United States Patent US 9,115,913 B1

Read the whole US Patent
Download the ZIP file of US Patent

33,699 comments to United States Patent US 9,115,913 B1

  • Andrea Rossi

    The author of both the sketch of the puppets and the song is Thomas Floreck, from New Jersey.
    Warm Regards,

  • Markus

    Congratulations for the website
    In the menu there are also the very funny spots with the puppets and the final song: who made them? Very funny.

  • Dear Andrea,
    Or you could add fluorescent glass (the same what exists in fluorescent lamps) to turn the UV into visible photons and then use ordinary silicon PV. That might give better efficiency than illuminating silicon-PV with UV directly. The silicon-PV should be cooled by the heat transfer fluid because at high temperature its efficiency goes down. If cool enough fluid is not available, one can use gallium-arsenide instead of silicon, because it tolerates warm temperature better. GaAs is more expensive than Si, but I don’t know how much.
    regards, /pekka

  • Patty

    I understand that you calculated the power radiated from 1 square centimeter of the plasma and, to be conservative, you have not calculated the power radiated from the remaininf 329 square centimeters of the plasma surface: did I understand well?

  • Eric Ashworth

    An interesting debate between Rodney and Orsobubu and your response. I think as Rodney and Orsobubu point out in contrasting ways with regards the E-Cat technology , I feel that this is not a major problem to deal with at this time of introducing this technology. We must consider a third factor which is difficult to understand without actually being involved with a new technology that involves understanding how energy interacts without producing a product with a situation that is able to demonstrate a complex mystery. Yes both Rodney and Orsobubu have valid points of view with regards world politics and industrial competitiveness but this is not the reason why LENRs are shunned by the establishment and a consequential knock on effect by research establishments that are one step beneath their partners in charge. What is missing in the big picture with regards this newly discovered cheap, clean source of energy is the silence from the people who control propaganda at the highest level and why this should be?. From my own personal experience I believe it to be the technology and the understanding of it, when projected into an understanding of energy interaction that then becomes the crux to the problem. Basically it’s about how positive and negative structures interact to form a life sustaining neutral. Also it can refer to human evolution and its necessary interaction within a chain of events that requires a degree of understanding with intelligence able to project and understand cycles of evolution. Intuition represents the only form of real intelligence, reading from books and repeating format represents a good memory. Both are essential for a planet to evolve onto a higher level. Regards Eric Ashworth

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    A “Black Body” is a hypothetical absorber and radiator of energy, with no reflecting power. It radiates at all frequencies with a spectral energy distribution dependent on its temperature in Kelvin. Our calculation is focused only in 1 cm^2 where the plasma has the max density, while the plasma has a surface of about 330 cm^2, so to measure the power we consider only 1/330 of the plasma surface focusing conservatively only where there is the max density and the max absolute temperature. As you can see, the spectrum is more complex.
    Obviously it radiates only at the frequencies with a spectral energy distribution corresponding to the temperature in K
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    Interesting, but still too green.
    Warm regards,

  • Dear Andrea,
    Concerning how to make electricity using PV. Since the SK makes UV, in theory the most well suited would be a high-bandgap semiconductor like silicon carbide. But probably such PV devices don’t exist in the market, because thus far there hasn’t been a need to convert UV into electricity. In principle it’s the reverse of a blue LED, which does exist in the market.
    regards, /pekka

  • Daniel De Caluwé


    What I liked about the second last message of Rodney Nicholson is that he emphasized that, especially for energy intensive companies, a 20% reduction in energy cost could make the difference between surviving or losing the (according to me exaggerated but very realistic) economical competition battle between companies. I think what he wrote is very realistic and true, but I agree with you that the fierce competition in the world economy in fact is ‘a nightmare’ and ‘a grim perspective for workers’, like you wrote in your reaction.

    I’m certainly not a (hard) capitalist, but also not a Bolshevist (although we have to come up (and protect) for the poor/weak people and countries, in a co-operative and solidary way, I don’t like the (extreme) Bolshevist ‘struggle/battle of the classes’ against each other, nor in the ‘dictatorship of the working class’, that created a horrible society (with dictators like Stalin) in the former Sovjet Union, but I do think that our world economy is too competitive, and should be more co-operative. I agree with you that the situation of the present world economy, with its exaggerated competition, creates a ‘nightmare’ and a ‘grim perspective’ for many countries and most people, and therefore I would prefer a more co-operative world, with less exploitation and, for instance, also less (political and economical) refugees. If I reflect on it, many problems are caused by the exaggerated competition (and lack of co-operation) in our present world-economy. So, for instance, political refugees are caused by the pernicious/nefarious geopolitics of the superpowers (US, Russia and China), that, as permanent members with veto’s, dominate the UN Security Council with their veto’s, to maintain their egoistic geopolitical agenda, like we have seen in the Second Gulf War (in Irak in 2003, for which the US was responsible) and the recent conflict in Syria (were Russia supports Assad). These conflicts, caused by the battle of the superpowers for (economical) supremacy, that also divides the world and the nations against each other (think f.i. of the present conflict in Jemen), caused many refugees fleeing to Europe. And my reaction as a European is that I want a better world for everybody on this planet, and therefore we need a co-operative world economy, based on human rights for everybody (so that nobody is exploited), with a working class protected by a more powerful ILO (International Labour Organisation, that is the part of the UN that is necessary to protect the rights of working class people everywhere), and even a more co-operative and democratic UN (a more democratic UN Security Council without veto’s for permanent members, but with special majorities (like 2/3 or 3/4) for important decisions). In this 21th century, also the beginning of the ‘Aquarian Age’;-), we need a better working, more democratic (no veto’s but special majorities) and more powerful UN to resolve world wide problems like exaggerated competition and pernicious/nefarious geopolitics, with all their bad consequences. In name of all who suffer, we need a more co-operative world, with a co-operative world economy, serving all people in every country, worldwide. And of course, the UN also needs to organize information campaigns to counter overpopulation.

    Kind Regards,

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    in the eCat SK demonstration, the radiometric spectrum showed energy output at wavelengths of about 450(nm?) or shorter wavelengths. Blackbody radiation would typically extend into the longer wavelengths? Is this an instrument limitation (radiometer was not sensitive to longer wavelengths, or optical filtering was used) or is the actual output spectrum only at wavelengths of 450nm or shorter?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Luz Grinberg:
    Thank you for your attention to our work,
    Warm Regards,

  • Luz Grinberg

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    the website http://www.ecatskdemo.com as it is now is very well done. The subdivision in links to the main highlights is very useful, as well as the link to your theoretical publication on Researchgate. Very well done, congrats to the guys that did it. Also the problem of your voice has been remarkably improved.
    Thanks for all your work and thank you for not forgetting us, the household Ecat followers,

  • Italo R.

    To Michel:
    The explanation is simple: since the plasma is an electrical conductor with almost zero electrical resistance, the electric current that flows through it (3.2 mA) causes in it a practically null voltage drop.
    So the reactor alone consumes negligible energy.
    This is the reason why only the power absorbed by the resistance (0.8 mW) is used in the calculations.
    The COP value of the reactor alone is therefore incredibly high, not even measurable.

    Kind Regards,
    Italo R.

  • Hi Orsobubu:

    Regarding your: February 7, 2019 at 7:34 PM:

    “ …….. Now, his post looks to me as a realistic picture of a nightmare (!), a grim perspective for workers, for managers, for industrialists, for US economy, for LENR, for Rossi, in short, for everything we love.

    “Rodney, I hope you’ll add a final chapter on possible future adoption of new, more advanced production systems getting rid of Capital and Money, possibly linking this revolution to the New Fire Age.

    “And don’t forget to specify that all energy forms must be integrated.”
    = = = = = = = = = = =
    Thank you for the kind words. At the risk of taking up an unreasonable amount of space on this blog, this is categorically to be my final post here on the subject of economics! Please feel free to delete this if you wish, Andrea. Please reply to this if you wish, Orsobubu, but if you do, I shall not respond. I will leave you the fun of administering a ‘parting shot’.

    Since you decided to share with the good people here the nature of the project I am presently working on, it seems only fair that I let them know that you are involved in a project to republish the entire writings of Karl Marx.

    I have explained to you what a sad waste of resources that will represent. Not only a waste of the paper (and the trees) it will have to be printed on, but also of the, hopefully, intelligent manpower and other resources involved, which could have been devoted to doing something productive instead.

    As for the nightmare you refer to, the only people who might find ‘capitalism’ a nightmare are the owners of businesses producing poor quality products and/or carelessly wasting resources in producing them. For everyone else, on a scale ranging from nightmare to utopia, capitalism rates much, much closer to utopia. This is true especially in the case of consumers, and we are all consumers. When free markets are allowed to flourish, truly massive improvements in living standards are enjoyed by the overwhelming majority of the population. In contrast, wherever socialism is inflicted on people, living standards do not rise, they fall. Often PRECIPITOUSLY.

    A sample among more prominent recent examples of this include the nations of Eastern Europe where many considered it preferable to be shot dead climbing the Berlin Wall rather than to continue living in East Germany.

    Or take Zimbabwe, once one of the more economically successful countries in Africa and a net exporter of food, where today more than 90% of the population (some estimates say 96%) are subsistence farmers while the country has become a net importer of food. (And where the government’s marxist statisticians hilariously classify subsistence farmers as ’employed’!) Have you not asked yourself why it is all the migrants currently trying to exit Africa are taking the highly risky trip across the Mediterranean to capitalist Europe, rather than simply taking the safer land route to marxist utopia Zimbabwe?

    Or take Cuba, where those able to, have fled the country to live, most often, in the United States, and have no desire to return (providing a broad hint you would do well to take note of, in my opinion).

    Or most recently there is, of course, Venezuela where the socialist policies of Chavez and Maduro have transformed the country from being one of the most prosperous in a generally poor South America, to a level at which several million have already had to flee, to any country other than Venezuela, to avoid starvation. Given the views you hold, has it never occurred to you to spend some time figuring out why it is all the emigrants from Latin America are moving in hordes north to the United States, not south to Maduro’s marxist paradise?

    As I may have said to you before, Mr. Orsobubu, I am surprised you seem unable to process all this evidence staring you in the face. Whenever the economic system you say you prefer is introduced, poverty rapidly follows. And the reasons for this are not rocket science, but I am not going to take up yet more blog space elaborating about it here.

    Regarding your comments about money and capital: you would win a Nobel Prize if you could find a way to run a prosperous economy either: A) without a medium of exchange, which is money’s principal function. The alternative, barter, has never been celebrated on account of its convenience. Or, B) without capital. Capital is used in large amounts in all types of economies, including marxist ones. Even some animals use it: apes, for example, fashion small tree limbs to use to extract termites from their mounds for food; some dolphin species spend time finding sponges to use them when they need them to protect their noses when scrounging for food just below the sea bed; and of course almost all birds, and many squirrels and other animals, devote considerable resources to building nests or digging burrows – the human equivalent of the capital stock of housing.

    But most important regarding capital: since the level of living standards depends on the quantity of useful output created, improvement in living standards is impossible without adding to the stock of capital, with which additional output can be produced.

    Finally, in a market economy all forms of energy become integrated automatically.

    Beyond the above I will not comment further. But both Mr. Orsobubu and Mr. Rossi are on my list to receive a free copy, when it gets published, of what I am currently working on. But that is not likely to happen very soon.

    And now I shall return to my cave trying to remember that I have given an undertaking not to be induced into wasting any more space discussing the economy here, no matter the provocation!


  • Andrea Rossi

    The plasma is a conductor. As you have seen in the video, the plasma has not gaps along the circuit. When you have a circuit whose sole load is a resistance, if you measure the resistance , by means of an Ohm-meter and the voltage across the resistance, you obtain by the equation of Ohm the current of the circuit ( whole of it ). Since the plasma, as we said, is a conductor, the current of the circuit is the same across the whole circuit.
    Therefore when you obtain with the equations of Ohm:
    1- V/R = A
    2- A x V = W
    1 and 2 are valid across the whole circuit.
    Anyway: you have in the video the calculations both of the COP with E2 and E1 + E2, so you can choose what you prefer, just consider that E1 pays in full for itself, because its heat is not dissipated, but recovered almost in full, either to make heat for the room or to preheat the secondary circuit. So, choose the solution you prefer. This is why I put both the calculations.
    By the way, if you have the patience, after digesting the video of January 31st, to watch also the video of the demo made with the E-Cat QX in Stockhom on November 24th 2017, this issue has been detailed making a comparative analysis with a dummy ( go to http://www.ecat.com and choose the link to the video of the November 24 Stockholm Demo ).
    Thank you for your attention to the work of our Team,
    Warm Regards,

  • Michel

    Dear Dr Rossi,

    Could you clarify the E2 calculation:

    If i understand well, the 250mV are not the input voltage of the reactor, but the voltage accross a shunt resistor (78 Ohms). The video indicates the input power of the reactor is 800µW, in fact it is the power dissipated by the resistor.

    I agree the oscilloscope shows the input current, but to be rigorous it misses the voltage at the entrance of the reactor.
    As an exemple, if the input voltage of the reactor is 1KV, then the true input power is 1000 x 0.25/78 = 3W, despit you still have 800µW on the resistor.



  • Andrea Rossi

    Chuck Davis:
    Surely I have it in mind, we will not betray the idea of the househod applications.
    Production of heat is at this point easy: the Ecat should be a 20 kW module as you saw her in
    Production of lectricity is much more complicated, because the direct production from the “ballerina” is still not reliable and efficient, the Seebeck effect could be a way, as well as the photovoltaic effect, it will be a matter of efficiency. Probably their evolution will improve their efficiency, mainly for the P.V.
    We’ll see.
    Warm Regards,

  • Chuck Davis

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I’m sure you already have in mind the home Ecat. I’m sure you will launch it as soon as the induatrial applications wil have matured enough experience to alow it.
    Can you antivipate if:
    1- it will make only heat or also electricity?
    2- if also electricity, with which system?
    3- for example: thermoelectric by the Seebeck effect?
    Warm Regards,
    Chuck Davis

  • Andrea Rossi

    Very nice reference of a prestigious French publication related to our January 31st presentation of the Ecat SK.
    Thank you for the reference!
    Warm Regards,

  • …. ma guarda un po’:


    Con sempre viva stima e simpatia

    P.S. Che Dio ti aiuti, ma tu rispetta la tua salute.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Warm Regards,

  • JPR

    Dear Andrea,
    It happened to me to read today this: http://www.classe.cornell.edu/research/CesrTA/ElectronCloud.html
    In particular I noted the incipit of the paper (page 1):
    “It wasn’t until the 1990’s that the BUILD UP OF HIGH DENSITIES OF LOW ENERGY ELECTRONS was identified as the reason behind performance limitations in many types of particles accelerators over the preceding decades…(OMISSIS)…THESE ELECTRONS CAUSE A WIDE VARIETY OF UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS”
    Now, comparing this paper to your paper published on Researchgate on January 24 2019

  • Andrea Rossi

    The ads are for persons that don’t know about us. Persons that go to http://www.ecat.com already know us, they need information, not ads.
    In our website they can find all, also all the links to the menu of
    Warm Regards,

  • Sven

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    1.You have advertising for E-Cat SK on E-Catworld but not on your official site ecat.com.
    2.The information about your offerings is not up to date on ecat.com.

    Could you explain why?

    Best regards

  • Andrea Rossi

    You are right. Yes, we will organize the best possible assistance, but our Clients must have a back up.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Daniel De Caluwé:
    Thank you for your insight,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    Peter Forsberg! What a pleasure to hear from you again…thank you for the attention to the work of our Team,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Rebecca Newton:
    Quite remarkable, mainly after the editing made on
    We raised artificially the tone of my bad voice, cut the useless parts and made a menu so that the Readers can go on the spot on the part they are interested to, if they want not to watch the whole 3 hours raw video.
    Warm Regards,

  • Rebecca Newton

    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    How would you define the results of the Ecat SK presentation?
    I can see that most of the qualified attendance has reacted positively to it.

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Congratulations of going into the commercial phase of the ECat project.

    Godspeed and God Bless

    Peter Forsberg

    Jeremiah 33:3

  • Daniel De Caluwé

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    On February 1, 2019 at 3:43 PM, I wrote:

    ‘I was able to look at the whole presentation now, and I also agree with your calculations (except maybe with the ‘calorimetric comparision’, where I found another result for the Power needed to heat up the air from 0°C to 16°C: As the Cp of air is 1 J/(kg*K), I found: Power = 6700(kg/h)*1(J/(kg*K))*16K = 107200J/H = (107200/3600)Watt = 29.78 Watt, but I was quick, and maybe I’m wrong?)’

    As I was very busy, I only now found the time to recheck what I wrote above (in the quote), and I saw that I made a mistake because of a wrong table in my polytechnical thumb book, where the Cp of air was given as 1 J/(kg*K), where it is 1 kJ/(kg*K) (Baehr), but this means that I have to correct my result as 29.78 kWatt (and not 29.78 Watt). But of course that is more than the 20.5 kWatt that you calculated.

    But in the case of gases like air, the Cp and the Cv are not equal. The Cp (specific heat at constant pressure) always is bigger than the Cv (specific heat at constant volume), because in the first case (Cp) also work is delivered. (Imagine a closed bottle with air that has to be heated (Cv) and compare it with a bottle with a piston, where the pressure is held constant (at the other side of the piston = (for instance) atmospheric pressure), and some of the heat is used to move the piston, so work is done, and that means less energy to heat up the air, so the Cp of gases always is bigger than the Cv of gases.

    And although a room is never completely closed (there are always leaks and losses to the environment, especially when, from time to time, doors are opened ;-), we could consider a room (filled with air) as a recipient with constant volume, isn’t it?

    Well, lets calculate again with the Cv (at constant volume) of air instead of the Cp (at constant pressure) or air. This link gives the properties of air>:


    And there we found: Cv of air = 0.7171 kJ/kgK (instead of the Cp that is 1 kJ/kgK)

    Calculating with Cv instead of the Cp, I find:

    Power = 6700(kg/h)*0.7171(kJ/(kg*K))*16K = 76873.12 kJ/h = (76873.12/3600) kJ/s = 21.35 kW, what is very close to your result…

    Kind Regards,
    Ir. Daniel De Caluwé

  • O. S.

    Dt. Rossi,

    for an industrial plant a highly reliable heat supply is usually more important than a bit of energy cost saving.
    You said that all e-catSK will be controlled from Leonardo’s headquater.
    Will this be done from a 24h/7d occupied control room?
    And in case that an e-catSK needs repair work, will you gurantee a maximum response time for one of your maintenance guys to be dispatched?

    O. S.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Aillas Toice:
    None of the two.
    No, we are not working anymore on the control panel, that we deem consolidated, albeit, as everything, subject to evolution. While the Ecat QX’s c.p. was not enough reliable to be delivered to a Client, the SK’s is.
    Warm Regards,

  • Aillas Troice

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    Congratulations on the important milestone on January 31st. I’ve been following your work since the Lugano test, and it’s great to see the commercialization phase has finally begun.

    I was wondering if you can answer the following without disclosing anything confidential: You say the control panel consumes 380Wh/h, but only a small part of that energy is actually fed to the E-cat, the rest is lost as waste heat (that can be recuperated). Is there basically a powerful computer in the control panel, doing complex calculations to keep the reaction going and generating all that waste heat in the process, like all powerful computers do? Or is there some complex and inefficient energy transformation process going on in the control panel, a process that turns only a small part of the 380WH/h into a form the e-Cat can use, while the rest of the energy is “wasted”? Is reducing the control panel’s power consumption one of your current priorities? Thank you if you can answer and godspeed!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Nils Fryklund:
    Work in progress.
    Warm Regards,

  • orsobubu


    Rodney is a great folk who is writing a deep study about capitalism, and you can see it from the knowledges he has. Now, his post looks to me as a realistic picture of a nightmare (!), a grim perspective for workers, for managers, for industrialists, for US economy, for LENR, for Rossi, in short, for everything we love.

    Rodney, I hope you’ll add a final chapter on possible future adoption of new, more advanced production systems getting rid of Capital and Money, possibly linking this revolution to the New Fire Age.

    And don’t forget to specify that all energy forms must be integrated.

  • Nils Fryklund

    Dear Andrea!
    Very exciting times now! I listen to the E-catSK song now and then.
    Has the large 40MW customer got his second 22KW E-catSK yet, or is it going to be installed?
    Best regards
    Nils Fryklund

  • Correction:

    In the fifth from last line in my February 7, 2019 at 2:24 PM message, the word ‘customers’ should instead have been ‘competitors’. Sorry about that.


  • Hi folks:

    Regarding the prompt, or otherwise, adoption of E-Cat technology by businesses using large quantities of heat, there is a simple answer: The reality is that competition is fierce in the great majority of industries in North America. In consequence, profit margins are narrow enough that, among companies using large quantities of heat, the difference between one that achieves a 20% reduction in its costs of heat and one that does not, can mean the difference between being healthily profitable or bankrupt.

    So, if I owned a business in which one quarter of my expenses were the cost of heat, and I was able to reduce that cost from one quarter to 20% by renting my heat from Leonardo Corporation, the very last thing I would want to do is let my competitors know what I was doing. I would suddenly find myself, because I was more alert than they were, at a huge competitive advantage. So it does not surprise me at all that those who switch to E-Cat heat would be keen that there be an NDA, effectively delaying for as long as possible their competitors realizing what was happening.

    This would be simply another example of what has been going on for centuries: a highly alert company outwitting others that were just a little less alert. For example: during the course of the 20th Century, 1,637 american companies were in the business of manufacturing automobiles. As we all know, 1,634 of them went broke because only three remain in business today. The others had to close down either because they didn’t do quite as good a job of creating products that impressed customers, or because they didn’t do quite as good a job of keeping their costs down.

    In a highly competitive economy like that of the US, finding ways to cut costs just a couple of percent more effectively than your competitors is essential to remaining in business. So the E-Cat can make a huge difference to the economic viability of an alert company using large quantities of heat. And the management would be crazy to make their customers aware of it. Staying in business is difficult enough as it is.

    By the same token, once people become aware of E-Cat technology, if they do not immediately adopt it they will be competed out of business by those that do.


  • Andrea Rossi


  • Andrea Rossi

    1- yes
    2- no
    3- no
    4- if it works, yes
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Patrick Ellul:
    Now we are going into a period during which we will have a commercial expansion.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Greg Daigle:
    For now we do not serve houses, eventually, we’ll see.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Yes, we tried to make it easy to look at the highlights.
    Warm Regards,

  • Prof

    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    http://www.ecatskdemo.com after the editing is very beautiful.
    Thank you!

  • Greg Daigle

    Dr Rossi,
    do you think the diffusion of the Ecat can be spurred by the US House Resolution on the New Green Deal?
    Greg Daigle

  • Lib

    Dear Dr Rossi,

    Summarizing your answers:

    – Who is imposing the NDA, a) your company or b) the customers?
    > answer a+b
    – In case the answer [the above] is b). Can a customer disclose they are using your product if they decide so?
    > answer yes

    I wanted to ask you some additional questions:

    1. In case of an NDA imposed by both your company and your customers (the a+b case of your answer), could your customers still disclose they are using your product if they decided to do so?

    2. Don’t you think that sealing the outcome of the COP of the Ecat behind an NDA could hinder rather then promote the diffusion of the Ecat?

    3. Is there any entry fee that your customers need to pay to use your product?

    4. If a car brand advertised that a certain model could run for 20000 miles without refueling, due to a proprietary new and yet unknown and undisclosed phenomenon, but sealed the actual performances of such car behind a strong NDA, would you buy that car?

    Kind Regards,


  • Patrick Ellul

    Dear Andrea,
    Throughout your journey, your followers have always had a milestone to look forward to.
    What is your next major milestone and when do you think it will happen?
    Best regards.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eric Ashworth:
    Thank you for your insight,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Alessandro Coppi:
    Thank you for your suggestion,
    Warm Regards

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>