The Ecat News blog published an article about the Mystery of the Rossi 1 mW Unit Customer. As an answer to that questioning article some other factors should be considered.
There has been much speculation about who it might be. A lot of the speculation is tainted by whether one thinks Rossi has a viable product or not. Much of the speculation has pertained to the technical aspect of the offered invention with commentary that the buyer’s secrecy related to concerns about whether Rossi has a real viable product or not. Given the current buyer is a U.S. company there are a lot of issues that affect a companies disclosure besides the company technical reputation and the bucking of scientific dogma.
It is recognized by most that if Rossi has what he claims to have then it would be a very significant technological break through with great economic impact. I doubt that this customer is buying the 1 mW unit for the fun of it. Given it is a valid commercial product they are going to be involved. In light of this fact lets look at Rossi’s comments related to the current “customer”.
He has indicated since the breakup with Defkalion that the customer is a major U.S. company with a great deal of resources. For purposes of discussion let us conceive it is a multinational headquartered in the U.S. When the plan appeared to be that the 1 mW would be shipped to the U.S. Rossi indicated the city in which the test would occur could not be named or it would reveal the customer. Dealing with large U.S. multinationals there are usually so many divisions and groups that there is frequently individual facilities located in small cities where that facility is the dominant economic force in that city. After it was revealed the acceptance test would be in Bologna, Italy Rossi wrote a rather enigmatic statement that in was not the same entity that would conduct the test but he did not say it was a different “customer”. A multinational with many divisions could reassign which division might conduct the actual testing while still being the actual final customer. A comment attributed to Focardi on 24 Oct 2011 indicated the customer was a major industrial entity. Rossi also indicated then that some training had been conducted for some of the customers representatives
In the U.S. there would be a number of companies that could qualify. Exxon, Hewlett-Packard, General Electric, General Motors are examples. But all these companies being U.S. based are now saddled with numerous legal requirements from SEC rules and regulations and other business law such that disclosure of any activities related to something like the Rossi invention has to be highly controlled. With the above mentioned companies being publicly traded companies the legal costs cold be tremendous if disclosure of their involvement is not handled correctly. In fact this is of potentially such a significant event that the political/legal industry will extract a cost no matter what. It will take a large company with a large legal department to keep such an event under control.
Let us use General Electric, GE, as an example of how this would work and the problems involved. If it would be GE it would have the product internally promoted by a division and that division assigned to determine the validity of the invention. To prevent violations of SEC rules concerning major business events only the very top executives and limited staff would be knowledgeable of their involvement. Stock prices could fluctuate wildly with any information released. No matter which way the price would go the board of directors and management could end up with class action law suits. If the information released is not properly done this could cause tremendous legal costs regardless of if the Rossi test results are positive or negative.
The assigned division of the company would then conduct the due diligence which in this case is going to involved engineers and technicians more than accountants. Again the number of personnel involved would be limited and all would be greatly warned about insider stock trading. Using G.E. as the example again their GE energy division would be a logical choice and that division would then assign the task to their turbine and nuclear power group in Wilmington N.C. Now this would not be good for a company like GE. As discussed previously this would be an example of a dominant or very significant industry in a small city. If Rossi were to demonstrate/test in Wilmington. N.C. everyone in the world would be pointing at GE as the customer. It would not be good for the legal issues of disclosure and great pressures would be on their executives and selected personnel by the press and other entities trying to get advanced information. Without factual data already in their hands a public traded company of that size cannot make statements that can be used later in class action lawsuits concerning stock prices. It would be to the advantage of a large multinational to get the test in a location that will not signal business moves that will cause stock price variations and also not start insider stock trading investigations.
At this point Rossi’s Bologna location is actually suitable for a multinational. As it would not be a major issue for a multinational to use assets in Europe to do the due diligence. By their very nature they have assets in many countries that could administer the test. For the example used, GE, GE Energy has a group headquartered in Florence Italy that is their Oil and Gas group headquarters. That is only 90 kilometers from Bologna. Far enough away it would not be associated with Rossi test but close enough to get the job done. Again very limited numbers of personal would be informed to avoid the risk of disclosure problems and limit the possibilities of insider trading. Local staff would also know local information that might pertain to the validity of the Rossi claims.
In regards to the recent claims of Focardi that it is a large industrial company it would eliminate entities such as AT&T and most likely Hewlett- Packard but companies like GE and General Motors would have all these capabilities and be subject to the above issues. I am sure General Motors has a division or group in Europe close enough to do the test just like the example I gave of GE as the customer. Rossi has indicated some training done so any multinational with facilities within a few hundred miles would be a candidate.
Although some have speculated Google it is of low probability. It would cost them a huge sum to become involved in a industry they have no knowledge of. If they bought the unit just to support the technology and not become involved in the industry they would have already announced that. No, who ever is involved is serious about being involved in the product in the future if it is valid. It almost needs to be a multinational but it does not have to be as large as the examples I gave. Although GE might be a real nice fit it could be the likes of General Dynamics as the customer. It would be a nice candidate because of a particular business segment that being nuclear submarines.
Do not count on disclosure of who it is on the 28th even if the test is valid. The disclosure will come when the legal department and PR department have cleared the disclosure. I would expect they are already doing preliminary work and inspections currently with Rossi to insure the due diligence covers everything their legal department needs. I would guess the 28th test is an all up verification of continuous maximum power but by that point I would suspect they would have already either validated or rejected the basic concept. If it is a big publicly traded company from the U.S. it will not make a statement of disclosure until the legal group is satisfied they have enough factual information to back up their position in court, be that negative or positive.
SEARCH IN THE ARCHIVES
TagAndrea Rossi AR Brian Josephson CERN cold fusion Daniele Passerini DEFKALION Defkalion Green Technologies Dennis Bushnell E-Cat ecat energy catalyzer Energy Catalyzer Ni-H focardi Francesco Celani Francesco Piantelli Fusione Fredda Giuseppe Levi Greece HYPERION ICCF Italy Japan LENR Leonardo Corporation Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Martin Fleischmann Mats Lewan MIT Mitchell Swartz Nasa New Energy Times Nuclear Physics Ny Teknik Peter Hagelstein ROSSI Sergio Focardi Stanley Pons Sterling Allan Steven Krivit Sweden United States US USA