.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
Introduction
These pages have been given to me from Prof. Sergio Focardi, when I asked him to help me with math to set up my theory.
These pages have been very important to me and I hope will be as much useful to our readers.
This way, Prof. Focardi continues to teach.
.
Andrea Rossi
.
P.S.
The notes are mine. Therefore may be wrong.
.
.
.
Joe:
I agree with Peter Forsberg.
What you are missing is the necessary distinction between subjective and objective entities. It is true that the knowledge of objective entities is not absolute, but is an approximation that changes with further and further intersubjective replication of knowledge; you cannot mess up subjective considerations with the research of entities intersubjectively recognized or recognizable, or even falsifyable ( remember the Popper falsification principle, or the Fermat theorem in Mathematics).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Joe,
You sound like a buddhist monk. Why do you bother writing on a journal called Journal of Nuclear PHYSICS?
Regards
Peter
Pietro F.:
That is not our strategy and is not gonna happen, for many circumstances.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Buongiorno ing. Rossi,
ha considerato, a termine, il rischio che la società con cui lavora venga acquistata da qualche fondo sovrano (es Qatar) con il fine di ritardare/occultare la tecnologia ecat?
Buon lavoro
Hello ing. Rossi,
you have considered in the long term, the risk that the company he works with are acquired by some sovereign wealth fund (es. Qatar) with the purpose of delaying / hide the technology ecat?
good work
Peter,
1. The mind is not a mirror. If it ever were a reflector, we humans (and others) would never perceive anything. Rather, it is a translator that engages physical phenomena and interprets whatever it can from it in order for us humans (and others) to survive in this Universe.
2. The physical Universe will always exist beyond the comprehension of any of its constituents. The only thing that our (and others’) minds can do is interact with it in order to learn how to adapt to this strange situation. We will always feel lost in this Universe since no satisfying answers will ever come from it. Satisfaction can only come after the abrupt cessation of questioning. It is only by giving our minds a rest that we can turn to peace.
All the best,
Joe
Herb Gills:
As I said in my answer to Jim Rice, I passed on his considerations to our IP Guys.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi:
I would like to begin by strongly seconding the recommendations of Jim Rice.
As a technical person (non-attorney) with more than 30 years experience researching and drafting patents I have come to appreciate the importance of describing inventions in sufficient detail as to enable a person of “ordinary skill in the art” to reproduce them without special assistance from the inventor. I have seen important patent applications fail to be granted because of indefinite or incomplete disclosure of the working details of the invention.
Additionally; I would like to compliment you on your innovative use of crowd sourcing [ie, encouraging comments on this blog site] as a source of information and recommendations for solving technical problems. Now that you have partnered with a large corporation I suspect that you have heard the term “contamination” in regard to use of crowd sourcing. Contamination is, in effect, external input in the inventive process. In an open blog site it may also involve premature disclosure of critical elements of an invention, which could create prior art that can be cited against a patent application later. It can create legal problems in the patent prosecution process, and more problems after a patent is granted (ie. opportunities for litigation). I’m sure your legal staff (or that of your partner company) can fill you in on the details.
If you are not already familiar with the potential problems with the continued use of crowd sourcing I strongly encourage you to discuss the matter with your legal department. There are countermeasures you may need to take.
Regards; HRG.
Jim Rice:
Thank you for your useful comment.
I passed your interesting patent strategy considerations to the patent division of our Partner: I am sure their attorneys will consider them.
I am no more involved in patent strategy: I must say that in this period I am working very well because I have no more to think about patents, production, daily business, etc etc, but only to the R&D and the science of the reactors. I do not know if the results of this work will be positive or negative, as I said many times we will share the information about the results at the end of this cycle of work, but one thing is sure: now I can work full time on the technology, at the maximum of my possibilities, integrated in a team of top level. I feel like ” playing in the majors”. I also am working in an area at very high technological level and strongly industrialized, where there is easy access to any necessary instrumentation we need: when I need some instrument I have just to ask for it, and I receive it in matter of days, if not hours.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Peter Forsberg:
I agree .
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe,
I agree that a rock, a bird, a flower, a human, and another human all understands space and time differently. This is because they are all different “mirrors” of the universe. But the universe exists in an objective form as Rossi put it. The purpose of science is to find that objective form. Though the mind is an imperfect subjecive mirror, I believe that it is possible for minds that use tools such as pen and paper, computers, microscopes, telescopes and particle accelerators to arrive at this objective mirror of the universe. A mirror that is true to the fundamental workings of the universe. And I suspect that this will be achieved within these few coming decades. I hope within my lifetime.
I also belive as you say that the fundamental rules of the universe will be quite alien to entities with minds, since minds exist on a much higher level of abstraction. But what is wrong with that? Should we not try to find the fundamental rules of physics?
Regards
Peter
Dear Dr. Rossi:
I wish to discuss your patent strategy. I am an inventor myself, having submitted and successfully prosecuted (as applicant pro se) my own invention. This will be a bit lengthy, but I hope it will have information useful to you.
Identification: I met you in Switzerland in Sept of 2012. I offered to invest a small amount and you kindly responded that you didn’t wish to dance on my bones. My offer still stands, of course.
I note that you have been assigned Patent Examiner Deean for your application 12/736,193. That examiner has already written final rejections for two applications by Robert Godes (11/617.632 and 12/911,586). His logic for rejection can usefully be examined since it will probably be used to answer your own application.
His argument (essentially identical for both Godes applications) is as follows. Quotes from the rejections are between quote marks.
“Under 35 U.S.C. 112 the inventor must provide adequate written description of the invention and adequately teach how to make and/or use the invention.”
He goes on to say that because of the new subject area of the invention and the new physics involved, a very detailed description of how to make and operate the invention is needed:
“As stated in MPEP 2164.03, the amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention (i.e., have someone else reproduce the invention) is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art. The art of the present invention…is so new that it cannot be considered to have a body of knowledge associated with it…where, as here, the utility of the claimed invention is based upon allegations that border on the incredible or allegations that would not be readily accepted by a substantial portion of the scientific community, sufficient substantiating evidence of operability must be submitted by the applicant.”
He goes on to state that this substantiating evidence should take the form of an article in a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Observations:
1. It does not appear to me to be especially useful to state in the application a theory of what is happening on a physical level. It is not necessary to the application and just gives the examiner something to attack by stating that it’s not accepted theory. Plus it is not really known yet.
2. There are two strategies for obtaining intellectual property protection: Patents and trade secrets. I think the latter is not practical for you due to the probable reverse engineering of your invention shortly after the first model is released to the general public. You can slow the dissemination of how your invention works but not stop it with customer non-disclosure agreements. That leaves us with patents as the only way to protect your invention.
Because of the newness of the field of invention and the new physics involved, you must include in the patent application specifications EVERYTHING that a person knowledgeable in the art would need to reproduce your invention. I interpret this to mean essentially complete blueprints and instructions for construction and operation. This can even include instructional videos, digital CAD files, etc.
If you do this, imitators will immediately begin to construct your invention using your published application. But in the long run it will benefit them not at all because you will eventually have a patent that prohibits construction without your permission. In fact, every time they construct a working copy of your invention, it helps your patent application.
3. Regarding the substantiating evidence, the recent report of the Hot Cat by independent scientists was not published in a POPULAR peer reviewed science journal, but due to the resistance to LENR ideas in the mainstream scientific community, I think it will have to do, and I’m sure you plan on submitting it to the examiner as a response to his Office Action. I would suggest including it in the specifications of any new applications also.
4. It seems to me that there is danger in every day that goes by that you do not submit a new patent application (and it will have to be a new one, since you cannot add to the patent specifications after the application has been submitted) containing sufficient detail that your invention can be reproduced. Eventually, someone else is going to submit enough detail and supporting evidence that their patent will be granted. As you know, the USPTO is now “First to File”, not “First to Invent”. So it will not matter that you invented something first.
5. As an aside, please note that if the invention has been commercialized (sold or rented), this is evidence that your invention is non-obvious and thus patentable. The idea is that if someone can make money selling your invention, and no one else has done so, then it’s not an obvious invention, since presumably people will make obvious things if they can make money at it. So you may want to include in your patent application or response to an Office Action details of any sales you have made of your invention.
Bottom line: If I were you, I would begin immediately submitting multible patent applications with very detailed engineering data on how to construct and use all your devices. I think this is the only way you will be able to protect your inventions.
As always, I am at your disposal if I can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
Jim Rice
Steven Schor:
Thank you, for the info,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi, Peter,
The mind adapts, that is what the mind does. A rock, a bird, a flower, and a human all adapt differently. Each understands space and time differently. If they did not, all four would be able to intelligibly share their view with each other. Since that is not the case, space and time can not be commonly shared phenomena. This fact makes them mental objects. If space and time were commonly perceived, this would lend evidence for a physical nature to space and time. An example would be a raindrop hitting each of the four aforementioned items. They would all feel something (physical nature of the raindrop), but they would also all react differently depending on their individual mindset (the way in which they exist in the Universe).
Therefore, without the mind, space and time could not exist. They are integral to the mind. The mind is an adapter, and space and time are two of its instruments. The Universe does exist without the mind, but that purely physical nature is quite alien to all mindful entities.
All the best,
Joe
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Thought this article from researchers at the Institute for Advance Study at Princeton might be of some interest to members of this group not already familiar with it. The article was lucid and particularly well written. Please find it in the attachment below.
A fundamental idea in this paper is a description of reality (without the use of Space-time and Unitarity) by using geometry alone in the form of a multidimensional geometrical figure called an “Amplituhedron”.
It seems to me that the theory may ultimately be of use in coming up with an explanation for LENR in a simple manner.
Trust this may be enlightening or of use to the group.
Kindest regards,
Steven Schor
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/
Peter Forsberg:
I agree. That’s the source of the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe, space and time exist. The question is if they are emergent or not, or if they are built into the very “fabric” of existence. I’m not sure that we will ever get an answer to that question though.
Regarding consciousness, it is like a mirror of the universe. I like to think of the inner and the outer universe. The universe exists fine and well without conscious beings. But on the earth conscious beings have arisen. Consciousness is definitely an emergent phenomenon.
Steven N Karels:
Well done, Congratulations,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I returned from my trip to Guatemala. I brought three Village Water Purification systems. They were unpacked, re-assembled, some minor damage from shipping repaired and the systems tested. Water samples were collected from the three units plus the untreated water for analysis. Once the water tests come back they will be install by local personnel. Each system consumes less than 20W of electrical power when purifying and can provide potable water at a rate of 1 GPM (1440 gallons per day maximum). I hope for another trip in May 2014 with some more units.
Hiperbolic doubt?
If cogito ergo sum is true,and is true for definition,time and space exists.
Simply it (space-time) is not what we feel.
The answer to all the questions probably is in the singularity (everything in nothing),but we are (now) prisoners in space-time.
So,we dedicate ourselves to lenr.
Regards G G
Joe:
You miss the difference, under the phylosophical point of view, between subjective perceptions and intersubjective evidence of an objective status.
It is true that such evidence always changes ( Heraclitus, Hegel, etc).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Drs Rossi and Fine, Peter,
Scientists have gone from considering space and time as physical objects (space curvature, time dilation) to now considering them as illusory (non-existent). These two approaches are obviously contradictory, but they are also both wrong.
If space and time were physical objects, they would be able to be localized. But they can not be put in a box because the box itself would exist in time and space. This fact alone disproves some aspects of both Special and General Relativity.
If space and time were illusory, so would the concept of change be illusory. But since we easily witness the evolution of things around us, space and time are necessarily present.
The reality is that space and time are mental objects. And as such, they are obviously different from each other as well. Space and time are projected from our conscious minds onto the world around us in order to be able to adapt to it. We develop mathematical statements with space and time as variables in order to describe and predict physical phenomena. Without the mind, space and time do not exist. And science would exist even less. How ironic for those scientists trying to eliminate space and time from their vocabulary.
All the best,
Joe
Lande:
Thank you, interesting.
We will contact them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thomas Florek:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Peter Forsberg, Joseph Fine:
I agree.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Joseph Fine. That link was very interesting! I think that fundamental physics is in for a revolution within these few decades.
Regards
Peter
There is a new interview segment with Andrea Rossi. In this segment, Andrea Rossi talks about his use of the Scientific Method, and the importance of errors in the acquisition of knowledge.
https://vimeo.com/75148845
The complete set of 7 interview segments can be found here:
http://www.thomasflorek.com/thomas/AndreaRossi.html
Peter Forsberg:
Clearly, it is a homonymous: also the address is different. But you made well to send your precisation, to avoid any confusion.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear mr. Rossi
Thought I would send you info of a Norwegian start-up company that is commercializing an ORC (organic rankine cycle) engine. They are coorporating with AVL, the world’s largest engine design company and IPU at the Technical University of Denmark.
Since this engine use heat source such as solar thermal, waste heat, geothermal, waste combustion etc., it could be a good candidate for the e-cat.
http://www.vdg.no/?menuid=16
regards
Lande
Just to clear up some possible confusion. PETER.FORSBERG is not me.
Regards
Peter
Peter.Forsberg:
Your question must be cleared with a distinction between quantity of energy and quality of energy. If you are talking just of quantity, of course the answer is yes, you can reach any amount of energy by means of a summatory of any kind of photons, but I think you mean another thing, I think your question aims to understand if with photons vibrating in a field of energy lower than a superior field of energy can reach a superior field of energy summing up lower energy photons. In this case, the question, for example, could be: ” can I reach a 1 GeV energy field summing up 1,000,000 photons of 1 keV each?” The answer is no. Let me make a model that is trivial, but can give an idea: let’s assume you have 20 cars that have a power of 100 kW each and a speed of 100 mph ( miles per hour): binding them together you will not have a car system able to have a speed of 2,000 mph; even if they have a combined power of 2 MW, their speed will remain 100 mph: let’s say that they continue to vibrate together in the same field of force.
Low energy nuclear reactions cannot derive from summatories of low energy photons aimed to reach higher fields of force, if this is your hidden question.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
is it possible to obtain with a big quantity of low energy photons the same
energy of a small quantity ( in proportion) of high energy photons?
Peter F.
Andy Kumar:
Absolutely not.
The Rossi effect is perfectly understandable with the well known Physics laws. Prof. Sergio Focardi, when the tide of skeptical voices chimed in along our way, used to say:” They say your technology is against the Physics laws because they do not know your technology and also did not study well enough the Physics laws: the bases of your technology are ritght there”
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Joseph Fine:
Thank you, that will be my Sunday reading.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Tom Conover:
As you know, from Relativity Time is bound to speed through the Lorentz Equations.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Recently you answered my inquiry about the validation(s) in progress that were testing a “battery” of hot-cats with a pleasantly unexpected reply, referencing answer 5 instead of 6a or 2b (5. Music The percussion section of an orchestra.)
Now you mention another term frequently used in music, when a piece of music reaches it’s peak of activity, or the climax of the composition.
So I asked google, what is a climax in music, and this is what I found …
“A climax is essentially the most intense and emotional part of a phrase. It is not necessarily the highest or the loudest tone, but it is the most emphatic one in the cycle of a performance phrase or a musical section. There is always a beginning, a climax and an end. The climax can occur at any point between the beginning and the end of the cycle, but usually occurs in the middle.” (ref:http://ezinearticles.com/?Climax-in-Music&id=4386901)
Your perseverance and focus, talent and vision, have provided you with the ability to “conduct” a most wonderful concert for those of us that follow your blog here on JONP. I thought your reference to the percussion section of the band might have referred to the control unit of the ecat, bouncing the atomic structure about. Now, however, I see that your actions as a “conductor” of the orchestra, especially the percussion section, will indeed no doubt result relatively soon in the climax of the cold fusion drama or “concert” that began in 1989, or perhaps even before that.
My question today is about the certification process using data from “the plants that have been manufactured and delivered to the Customer” (5? plants X 100 ecats x 1 year in hours = 4,380,000 hours, or one half of a millennium in years) as follows:
Do you think that half a millennium worth of data will be enough to determine if the safety factor is adequate for certification of the home ecat? If there are 10 plants delivered (not impossible at all!) then it would be a full millennium!!
Thanks in advance,
Tom
Ing. Andrea Rossi,
This article may be interesting and useful to you and your readers (and me).
I will read and re-read it several times and follow it up with further study.
Maybe I can do more with my laptop than I thought.
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/
Scientific regards,
Joseph Fine
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Recently, you have been calling the anomalous heat as Rossi Effect. I think you now have better theoretical understanding of the effect and are confident in calling it Rossi Effect. Prof. Focardi seems to have helped you with the mathematics for the theory. Could you tell us if you see any evidence for the fifth fundamental force at work in this Rossi Effect?
Thank you for being open with the general public about your work.
-Andy
Frank Acland:
Absolutely yes!
In any case I will continue this dialogue, which of course will reach its climax when we will publish the results of the work in course.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
You have explained how you are not as free as you once were to talk about your work here on the JONP. You have spoken in the past how you have received useful information from your readers on this site. Do you still see this site as a source of information helpful to your work?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Jan.Gustavsson:
Honestly, I think you are right and I understand your feeling. As a matter of fact, in these last months my situation is strongly changed, because the validation and R&D work is shared with a Team that thinks it is not opportune to give any specific information before the end of the very throughly work of validation, tests, R&D in course upon the plants that have been manufactured and delivered to the Customer. This decision has been taken by the Team I am part of and I think this choice is proper. I can guarantee you that when we will have reached consoliated results, positive or negative, such results will be shared with the scientific community and eventually with the wider public, with a press conference that will be made by our communication agency. Totally different is the situation regarding the third indipendent party, whose work is made indipendent from us: the results of their work, whatever will be after the 6 months- 1 year test period, will be published from the Professors of the third indipendent party when and where they will decide, so I do not know whatever they will do, which will be totally indipendent from me.
All this will limit my communication, until the reports will be published, but, nevertheless, I will say what I will be permitted to.
Take also in consideration that my work now is much more intense, if possible, than before and the time at my disposal has been further narrowed.
Thank you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
Lately your comments have been very restricted and we have not from you the
same amount of information we were used to read.
Why this?
You are making a work that is very important for all, we deserve more
information, don’t you think?
Godspeed,
JG
Frank Acland:
No, the third party validation is, obviously, totally indipendent from our internal reports. As I said the tests are made upon two different plants, in two different locations and there are no contacts between the two. I am working, as the chief scientist, to make the R&D upon one plant, in one place, while the 3rd indipendent party works in another place. I do not know when and where the 3rd indipendent party will publish.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Is the plan to have the validation report of the independent 3rd party, and the validation report of your industrial partner released at the same time?
Thank you and best wishes,
Frank Acland
Andy Kumar:
The commercialization of the industrial plants is in course, for the domestic we have explained many times the safety certification issue.
The technology is anyway under a rigorous program of third party validation and internal R&D and velidation, and the results, positive or negative, will be shared as soon as the work will have been completed by the scientists who are making the validation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Franco:
That is a very good proposal!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Daniel De Caluwè:
I made a photo to the pages as they were, so typos have been conserved.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
thank you and thanks to Prof Sergio Focardi.
Regards G G
Dear dr. Rossi,
I saw a printing error in the text of Prof. Focardi:
At page 5 in table I-I, at the bottom of the page, the text says:
Cos(3pi/2 – x) = – Cos(3pi/2 – x), but this should be:
Cos(3pi/2 – x) = – Cos (3pi/2 + x)
But, of course, this is just a printing error.
I just checked the text only so far, and immediately posted this message (so I still do have to read the rest later), but what’s already very interesting in this text of Prof. Focardi, is that all the relations in table I-I at page 5 immediately can be derived from just looking at picture I-5 at page 4, and this without mathematical derivations! So it’s a very efficient way to learn or to review mathematics, and I certainly will read the rest of the text later.
Kind Regards,
Daniel.
Thanks dr. Rossi, I appreciate your initiative.
Pages are just in Italian, if possible Blog advisers could be translate them in English to be readable from all users.
Best Regards
Dear Mr. Rossi,
It is nice to know that you still care to work for God and mankind and your tireless dedication. Some of your followers are getting worried that ecat is taking too long to commercialize. But you don’t like to open source the ecat.
I think it will be great if the UN imposed a universal energy development tax on everybody in the world, maybe one dollar per person per year. In return for open sourcing the ecat, you will be entitled to use all the tax money anyway you please (for personal use, R&D, charities of your choice).
Having that much steady money available will surely speed up the development of the ecat. You could hire the best minds in the world to work on the ecat.
-Andy