware of any daily reconciliation performed between the ERV, Rossi, and IH. Yet the performance spec was verified to be meet for a period of 352 nonsensical days without one exception or protest being registered by IH to the ERV.

    This seems illogical to me. How can IH reject the accumulated daily performance results of 352 days without protesting any of those individual daily performance results while the test was being run?

  • Kevmo

    The ERV report writer (who was chosen by IH) knows.