Industrial Heat Statement on Meritless Litigation from Leonardo Corporation and Andrea Rossi

  • RESEARCH TRIANGLE, N.C., April 7, 2016


    We are aware of the lawsuit filed by Andrea Rossi and Leonardo Corporation against [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon]. [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] rejects the claims in the suit. They are without merit and we are prepared to vigorously defend ourselves against this action. [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success. Leonardo Corporation and Mr. Rossi also have repeatedly breached their agreements. At the conclusion of these proceedings we are confident that the claims of Mr. Rossi and Leonardo Corporation will be rejected.


    [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] continues to be focused on a scientifically rigorous approach that includes thorough, robust and accurate testing of promising LENR technologies. Our goal remains to deliver clean, safe and affordable energy.


    SOURCE [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon], LLC


    http://www.prnewswire.com/news…drea-rossi-300248066.html

  • Please, let this be the end of the Rossi saga. When [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] states that they worked three years with trying to substatiate Rossis device, and on that adds these words: All without success. Who on any internet forum can after this continue to believe / claim that Rossis device works? Ridicilous.


    Let's keep focus on all other interesting stuff that's seems to happen lately.

  • The defense of Rossi on his blog is not less convincing.
    If there was no evidence, why did they raise money and talk in public...


    Note that the critic is more about an impossibility to replicate, which Rossi denies, but which match his past behavior.


    many shades of grey.


    by the way, the trinagle business journal publish a neutral article on that:
    http://www.bizjournals.com/tri…-cold-fusion-startup.html

  • @Alain,


    I see little grey in Rossi's behaviour or the estimation of his technology.


    Consider. [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] had a Rossi-built reactor which gave COP=6 in a 24 hour Rossi (Penon) test. When they test it themselves - with Rossi's help - it does not work. They and Rossi both are strongly motivated to make it work. [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] are not idiots: if the Rossi reactor worked for real, even if replication was impossible, they would stick with it because they would know they had a workable LENR solution and it was just a matter of ironing out the wrinkles. Similarly, they know that the reactor they built tested at Lugano impressively, but they will also have discovered the same device does not work for their tests - and would I hope now realise why the Lugano results were false.


    All this makes complete sense of their strong statement about rigorous testing being necessary and for others to believe no-one other than them. I thought at the time it was maybe a reaction to MFMP claims. But we can see now it was their damage control over having mistakenly in the past believed Rossi's claims.

  • amos wrote:

    So [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] paid Rossi $11.5m for something that doesn't work? I don't see how anybody can believe this.


    [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] paid 11.5m for something that had been proven to work through multiple independent tests: the Penon test, the Lugano test. They believed, obviously, that it worked. After the Penon test they got their hands on the reactor (actually they maybe had it for some time before - I think the License agreement says they get it after the first 1.5M payment) and could start their own in-house testing with more rigorous setups etc. And (they say now) they could never get it to work. You don't expect them to worry too much initally. Rossi had independent tests that showed operation, and if their own tests did not do that maybe they were doing something wrong, or their test setup was wrong, etc. Rossi was bound by the agreement to help them.


    The Lugano test was again positive and showed that a replicated reactor (made by [lexicon]IH[/lexicon]) could also work. You can see why they were enthusiastic, and must have ben reassured by this additional independent test. We know now the Lugano result was false. The Penon report is too incomplete to say exactly how but we can guess it was also false - it uses a very indirect method to estimate power out without proper controls - we have no detail of power in measurement.


    However [lexicon]IH[/lexicon], at the time they paid the $10M - thought all was good and they were about to be come international heros initiating a new cold fusion energy era.


    padam73 wrote:

    As it is now, I have the impression that the burden of proof is on [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] side and that it will be up to them to bring new evidence to support the claim that the E-cat does not work.


    I don't think that is quite right - though I'm not sure. Whether the e-cat works or not may be secondary to whether Rossi or [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] broke the contract. And in any case as I understand it the contract was only a license agreement with no penalties other than loss of license (for [lexicon]IH[/lexicon]) or repayment of monies paid (for Rossi) if the agreement is breached.


    So the issue for decision would be if [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] stole IP from Rossi. Whether the e-cat works is relevant to that because if it does not work there is no IP to steal. This is hard for [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] - they gained so much funding on demonstrations of e-cat IP. But, the evidence that the e-cat does work must looked at properly be very questionable. Lugano is known false. Penon's test shared many of the defects of the Lugano test, and does not have proper standards of rigor.


    All Rossi has to do to demonstrates that e-cats work is to submit one to proper independent testing of a quality that will withstand scrutiny from expert witnesses in court, and have the test come out positive.


    No easy ride for him now.