IH considering counterclaims

  • New document in Rossi v. Darden: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g…nsion_of_time_to_file.pdf


    Plaintiffs are asking for three more days to prepare their Answer and counterclaims. This is stated as an unopposed motion, meaning that Rossi's attorney has verbally accepted it.


    One aspect of the news here is significant:


    Quote

    2. Currently, Defendants’ answer to the Complaint is due on August 2, 2016. In addition to filing an answer, Defendants intend to file counterclaims against Plaintiffs and are
    currently considering potential claims against third parties. As a result, the undersigned respectfully requests an extension of three days, up to and including August 5, 2016, to prepare
    the answer and counterclaims and to consult with his clients regarding the answer and counterclaims.


    Counterclaims, not a surprise. However, "potential claims against third parties," not a terrible surprise, but I'll confess I did not think of it as arising at this time. I consider it fairly obvious whom that might be.


    There is a witness necessary to Rossi's case, critical for it.


    There are layers of possibility here.


    1. Fabio Penon was claimed to be an expert, and allowed that claim to stand, so he would become professionally responsible for what he wrote as a report, and he was paid. If his report was incompetent, he could be subject to suit for damage done, like any professional.
    2. If there was evidence of deliberate falsification, there could be civil fraud claims with triple damages, and there could be criminal prosecution.


    We have not seen the report, but, obviously, IH and Rossi and Penon have. There are rumors here from one who has allegedly seen data and confirmation that this was the same as in the report, and incompetence is claimed. Usually these claims fly back and forth and it's fluff. But when there is a lawsuit for $89 million on the table, the "usual usual" isn't. The Lugano professors could be complete doofuses, and, unless they were paid or deliberately created evidence used in a fraud (hard to prove!), they would not be liable.


    As soon as Rossi was dealing with a Licensee with depth, his habits could get him in deep trouble, whereas, before, he was largely immune.


    We should know by August 5. I did pick up the files directly from PACER, this is not yet on Pacermonitor.

  • The Lugano professors could be complete doofuses, and, unless they were paid or deliberately created evidence used in a fraud (hard to prove!), they would not be liable.


    I know little about the law, but if you were to hold academic professors legally responsible for their claims, academic science would collapse. This would be like fining TV political pundits for wrong predictions about who will win an election. There wouldn't be any pundits. They would be bankrupt, driving Uber cars.


    Penon is a different story. He was listed in a contract as the go-to-guy expert. I doubt Levi or any other academic scientist would allow their names to be added to a business contract.


    There was an incident in Italy, in which six academic scientists were jailed for making an incorrect prediction about an earthquake. See:


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…d-309-people-cleared.html


    Quote

    Six scientists who were each sentenced to six years in prison because they failed to predict a deadly earthquake in Italy which left 309 people dead have been cleared.


    The group, which includes some of the country's most respected seismologists, was jailed for manslaughter after underestimating the risks that an earthquake posed to the town of L'Aquila.


    This is an outrageous violation of academic tradition and academic freedom. It is beyond the pale. Schwinger described the rabid opposition to cold fusion as "the death of science." Holding scientists responsible for earthquake predictions would also be the death of science. In the distant future, perhaps earthquake prediction will become a science, the way weather prediction is today. If that happens, and an incorrect prediction is issued, you might fire the staff members who made the mistake, or shake up the organization. But you would never put them in jail!


    The Italian scientists were later cleared:


    http://www.theverge.com/2014/1…r-laquila-earthquake-fear

  • An interesting but, in my opinion, likely development. Aug. 5th is not far away, but as with everything connected to Rossi, waiting seems to be standard!


    I suppose Jones Day, using tried and true practices may have influenced this decision. Sometimes the best defense is a strong offense. If Rossi and his lawyers see a counter claim that they know is backed by documented data and the claim would apply a very high cost, they may quickly withdraw the suit. This tactic could save IH much legal expense.


    It could be that IH is looking for much or some portion of the $11.5 million back. Showing a strong case that they will not have to pay the $89 million and likely would win a counter suit for more than the $11.5 million back, may again be a tactic to get Rossi and his lawyers to settle quickly.


    Darden does not seem to fit the mold of one who lashes out in "vengeance", but perhaps he really believes Rossi is greatly harming LENR research and wants to put the "eCat Saga" to a final conclusion.
    A resounding defeat in this case would almost certainly end Rossi's chances of obtaining large investments from other companies, if not even put him in jeopardy of criminal conviction. This lawsuit in itself is likely to eliminate any chances of major funding for Rossi.


    I would doubt that the latter is the case. While Rossi garners attention on a few blogs, the world in general is ignorant of his existence. Other than IH, I do not think he has siphoned much funding.


    IH & Company are probably wanting to :
    1) end this quickly
    2) reclaim some or all of the $11.5 (the second payment of $10 million would be my guess)
    3) Establish the fact that they are willing to "risk" investments in controversial new energy fields, but are not to be trifled with. Establish the reputation that they do know what they are doing.


    or as certain people with wishful thinking claim, it could simply be a defensive diversion, but I really doubt that.

  • I find it interesting that IH now needs extra time, after Dewey repeated each time he posted something, how simple and obvious it is to prove Rossi as fraud

    They give as a reason for extra time that they are working on claims against third parties, i.e., to be added to the lawsuit, and that they needed to communicate with their clients.


    Claiming that fraud is obvious is not the same as proving it in court. Fraud claims can be very difficult.


    August 2 was only two weeks after the Motion to Dismiss was resolved, So now the deadline is August 5. Three more days.


    Annesser had no problem with it (nor would I expect one.) This is all routine.


    And Dewey Weaver is not Industrial Heat, nor is he their attorney. assuming the Judge grants the Order. I should check. ... not yet. But I cannot imagine a Judge not granting an order like this, even if Annesser had opposed.


    What is interesting here, as a question to sell popcorn, is "third parties"? Who? I have two predictions, one somewhat strong, one weaker, and then two wildly speculative. Wanna hear them?


    By the way, I have zero inside information on Rossi v. Darden at this point.


    In a civil case, the standard is preponderance of the evidence. If there is an appearance of fraud, it may not be necessary to absolutely prove it.

  • Alan


    Very interesting, particularly this:


    Fraud as a human activity can be hard to get a handle on, but the legal elements of a fraud are more readily defined. Generally stated, these include:


    • Misrepresentation of a material fact
    • Made with knowledge of its falsity
    • Made with intent to induce the victim to rely on the misrepresentation
    • The victim relies upon the misrepresentation
    • The victim suffers damages as a result


    The key distinction between fraud and other types of theft hinges on the first element: the perpetrator acts by misrepresentation, as opposed to larceny, in which the perpetrator uses force or stealth to secure another’s property.


    From the point of view of IH, for the fraud charge to stick Penon's ERV report must not only be discredited but proven to be constructed with falsity and misrepresentation as its purpose. I think now the report will quickly become 'discoverable' if this is the case. So the plot thickens!!


    This of course could backfire in the face of IH et al (if of course Penon is the target, it may be just bluster, perhaps a mediation ploy).


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Abd: there is a link now.

    Thanks.


    Quote

    On the topic of proving fraud in a US court, this pdf is a good source of information.Published by the 'Association of Certified Fraud Examiners'. I bet that club is a bundle of laughs.


    acfe.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_…-2011-Chapter-Excerpt.pdf


    Nice source on civil and criminal fraud.

  • From the point of view of IH, for the fraud charge to stick Penon's ERV report must not only be discredited but proven to be constructed with falsity and misrepresentation as its purpose. I think now the report will quickly become 'discoverable' if this is the case. So the plot thickens!!

    As has been pointed out, fraud can be difficult to prove. However, Penon is subject to something else, the possibility of malpractice. As well, there is the possibility of a conspiracy claim. These are all possibilities that can come to mind readily for anyone with an understanding of law and legal process.


    We do not know what kind of contract Penon had. If he had one, and if it was as defective as the Rossi/IH Agreement, he could be in big trouble.


    Further, there are other issues. If IH can raise doubt about the Guaranteed Performance Test, even if they cannot prove fraud, but only *possible incompetence*, that test might be set aside. A sane Agreement would have provided for dispute resolution procedures, such as binding Arbitration, these are very common. A single expert to determine $89 million? The expert chosen by the inventor? (Sure, "proposed," but ... it was obvious, give Rossi what he wanted or go away.) However, Rossi does not seem to be legally sophisticated. Perhaps he thought that he could hold IH to the letter of the Agreement, while ignoring the underlying purpose of the Agreement, which was not to obtain a "demonstration." That was just a detail.


    As I have said before, I cannot imagine signing a $100 million contract over something of critical importance to me, without careful consultation with the best attorney I could find/afford. And I've been in court many times in pro per, and I've written legal briefs. I would never try to do something like this alone, unless I had no choice. I think the Agreement was written by Rossi, though with some interaction with IH. And I'm sure that IH was aware of the problems and made a choice to take the risk.


    In any case, Rossi's commentary recently seems to incorporate and assume that he has secrets and is not relying on patents. That indicates his patents are worthless. misdirection. He is still running the old line: hit the market with a flood of product so cheap that reverse engineering is not worth the effort. If it is patented technology that strategy makes no sense.


    All this implies strongly that Rossi did not teach IH how to make devices that worked, whether or not the 1 MW plant worked. It's odd to find on Planet Rossi the idea that Rossi was smart to not teach them, because they wanted to steal it. (Somehow using something that one has paid $11.5 million for and has promised $89 million more is called "stealing" on Planet Rossi.)


    If that is so, and if that was deliberate, then Rossi defrauded them, and he could be on the hook for $11.5 million and more, and triple damages. (And that could be so even if the 1 MW test actually did generate a megawatt.)


    I do not know how much will be revealed in the Answer and counterclaims. I was told by an attorney, though, that filing a counterclaim, making a party a defendant whose participation in discovery might be important, is a common tactic. As a possibly relevant detail, a U.S. subpoena served on Penon might not be able to compel that he come to the U.S. to testify, but as a defendant, if he fails to show, he could be exposed to a default judgment. He might decide to cooperate or not.


    However, if he does not cooperate, it might be difficult for Rossi to assert the ERV report as binding! One of the alleged factoids revealed by Dewey Weaver was that Penon stopped communicating with IH, stopped answering questions about the report, before it was issued. This is not going to look good! However, I don't want to lose sight of the core of the matter, the IP transfer and the alleged failure of that. Assuming that IH and Weaver have not been lying to us, this may not be difficult to show in court.


    If Rossi did not perform on the contract, IH could elect to simply leave it in place, as something that was never complete, but that could be completed. This would allow Rossi to create product that works, in Europe, if he wants -- if he can!


    There are many, many possible details, though, that could move this case drastically in one direction or another, and that we do not know.

  • Walker et al, a Danish proverb: Don't sell the fur before shooting the bear.


    Interesting! The Japanese folk-saying is similar: "toranu tanuki no kawazan you wo suru" (calculate how much you will earn from the pelt of a badger you have not caught yet). Japanese badgers are notoriously difficult to catch, which I know to be true from personal experience.


    In English it is: "don't count your chickens before they hatch."

  • IH Counter-suing would be great News!


    At that point any secondary party can use Document Discovery to publish the ERV.

    No. The parties may request confidentiality. Sorry to rain on your parade ... but since I've said this before, maybe not so sorry.


    I am sure Rossi's Lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee, at the possibilities.[/quote]It is not uncommon for people to have very weird ideas about how lawyers think. Professionally, they are trained to be detached and dispassionate. Looks good in front of judges and juries, after all. High level lawyers, the best, would never want to take actions merely to increase billable hours. Yes, there are bad applies, just as there are surgeons who will operate if they can, even if it's not necessary, to increase their billings.


    But it's not the norm. Jones Day did not get to be Jones Day by padding their cases. They get that way by winning, or by advising their clients to settle properly. Every lawyer I've known and have consulted has advised avoiding lawsuits, because generally everyone loses. And then if there is a suit, settling if possible.

  • Interesting! The Japanese folk-saying is similar: "toranu tanuki no kawazan you wo suru" (calculate how much you will earn from the pelt of a badger you have not caught yet). Japanese badgers are notoriously difficult to catch, which I know to be true from personal experience.

    I once was with a fellow who decided to trap a raccoon that was raiding our refrigerator, in a screen porch at the back of the house. He grabbed a trash basket and trapped the raccoon between it and the metal screen of the porch. The raccoon went through the screen like it was butter, ran a short distance, and turned around to look at us for a moment. The look was something like "You don't really want to follow me, do you? I will tear you to shreds like that screen." And then the raccoon very slowly and carefully turned around and walked away.


    I think they are fantastic animals. Mammals, like us. And like us, treat them with respect or they will tear you to shreds.

  • Mary


    While we're on animal stories, I suspect that Jones Day is taking its time on the way to squashing Rossi like a cockroach.


    A cockroach is an insect Mary not an animal. But then why should we be concerned with facts? I suspect Jones Day is gearing up for a bluff at the mediation.


    But who will blink first?


    Best regards
    Frank

  • I suspect Jones Day is gearing up for a bluff at the mediation.


    I have said that I know little about what is happening inside I.H. I am careful not to ask questions about their business strategy or the legal case. But I have met with them and spoken with them, and I know one thing for sure. They are upset with Rossi. They are not bluffing. They believe what they wrote in the motion to dismiss: "departing from the purported test plan, ignoring inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices." Perhaps they are technically wrong about that, but they mean it. It is my strong impression they intend to win decisively.


    But who will blink first?


    I do not think I.H. will blink. They are no mood for that.


    I have no idea whether they hope to launch a counter-suit to recover the $11 million, as Abd has speculated, but I suppose they have grounds to do that. I don't know enough about the law to judge, but it seems that way to me. They talk about "counterclaims." I looked up the definition of that. It means a rebuttal. I don't think it necessarily means they intend to file a counter-suit, but I wouldn't know.


    Quote

    Counterclaim: an opposing claim; especially : a claim brought by a defendant against a plaintiff in a legal action


    I think Rossi was a fool to file this lawsuit. He should have taken the $11 million and quietly gone off to Sweden, where he is trying to fleece a new group of investors. I think Penon was a fool to sign off on that ridiculous data. I expect they will both be in serious trouble, soon. Starting next Friday.

  • A very proud


    Dewey Weaver wrote: There is a port for access in the units that IH modified.


    Thank You for the confirmation that the modules in fact were built by IH!


    Why did Dewey confess that IH built/modified the E-cat modules of the 1 MW plant ??


    Anybody who talks about fraud talks about IH, who in realty built the modules - as Dewey confessed earlier....

  • Wyttenbach


    So since IH built the modules for the E-cat 1 Mw plant, the fraud exercised by Rossi over IH must be restricted to the fuel. So to prove Rossi a fraud, the fuel can be the only suspect then? Is that what you are saying? Or maybe Penon and the ERV report.


    I think that is going to be so difficult to convince a Jury, providing they can stay awake. I can see it now:

    • AR "members of the Jury - my expert, a nuclear physicist, says my invention works, here are his 4 reports all saying the same thing and here is a picture of Mr Darden after seeing one of them, he is very happy don't you think".
    • D members of the Jury, my expert - well not my original expert, but a new one, the one we employed just after we refused to pay the $89 million, not the one agreed in the contract, he says the invention does not work. No there is no coincidence with us not paying the balance agreed, it just happened that way, no he's not biased he is completely independent. Is he competent you ask? Well he is an HVAC engineer, how do we know, well you can see he has his boiler suit on and his tool box with him. No he's not an expert in cold fusion, we didn't share any of Rossi's IP with cold fusion experts who might turn out to be his competitors, thats why we had to use this boiler guy".


    But then DW is not IH's representative and may have it all wrong.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • D members of the Jury, my expert - well not my original expert, but a new one, the one we employed just after we refused to pay the $89 million, not the one agreed in the contract, he says the invention does not work.


    I know little about trials, but I have served jury duty for a civil suit about an automotive contract dispute that resulted in repossession. The whole thing was over in a few hours. Based on my experience I think the kinds of questions you anticipate would not come up. It would go faster and be simpler. I suppose I.H. will call 2 or 3 expert witnesses, who will dispose of Rossi and ERV in 10 minutes each. Something like:


    Q: Are you a licensed engineer in the state of Florida? Yes.


    Q: Did you examine the schematic and photos in exhibits A, B, C? Yes.


    Q: Is it possible to measure the heat output using this equipment? No.


    Q: Does this equipment meet Florida standards X and Y for measuring heat: No


    Q: Is it possible 1 MW of heat was released in the customer site? No.


    There may be a few more detailed answers, such as a list of reasons why the equipment does not meet code, but I would not expect much more detail than this. Based on what I experienced, the first expert will answer in somewhat more detail and the second and third will concur, mainly with "yes" or "no" answers to the same questions. Most of the questions are dead simple and factual. In the case of the repossession, "Is this a cancelled checked made out to Dealer X? Yes" (Proving they were paid, so they had no business repossessing.) Once you prove that licensed expert witnesses agree with I.H., the trial is over.


    As I said previously, I doubt Rossi will find any expert witness willing to answer these questions any other way. That would be perjury. The expert would lose his license and his livelihood.


    No he's not an expert in cold fusion


    I doubt the judge would allow any mention of cold fusion. It is irrelevant. The issue here is calorimetry. I am sure that Rossi's device did not produce cold fusion or any excess heat, and I confident that every expert in Florida will agree with me.

  • I doubt the judge would allow any mention of cold fusion.

    Right.


    Rossi has been able to keep his fans going with the idea that Fabio Penon is a "nuclear engineer," and who are all these clowns to question the expertise of a "nuclear engineer"? Like the "independent professors" who impressed very few other than fans.


    There are two major lines of defense.


    1. No IP transfer, no deal.
    2. The tests (Validation and Guaranteed Performance) were fraudulent or in error.


    At this point I am most impressed by two possibilities in the second line of defense. One is something that Jed pointed out: that the IH expert was denied access to the customer area is highly suspicious, and would look that way to a jury. Further, if IH did do IR imaging of the building and if they, as I'd assume, prepared this as evidence if needed, this is also quite easy to understand, not complicated. No major heat leaving the building, no megawatt. Looking at the situation with lights for growing pot, a megawatt of power would be extraordinarily visible in the IR. Sifferkoll will not be allowed to testify with his vagueness about leaking through the roof, spread out. The whole roof would then be lit up! In fact, though, roofs insulate, all the heat would be coming out vents, at higher temperatures. The vents would be hot.


    This is all easy to establish with testimony.


    Then there could be issues with the ERV report itself. To a jury, though, that the same expert validated what IH could not later confirm, and the recent test, will, again, look suspicious. Rossi set up very difficult conditions for himself. If he had something real, it's obvious: he needed to keep his hands off it. Rossi doesn't do "hands off." It violates his identity.


    I don't think IH will pull out the nuclear option: "after all, that much heat from a cold fusion reactor is impossible!" We know it isn't exactly impossible, just very, very unlikely, far beyond the state of the art.


    My stand is that reality is always better than we imagine.

  • [quote='frankwtu','https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3536-IH-considering-counterclaims/?postID=30265#post30265']Wyttenbach


    AR "members of the Jury - my expert, a nuclear physicist, says my invention works, here are his 4 reports all saying the same thing and here is a picture of Mr Darden after seeing one of them, he is very happy don't you think".


    This is complete speculation on my part, but I believe reasonable none the less.


    If IH brings a counter suit against Penon (third party) then AR will be in more trouble. I assume (perhaps Mr. Lomax could add here) that it would be hard pressed for Rossi to use Penon has his "Expert witness" if Penon was part of the counter suit. It is highly unlikely that Rossi would find anyone else that would testify in his behalf that would carry any weight.


    So I believe it is possible that Frank's scenario will not happen. Penon may not even come back to the US if he has been advised not to by his lawyers. Rossi cannot stand in for Penon as his avatar! I am not sure what evidence from Penon could be entered into court if he is not personally there to provide deposition? What is the likely hood of him coming back to the US?


    On the other hand, there is likely to be many experts willing to appear in support of IH, I am not so sure about for Rossi. Rossi cannot be the mouth piece for Penon, it will have to "come directly from the horse's mouth".


    All the above is simply my assumptions and thoughts. I have no legal training nor expertise. It simply seems logical and likely with the limited experience I have had in a few court cases dealing with industrial liability.

  • LENR
     
    • LENR – Low Energy Nickel Reaction
    • Believed to use a catalyst to neutralize the Coulomb barrier and thus creates a reaction at relatively low temperatures
    • Cheap, abundant raw materials; small amount needed
    • Typically nickel/hydrogen-based or deuterium/palladium-based
    • Required equipment is relatively small and transportable


    Why We Are Doing It


    • A number of LENR technologies are demonstrating significant progress; one in particular may be ready for commercialization
    • The world needs it


    – Energy is responsible for most global warming and air pollution, and much water pollution
    – Energy is not available in many areas
    – Gathering and transporting energy destroys the environment
    – Centralized energy plants require complex grid distribution systems, which are prohibitively expensive in many areas


    There are estimates using just the performance of some of the devices under study that 1% of the nickel mined on the planet each year could produce the world’s energy requirements at the order of 25% the cost of coal.’ - NASA Langley Research Center Chief Scientist Dennis Bushnell on LENR


    • No greenhouse gas emissions or other pollutants
    • No radioactive material or waste
    • No need for coal or natural gas


    LENR: Why It Matters - Land Use


    1 MW Solar PV = 5 acres
    1 MW Wind = 2 acres
    1 MW LENR = < 0.1 acre
     
    LENR: Potential Market


    • Total world energy consumption is valued at approximately USD $4-5 trillion
    • Heat and electricity account for 64% of worldwide energy demand
    • LENR technology could satisfy this demand with little modification to existing plants LENR


    LENR:


    • Applications include


    – Hot water (e.g., central utilities, industrial)
    – Steam generation for electricity and other uses (e.g., electric power, pulp and paper, food and beverage industry)
    – Process heat (e.g., general industrial, refining, metal treating, pasteurization)
    – Building heat (e.g., commercial and industrial


    • Well suited for developing countries:


    – Microgrid distributed energy
    – Water desalination / purification
    – Sterilization / pasteurization of food, beverages and medicine
     
    LENR


    • We believe our initial technology (“the Reactor”) has several advantages:


    – Generates energy more consistently, on a larger scale and with lower input costs and higher energy density than other technologies
    – Creates excess energy between 3 and 20 times the energy required to operate the device—depending on the model of reactor and operating temperatures—at temperatures between 120 and 500 degrees Celsius


    Presentation by Industrial Heat LLC presented by Thomas F. Darden II


    https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…-20140925152226-9375-pdf/


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    No judge will ever accept counterclaims (especially technical) if a professional investor like Thomas Darden is presenting his own product in this way.

  • Jed


    Is it possible 1 MW of heat was released in the customer site? No.


    But there is no mention in the contract that 1 MW of heat is required to fulfil the contract terms and conditions (which is probably why you don't see it from the factory vent, that means nothing); only that there be a COP >6. There is no mention in the contract that if one or other party is dissatisfied with the outcome of the test and particularly the ERV (Penon) and his report that they are free to carry out there own tests absent of any agreement, nothing. So the court will consider the contract and if it is 'breached' not some pet boiler mechanic's interpretation of Florida boiler regulations, you are way off Jed with that one.


    The only avenue open to the sort of scenario you suggest is to prove Rossi and/or Penon et al guilty of fraud. For this to be successful they have to prove all and each of the following:

    • Misrepresentation of a material fact
    • Made with knowledge of its falsity
    • Made with intent to induce the victim to rely on the misrepresentation
    • The victim relies upon the misrepresentation
    • The victim suffers damages as a result

    Its a bit like the motion to dismiss, some may stick but unless you can get them all to stick without question and thereby convince the Jury; its a non starter.


    Rends, your post above shows just how IH thinking dramatically changed when $89 million became due. An excellent find.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    No IP transfer, no deal.
    2. The tests (Validation and Guaranteed Performance) were fraudulent or in error.


    1. There was IP transfer, IH built the reactors for the one year test. There was no time constraints on IP transfer as this was an area of constant research, ongoing over time. This therefore was not a 'breach of contract'.
    2. If fraudulent, as you yourself admit a very difficult position to prove (see my post above to Jed) if in error is the error 'material' and how can it be proven to be a reasonable cause for withholding $89 million when continuing IP transfer and development was part of the contract.


    Not out of the question I grant you but very difficult to pursue and prove particularly to a Jury, always assuming they stay awake.


    Don't forget that in general it is accepted that LENR works: Nobel laureate Brian Josephson is on the record that he’s certain the eCat is a nuclear fusion device and works as claimed. http://coldfusionnow.org/nobel…rms-support-for-e-cat-ht/


    Best regards
    Frank