Proposed EU Copyright Law Could Drastically Change Internet Sharing and Publishing

I don’t normally get involved in broad societal issues on this site, but I have been reading about an issue that has caught my attention which I think could affect the sharing of information on sites like E-Cat World.

The European Union is in the process of revising copyright laws, and many people are alarmed about the impact that passage of the law as it is drafted at this point could have on the sharing of information online. The main focus of attention is Article 13 of the Copyright proposal of the European Commission which would seemingly drastically curtail fair use, which is the doctrine that certain copyrighted material can be used in limited ways without permission from copyright holders. I haven’t had time to dig deeply into all the legal ramifications, but what many observers are saying is that if the law is implemented it could drastically change the way the internet operates.

https://www.communia-association.org/2018/05/22/council-parliament-edge-towards-finalizing-positions-article-13-remains-mess/

Here are some comments from Mozilla on the topic.

Despite several failed attempts in countries across Europe (e.g. in Spain and Germany), the Commission has proposed introducing a new pan-European copyright for press publications, sometimes referred to as “ancillary copyright” or a “neighbouring right”, which would create new copyright for snippets of online content. That would mean anyone sharing a link with text, like a news headline or a short blurb about the article, could be charged a license fee from the publisher responsible for the content.
Worst of all, these restrictions would last for 20 years! What’s the last piece of online content that you looked at that was 20 years old?!

[…]

This proposal throws the idea of balanced copyright out the window, as it would make all open platforms liable for the actions of their users, enforce a particular type of business model (e.g. licenses), and impose mandatory filters, all with no safeguards to preserve copyright exceptions, or the rights of users.

These measures would in practice require monitoring and filtering of everything that European citizens upload to content-sharing services from social media sites (like Twitter and Facebook), outlets for creative expression (like YouTube, DeviantArt, SoundCloud, and Tumblr), to informational sites (like Wikipedia and the Internet Archives), to open source software repositories (like GitHub). It would be the responsibility of these services to play judge, jury, and executioner for copyright enforcement — businesses large and small could be held liable for the content their users access and share.

https://changecopyright.org/en-US/impact#creator-innovator

There will be a meeting of MEPs on the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament on June 20/21 where they will vote about their opinion on the law. Whatever they agree on will go forward to negotiations with the European Council.

According to EDRi, a Europeian association of civil and human rights organisations, the JURI committee does not yet have enough members against the proposed changes to block their passage, with some members being still undecided.

https://edri.org/

Here’s a video that has been recently published that discusses the issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvXOfq3AB8s&t=4s

There are a number of other sites covering this issue, urging EU citizens to let their Members of the European Parliament what they think about these proposed changes. However, as with many such complex governmental deliberations, most people are unaware of what is happening and what it could mean. While I haven’t looked into the issue in depth, from what I have read, if these changes go into effect, it could mean big changes for the internet, and how information is published online. I just wanted to do my part to let readers know that this is an issue and that there is a little time for people to let their opinions be know.

Q&A With Andrea Rossi about the E-Cat SK

I recently sent some questions to Andrea Rossi about his work on the E-Cat SK. Below are the questions and his responses.

1. You said that the testing took place at a laboratory that was not your own lab. Why did you go to a different lab for this test?

I needed particular instrumentation I do not have and also for safety reasons, due to the fact that the prototype of the SK could have been dangerous. I have paid a specialized laboratory for this test

2. You have said that the test lasted two days and it ran at 100 kW — how did you manage to keep it cool enough not to melt down during that time?

With a heat exchanger

3. What was the average temperature of the SK in your recent test?

Between 1 and 2 eV

4. What are the differences between the E-Cat SK and the E-Cat QX, and what are some of the advantages of the SK over the QX?

Sorry, but these particulars are confidential. I can say that I had to study electronics to understand issues that allowed us to invent components that do not exist in commerce and that resolved many problems, I would say in a very simple way. Most of times things that seem impossible are not impossible, so far you invent something that makes them not impossible. It is hard, also brutal, because you must study for hours glued to a chair and a table for 20 hours without losing the focus, sometimes is frustrating because you do not understand what you are studying , but you must insist until you understand, but at the end it works.

5. It sounds like for many months you have been getting ready for production of the E-Cat QX as your first commercial product. Do you now change your plans and start preparing to produce the SK instead of the QX?

Not instead, but also. Besides, attention: the QX has a story of a Sigma 5, I deem it reliable, the SK is still dangerous, but we have to make a lot of work to make it reliable and at this point it is very worth to try to make it ready by the end of the year. The Customer that already has made with us an agreement to buy the heat possibly will receive an SK instead of a QX. Maybe. Not impossible. Working on it.

6. Do you have any need in your R&D to advance beyond the E-Cat SK?

I always have this need, to advance beyond anything: it is what gives me life.

7. What makes the difference in the higher power output of the E-Cat SK compared to the QX?

The dimension and the circuitry to make the control. The reactor of the 1 kW QX has a volume of several cc, the SK has a volume of about half liter and a much more sophisticated series of inventions inside it.

8. We saw the E-Cat QX at the Stockholm presentation Can you provide some images of the E-Cat SK?

Externally you can see a box 4 times bigger that the one of the video of the Stockholm demonstration.
Internally will remain for ever a closed box, also for our Customers: as you know, the control will be completely made by means of restricted transmission channels from our heaquarter in the USA, wherever in the world the plant will be.

9. What can you tell us about the two other persons who were with you at the E-Cat SK test? What was their reaction to the test that they witnessed?

They are specialists of the matter and PhD in Physics. Thay think the toy can be very useful.

10. Some people think that Andrea Rossi is coming up with a new version of the E-Cat just as way to delay the introduction of a commercial product (which they suppose will never appear). How do you respond to that charge?

I have been also informed that many bet money on the fact that I will never put the Ecat on the market. I hope they did not bet a fortune, because, along the teaching of the Lord, I must love my enemies and I really do. Besides, I am grateful for any expression of sincere opinions. To them who say you “hey, look at Rossi: he pretends to have new models to run away from his promises to put any product in the market!”, it would be proper for you to respond ” Rossi told me to say thank you for your opinion”.
Thanks also to you and your readers for the attention to the work of our team.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Rossi ‘Trembling’ after E-Cat SK Test

Andrea Rossi has made some comments the tests that he and his team have carried out over the weekend on the latest version of the E-Cat that is called the ‘SK’ (named after the late Swedish physicist Sven Kullander). This is apparently a more powerful reactor than the QX. Here are some recent comments from Rossi about the SK testing.

Anonymous
May 27, 2018 at 5:31 PM
Dear Andrea:
Strong congratulations for the successful test of the Ecat SK. Can you tell us the power you got?

Andrea Rossi
May 27, 2018 at 5:45 PM
100 kW and it is 4 times as big as the 1 kW Ecat QX ( not counting the heat exchanger ), that has the same dimensions of the Ecat QX shown in Stockholm on Nov 24.
I think we made a very good work in these months. Very brutal, but fruitful.
I am still trembling. It was emotional. Now we have to work on it, but I think they will arrive together in the market.

Clark
May 27, 2018 at 8:51 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi:
Can you describe some particular phase that made you tremble during the Ecat SK test?

Andrea Rossi
May 27, 2018 at 10:14 PM
Clark:
we had to protect ourselves behind a grade 14 glass because looking at the light radiated by the SK could damage seriously the eyes. Few seconds after the turn on of the reactor the heat radiated from the Ecat SK broke the 14 protection glass. We had supplementary 14 protection masks. Nonetheless, I saw from that minuscule reactor exit a tremendously dazzling white light all around the laboratory and I will never forget this impression. The SK was born. I think we will make it useful. Many errors emerged, but now we work to correct them, the most difficult part has been resolved.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Just as a point of reference, 14 shade eye protection is the type used in glasses used for viewing a solar eclipse safely. The only light you can see with those glasses on is that of the sun, otherwise for looking at anything else, it is just like being blindfolded.

It’s still not clear to me from Rossi’s comments whether the SK will supersede the QX, since he says above that there are still “many errors” and that he thinks “they will arrrive in the market together”. So possibly he is thinking about a 2-track development until the SK problems are solved.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

What Really is ‘New Fire’ Fuel? (Bob Greenyer)

The following comment was posted here by Bob Greenyer

What really is ‘New Fire’ Fuel?

Using powerful new online Parkhomov nuclear reaction database to help explain real empirical data and guide potentially viable experimental choices.

Dr. Alexander Parkhomov’s net positive nuclide to stable nuclide interactive reaction tables are now available on

FusFis.org

Made possible by the superb donated programming talent of Denis Lamotte, thankyou Denis.

Blogpost is here: https://steemit.com/steemstem/@mfmp/what-really-is-new-fire-fuel

https://www.youtube.com/embed/BHxHtjP3ddQ

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

E-Cat is ‘Not a Miracle’

I found an exchange between Gerard McEk and Andrea Rossi on the subject of the E-Cat as a quite interesting and thought provoking.

Gerard wrote:

Wouldn’t you agree that, assuming that people are indeed the cause of the change in climate by burning fossile fuel, the Ecat IS the short term solution?
If you have earned enough money, in the coming years, please give the design and know-how to humanity, so it can be developed much more quickly than you and your team can do, just to save the world!

Andrea Rossi

Gerard McEk:
Thank you for your suggestion.
The global warming has much more complex origins and the Ecat is not a miraculous device.
It will be useful, for sure.
Warm Regards
A.R.

Gerard McEk

Dear Andrea,
I do not understand why you are saying that the Ecat is not a miracle. If it does do what you have been showing, then it is a miracle, at least in the eyes of 95% of the nuclear physists. Can you explain this, please?Andrea Rossi

Gerard McEk:
The Ecat is not a miracle, it is the product of a team that is working very, very hard that soon will enter the market.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

 

From Rossi’s point of view, I think I can understand why he considers it not to be miraculous, and from Gerard’s point of view, I can see why he thinks it is.

Rossi has been working with the E-Cat so closely and for so long that I would think for him it is a practical engineering project that has commercial applications. For the rest of us, it’s something that could well seem entirely miraculous. It reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke’s famous adage: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.

From one perspective we live in an age of miracles. To someone living just 200 years ago, technologies that are commonplace now, such as electricity, transportation, aviation, telecommunications, computing, Internet, space travel, medicine, etc. would be unbelievable. Yet here they are, and most of the time we take them for granted.

From another perspective, these developments have been produced by people like Rossi, inventors and engineers who have had the intuition or inspiration to pursue an idea to make progress in a certain field, and with practical application and hard work have brought something new into reality. The inventors and discoverers often won’t consider themselves to be miracle workers, they simply are pursuing a practical goal.

But for people like me, I think there is something miraculous and awe-inspiring about it all.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Brian Ahern, NASA and the First ‘Cold Fusion’ Patent Granted (1993 MIT/Air Force)

The following post has been submitted by Greg Goble
Is Nanofusion another name for LENR? It seems nanoparticles as fuel is integral to Leonardo Corp. LENR energy technology. It is still up-in-the-air as to whether or not fusion takes place in the low energy nuclear reactive environment, yet consider the term nanofusion.
If occasionally the energies released from transmutation events becomes localized into a nano location where two monoatomic isotopes of hydrogen find themselves and fusion between the two occurs, then nanofusion might just be the best descriptive name, rather than cold fusion. (While pondering this it’s good to keep in mind that there are two common fusion reactions in deuterium. One gives off neutrons while the other one doesn’t.) Read this NASA cold fusion experiment with heat-positive results, December 1989, NASA Technical Memorandum 102430, by Gustave Fralick of the NASA 2018 GRC AEC LENR team: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900008108.pdf
In 2003, a NASA LENR report chose to categorize the work of Brian Ahern as nanofusion instead of LENR. (See pages 44 – 48 ‘Low Energy Nuclear Reaction’. See pages 48 – 50 ‘Nanofusion’.
Inventor Brian Ahern has two LENR patents.
The first one was the first LENR patent granted by the U.S. patent office, way back in 1995. It is assigned to MIT and the U.S. government (Air Force) . It was published in 1993; only a few years after the initial cold fusion flurry of 1989 had settled down. Developed by and granted to MIT and the Air Force in spite of the fact that MIT played a major role in discrediting cold fusion research. (by falsifying data in order to show negative results, see Eugene F. Mallove ‘MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report’ in Further Reading)
The second LENR patent of Mr. Ahern claims the first as priority and is an LENR patent that uses nanoparticles. (In my opinion nanofusion is just another name for LENR and should be categorized as such.) As a daughter patent of the prior patent, which the government retains rights to, Mr. Ahern most likely needs to hold a licensing agreement for this LENR technology (permission) from the U.S. government (DOD Air Force) in order to commercialize it.
NASA / CR-2003-212169 “Advanced Energetics for Aeronautical Applications”
David S. Alexander, MSE Technology Applications, Inc., Butte, Montana
3.1.5 Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
3.1.5.1-Electrochemically Induced Deuterium Fusion in Palladium The first-discovered form of solid-state fusion was that achieved by electrochemically splitting heavy water in order to cause the deuterium to absorb into pieces of palladium metal. When this experiment is conducted according to procedures that have resulted from the work of many researchers since 1989, it is reproducible.
3.1.6 Nanofusion
3.1.6.1-Background Dr. Brian Ahern, whose background is physics and materials science, claims his nanofusion concept will take advantage of the demonstrated fact that nanosize particles (containing approximately 1,000 to 3,000 atoms) have different chemical and physical properties than bulk-size pieces of the same material. One reason Dr. Ahern gives for this is explained as given below.
  1. When a particle of a substance consists of 1,000 to 3,000 atoms in a cluster, there is a higher fraction of surface atoms than for atoms in a bulk piece of the same material.
  2. Military research (suggested by the nuclear physicist Enrico Fermi), which had been classified in 1954, but was later declassified, demonstrated that if a cluster of atoms in the 1,000 to 3,000 size range was given an impulse of energy (e.g., as heat) and if a significant number of these atoms have a nonlinear coupling to the rest (e.g., the coupling of surface atoms to interior atoms), the energy will not be shared uniformly among all the atoms in the cluster but will localize on a very small number of these atoms.
  3. Thus, a few atoms in the cluster will rapidly acquire a vibrational energy far above what they would have if they were in thermal equilibrium with their neighboring atoms.
  4. This “energy localization” explains why clusters in this size range are particularly good catalysts for accelerating chemical reactions.
  5. If the cluster is palladium saturated with deuterium, Dr. Ahern claims the localized energy effect will enable a significant number of the deuterons to undergo a nuclear fusion reaction, thereby releasing a high amount of energy.
The following 2010 LENR patent, assigned to Brian Ahern, claims the priority LENR patent from 1993, which has been granted and is assigned to MIT and the U.S. Air Force.
“Amplification of energetic reactions”
US 20110233061 A1 – Assignee – Brian S. Ahern
Publication date: Sep 29, 2011- Priority date: Mar 29, 2010
Abstract
Methods and apparatus for energy production through the amplification of energetic reactions. A method includes amplifying an energy release from a dispersion of nanoparticles containing a concentration of hydrogen/deuterium nuclei, the nanoparticles suspended in a dielectric medium in a presence of hydrogen/deuterium gas, wherein an energy input is provided by high voltage pulses between two electrodes embedded in the dispersion of nanoparticles.
Priority patent
1993 Air Force LENR Patent “Method of maximizing anharmonic oscillations in deuterated alloys” US5411654A Filed: Jul. 2, 1993 GRANT issued: Feb. 5, 1995 – Inventors: Brian S. Ahern, Keith H. Johnson, Harry R. Clark Jr. – Assignee: Hydroelectron Ventures Inc, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US Air Force – This invention was made with U.S. Government support under contract No. F19628-90-C-0002, awarded by the Air Force. The Government has certain rights in this invention. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5411654A
Further Reading:
“MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report”
Introduction by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
(MIT Class of 1969, Aero/Astro Engineering, SB 1969, SM 1970)
Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine
President, New Energy Foundation, Inc.
Quote
In fact, the story of cold fusion’s reception at MIT is a story of egregious scientific fraud and the coverup of scientific fraud and other misconduct—not by Fleischmann and Pons, as is occasionally alleged—but by researchers who in 1989 aimed to dismiss cold fusion as quickly as possible and who have received hundreds of millions of DOE research dollars since then for their hot fusion research. The cover-up of fraud, sad to say, reaches the highest levels at MIT and includes the current MIT President,Charles M. Vest. Remarkably, President Vest has recently been named by U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham to head the Task Force on the Future of Science  Programs at the Department of Energy. – end quotes
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Rossi’s Industrial E-Cat Strategy

This week’s revelations by Andrea Rossi about Leonardo Corporation’s business plan and technical strategy has been one of the most surprising things I have learned since I started following the progress of Rossi’s E-Cat.

I was not terribly surprised to learn that Rossi was planning to sell heat, rather than plants, because this is something he has talked about on and off over the years. The thing that took me off guard was the fact that in Rossi’s plan the E-Cat plants are to be controlled directly from Leonardo Corp’s headquarters. I just hadn’t even considered that as a possibility.

However, thinking about it, there are plenty of remote control application in the world, and knowing Rossi’s business philosophy, business goals and his desire for protection and control of his IP, this strategy – assuming it can work technologically – fits with his outlook.

There has been a lot of discussion on the implications of this strategy, and I have been thinking about it quite a bit, and some of my thoughts are outlined below.

Benefits for Leonardo:

  • The control secrets are off-site, providing more IP protection and confidence to implement E-Cat technology into the world.
  • Leonardo is able to directly monitor the performance of the E-Cat plants at multiple plants from one location, helpful for data collection and troubleshooting especially in the early days of sales and installations

Risks for Leonardo

  • In addition to providing an unprecedented energy source, the business plan is unusual. Industries may be suspicious about the secrecy and be wary of participating.
  • There will be significant costs required to set up, maintain and protect the telecommunications systems involved.
  • Using the internet to deliver the control signals to the e-cats adds another layer of complexity to the E-Cat’s operations. Internet connectivity may be problematic at times and Leonardo would likely be a target for hackers trying to steal secrets, or trying to disrupt their operations.
  • The more plants that are installed, the more complex the remote control and monitoring becomes. If Leonardo is knocked offline completely, then E-Cat plants in all locations will cease to work, affecting customers financially and operationally, and Leonardo loses revenues until resolved.

Benefits for Customers

  • Cost savings on heat for their industrial processes.
  • Reduction in carbon emissions.
  • No need for upfront investment in an unknown technology.
  • If it doesn’t work, or if does not work well, no loss to the customer. No need for training staff to run the E-Cat operations.

Risks for Customers

  • With E-Cat power supply dependent on internet connectivity, cost savings are dependent upon stable internet communications with Leonardo. If internet connectivity is unreliable, E-Cat benefits will be reduced.
  • There will be a need to continue to provide and maintain a backup energy source.
  • Entering into a 5-year contract could lock in higher costs if E-Cat costs go down as the technology improves over time.

My interest in the E-Cat and LENR in general has always been because of the practical benefits it can potentially provide. I think it is a good sign that Andrea Rossi is now working on an implementation plan, because I think the sooner that LENR can be put to work in the real world, the better.  Whether Rossi’s plan will be successful still remains to be seen. Even he has stated that it may not be the long term strategy:

Prof

Dr Andrea Rossi:
Your strategy to maintain the control system centralized in your HQ is one of the most genial solution you could think about.
Godspeed,

Andrea Rossi

Prof:
It has resolved the reverse engineering issue and allows us to maintain a direct observation of the behavior of all our Ecats. Surely this will be our strategy for the first “pioneers” years. Eventually, we will see.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

The Chiral Particle Radiation Hydrodynamics Effect (Axil Axil)

The following post has been submitted by Axil Axil

The flow of EMF radiation through plasma will separate particles based on their chirality. Since chiral particles migrate at different speeds when exposed to emf radiation, chiral particles will collect into separate regions and then further separate by their charge. This difference in how particles react to deal with photon momentum imparted by emf radiation and the then its subsequent absorption and later release of that energy is called chiral radiation hydrodynamics.

For the theory of how EMF radiation can separate chiral particles, see

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4307

Lateral optical force on chiral particles near a surface

In the SAFIRE experiment, multiple layers of chiral particles form. The emf emitted by the stimulating current flow is retarded and stored in each double layer. This storage mechanism is analogous to the way a wall comprised of many layers will retard a large wave.

The speed of light in that current flow is greatly slowed in response to the way hydrogen stores and releases that energy at its intrinsic natural resonance. This storage of this energy is amplified in each double layer as the emf energy moves to the outermost double layer until the outermost layer receives and stores an energy balance sufficient to generate hydrogen fusion that produces helium 3. This is the method in which the Radiation implosion based Teller–Ulam design for the hydrogen bomb works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_implosion

Radiation implosion

Tritium is not produced in this fusion reaction since the outermost double layer in which the fusion occurs is comprised of left handed chiral particles. Chiral particle separation insures that no radiation is generated by this fusion reaction.

The LENR reaction in SAFIRE

When the tungsten probe is inserted into a double layer, the Surface Plasmon Polaritons on the surface of the tungsten is excited through the release of the energy stored in the double layer. This high level of stored energy is converted into a polariton petal condensate as the density of polaritons grows large. The condensate generated by the LENR reaction and the chiral separation of particles in the double layer blocks all nuclear level radiation produced by the LENR reaction.

Androcles Reactor Setup Photos (Alan Smith)

These photos were posted in the previous Androcles thread by Alan Smith.

Here’s some pictures of the Androcles reactor set-up. A Petri dish for LENR, and more a-building.

a

a

And ‘under construction’ reactors.

a

And again..

a

And a mica-window pancake Geiger detector (with LFH’s design of front shield to protect that fragile mica bubble).

a

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Leonardo to Begin Commercialization by Selling Heat, not E-Cat Plants: Q & A With Andrea Rossi

Below is a Q & A exchange conducted today via email with Andrea Rossi regarding his plans for the commercial roll-out of industrial E-Cats.

1. Can you explain why you have decided now to announce that you are taking orders for the industrial E-Cat plants?

Because if we make plants we need clients.

2. You have been developing industrial E-Cat products for many years now. However, first generation E-Cat plants, like the one you operated during the 1-year test in Doral, never went into mass production. What is different with the current generation of E-Cat?

The former Ecats were not ready to be operated from clients.

3. For someone hearing about the E-Cat for the first time, and interested as a possible customer, what information would you like to tell them about your product?

The Customer has just to know how much energy we deliver, in which form and at what price, plus the information that will be contained in the safety instructions. We will make the installation

4. What size (in power rating) plants are you taking orders for?

1 MW

5. How much physical space would a 1 MW E-Cat plant occupy?

15′ x 9′ x 9′

6. If someone orders a plant today when can they expect to be able to receive it?

End 2018/2019 first quarter

7. Comparing an E-Cat plant to a typical natural gas heating system of the same power rating, about how much cheaper would it be to operate over one year?

Enough

8. You have mentioned recently for example that industrial plants could be installed in facilities like factories, hospitals and greenhouses which need heat. What would be your definition of an industrial application for an E-Cat?

An application wherein the heat is used by an industry for any purpose

9. What would be the approximate cost of a 1MW plant if it were ordered today?

We will sell heat, not plants

10. Is your business model now to only sell heat, or will you sell plants to customers in the future?

It will depend on the evolution of the situation

11. At the factories where you sell heat, will Leonardo personnel operate the plants, or will employees of the local company operate them?

The plant will be operated in remote from our headquarter, through the cloud with dedicated servers. The Client will not have any operation to do inside the plant

12. When a customer makes an agreement with Leonardo, are they agreeing to pay just a monthly energy bill, or are there other up-front costs involves (such as installation fees)?

This will depend on the agreement.

13. What is the minimum length of time for a contract duration?

5 years

14. What is the guaranteed minimum COP of an E-Cat plant?

Enough

15. What is the maximum temperature or steam that an E-Cat plant can produce?

600 C

16. Who will install E-Cat plants for customers?

Leonardo Corporation

17. How will training on how to operate an E-Cat plant be done?

The expert responsible for safety of the Client will make a course on site

18. Like with any product, a typical customer will more than likely want to see a demonstration of an E-Cat plant before making a decision to purchase. When will you show your new product, and demonstrate it in operation?

When one will be in operation

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged