United States Patent US 9,115,913 B1

 

uspto_seal_big

 

Sigillo

 

Alloro del brevetto

.

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

 

28,300 comments to United States Patent US 9,115,913 B1

  • Andrea Rossi

    Orietta:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    JPR:
    We are continuing to approach the success to reach Sigma 5.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Orietta

    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Is your focus for the utilization of the E-Cat QX also on the realization of an electric engine?
    Cheers
    Orietta

  • Anonymous

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi
    Are you going to distribute the E-Cats also in Spain?
    If yes: what do you think about the independence process of Catalonia?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Supporter of Focardi’s legacy:
    Thank you for your insight.
    For reasons that are obvious and that I explained many times, I have no more information to disclose after what I already disclosed, on the base of which experts of the art have replicated the patented effect.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Supporter of Focardi's Legacy

    Dear Andrea,

    (Here is a question I hope you can answer. First, I must setup the scenario with “Joe Bob” representing any ordinary researcher in the field.)

    Joe Bob reads the earliest papers of Focardi’s early work with just nickel and hydrogen in which excess heat was repeatedly produced up to a COP of around 3. This interests him because it was performed repeatedly and accomplished with no LiAlH4 and no extra elements added. So not only was it a more primitive setup than the early E-Cats (capable of infinite COP and huge excess heat due to added elements) but compared to the super advanced Quark utilizing plasma was not much more than a camp fire stove, figuratively speaking.

    He goes on to learn that in those systems, excess heat depended on the quantity and rate of hydrogen absorption and desorption — into and out of the nickel. The more anomalously fast and/or large the absorption or desorption the more vigorous the “excited state” of the fuel would be. He realizes that due to all the money and intellectual property involved, no party successfully replicating more advanced LENR systems utilizing LiAlH4 as a source of atomic hydrogen, reverse spillover catalysts, radio frequency generators, or other enhancements will share enough information for meticulous and serious replicators to produce results every single time. Although there have been and will continue to be occasional huge successes proving the absolute, hard reality of the effect, nothing will be proven to the world. Simply put: until billions of dollars are already in someone’s bank account, the more advanced forms of the technology will not be capable of being *easily* replicated by just any scientist, due to proprietary know how being withheld. Fair enough, Joe Bob figures. Inventors deserve reward for their hard labor.

    However, Joe Bob wonders if any replicator out there would be willing to share details, in a more concise and easily digestible format, about how to get the “cave man style” (compared to any E-Cat ever demonstrated) original Focardi system to produce excess heat. A specific set of details of how to process nickel (even wire or bulk nickel) to absorb and then desorb hydrogen to become “excited” could awaken the entire world to reality of the basic reality of nickel-hydrogen LENR.

    Ridicule, mocking, taunting, veiled threats of various kinds: those that have supported the reality of Focardi’s early work and the reality of the Rossi Effect have been subjected to incredibly cruel treatment over the last year or so. We’ve been shouted down on various sites for daring to claim that nickel-hydrogen reactions were a reality. The relentless demonization of us came from both the naysayers who dismiss all LENR and those that sought to erase Ni-H LENR from history — pushing palladium deuterium reactions as seemingly part of their agenda.

    The information to make basic Ni-H systems (no extra elements from the periodic table, no lithium hydrides, no RFGs, no plasma, no electrical current running through the fuel, no special high surface area powder) produce excess heat could refute these attempts at destroying a dedicated scientist’s hard earned legacy and excite the world about the tremendously evolved version that could change the world.

    Is there anyway you could provide advice about how to get plain hydrogen into plain nickel (even bulk) to produce the heat Focardi saw in his early experiments before he ever met you? Not a word about elements, not a phrase about lithium, not a hint at electromagnetic stimulation, not a sentence about electrical discharges: only the physical prep of bulk nickel and application of ordinary hydrogen from a tank to allow the humble COPs Focardi witnessed.

    Thank you regardless if you can provide any info or not.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gabriel Berra:
    Thanks for the information,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Marco:
    Thank you for the suggestion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N.Karels:
    Thank you for your insight,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    JPR:
    Still close to Sigma 5.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Your system architecture choice for large scale systems is an important consideration. For instance, suppose you wanted to power a 1 GW electrical generation unit (such units do exist). Assuming a Carnot efficiency of 40% means a thermal generation capacity of 2.5 GW. Assuming you select 250kW as the output of a “area” collection of reactors, roughly 12,500+ reactors would be needed for a 250kW module. These 10,000+ “area” modules would be running in parallel to produce the 2.5GW of thermal power to generate the 1GW of electrical power.

    Now the interesting part. With a one year reactor lifetime, this means the average number of “area” modules which will require replacement for refueling is about 27 units per day. Since the initial start-up condition will be all fresh reactors, this means you need to be able to replace up to 54 units per day — run 6 months without “area” module change out and then a uniform replacement during a 6 month “maintenance” period — still being capable of maximum electrical plant power generation. This means, ideally, a replacement time of an “area” module of about 30 minutes, performed 24 hours per day. Such “exhausted” modules would then be shipped to your maintenance facility for refueling and clean-up.

    If you grouped the 250kW “area” units into 10 unit collections, thus capable of producing 2.5MW of thermal power as a subsystem, then the number of subsystems would be 1,000+. Such a subsystem could be brought down for refueling maintenance for a period of 5 hours to replace all of the “area” modules. 1,000+ subsystems would give you a 0.1% control by turning on or off a subsystem for adjustment of the overall plant output. 5 hours is likely a reasonable time period to cool down the system, replace the components with refueled components, perform system testing, make any adjustments and restart the subsystem unit.

  • Gabriel Berra

    Dear Andrea,

    In regards to MHD generators – brilliantlightpower talk about using either photovoltaic cells or magnetohydrodynamic generators to convert the heat / light from their proposed 500kw generator. If interested I suggest going to brilliantlight power.com, there is a PDF link to a powerpoint presentation under “Society for Cable & Telecoms… Conference” towards the bottom of the home page. It may give you some ideas to explore for your e-cats. Anyway, I wish you all the best Andrea! I know you are extremely busy. Personally I think you try to do too much of the work yourself and would benefit form a team of helpers. I sincerely wish you well.

  • Marco

    Dear Andrea,

    Regarding your 1998 patent… I am not a patent expert, but maybe with these new materials, you can extend/renew it and use it to gain other money to invest into the ECat…

    Regards,
    Marco.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gabriel Berra:
    Thank you for the suggestion.
    As a matter of fact, I did not try it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Hi Andrea,
    Have you ever considered magnetohydrodynamic generators as a way of converting the thermal energy your e-cats produce into electricity. If not it may be worth looking into it. There are plenty of power point presentations available via google on MHD generators to get you started ( if you are interested ). All the best Andrea !

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    Very interesting.
    I still hold a patent that the USPTO allowed me in the year 1998, in which I pumped lead in a chemical thermolytic reactor ( Google Rossi Dellorfano US Patent ) to turn carbonaceous wastes into fuel; at those times this invention would have been gold!
    Thank you for the information,
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I just saw that Georgia Tech researchers are experimenting with Ceramic pumps which can pump molten Tin at temperatures greater than 1400 Celsius (1673 Kelvin). Future developments in materials technology may produce parts with greater strength and that should be less brittle, have more wear resistance and, therefore, have longer operational lifetimes.

    Perhaps you may find a use for this type of pump.

    https://phys.org/news/2017-10-ceramic-molten-metal-degrees-celsius.html

    Thermal regards,

    Joseph Fine

  • Andrea Rossi

    Colin Watters:
    We do not sell reactors to make experiments or replications. All the replications have been made by scientists that have reproduced the apparatus described in my patent and made R&D with it, completely independent from us.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Colin Watters

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    If a group/crowd source raised sufficient funds would you be prepared to sell/lend a reactor to allow a suitable university to carry out a similar replication exercise?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    I hope too.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Italo R.

    Dr. Rossi, the reader “Anonymous” wrote here on October 2:

    “…The same person, that wants not to be identified because the report is secret being financed by a private entity that owns it, told me that the COP they reached makes certain the Effect beyond any possible doubt…”

    I know very well that you cannot add anything positive or negative, but we all hope that there will be soon a publication about that replication.

    Best Regards,
    Italo R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Myrl:
    I am very healthy.
    Thank you for your kind concern.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    JPR:
    Also today we are working very well.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Darrin:
    Obviously I know the results, I have been informed about them by the Professors under NDA, but I cannot talk of them before they will publish a report, if ever, since they worked with the funding of a third party that wanted to know if the Rossi Effect exists beyond any doubt.
    For this reason, they reproduced the reactor in the laboratories of the Uppsala University and followed the instructions contained in my patent. They wanted to avoid the complications generated by the infrared temperature measurement and measured the energy produced by simple calorimetry, by means of a heat exchanger and with liquid water.
    I know the measurements have been very conservative, always considering only the lower values of the margin of error of the instrumentation.
    I think I can say all this, because obvious.
    I cannot absolutely add any further information. I will be able to comment the results only after such results will have been made public.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Darrin

    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Still about the replication made by the Professors of Uppsala: you said you can’t comment before they publish a report, but do you know the results of their trial to replicate the results of Lugano by themselves in a laboratory of the University of Uppsala?
    Thank you if you can answer

  • Myrl

    Dear Andrea:
    I imagine you are under pressure for the prep of the event of November: how is your health, after the issues you passed through the last year?
    God bless you for your work,
    M

  • Andrea Rossi

    Viking:
    I will be able to answer only after I will have read a report about this.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Viking

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Very informed source told me that a team of professors of the University of Uppsala has replicated successfully in July 2017 the Lugano test of March 2014. Is that true?
    Godspeed,
    Viking

  • Andrea Rossi

    Mick Neren:
    The protocol of the demo will be disclosed just before the presentation.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Mick Neren

    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Plasma has a temperature of at least 2,000 Celsius. During the demonstration you will make a calorimetric measurement of the energy, therefore the temperature that will be observed will not overcome 100 Celsius, if the water will not change phase. In the paper Gullstroem-Rossi you used a spectrometer to measure the temperature of plasma: will you use spectrometry also during the demonstration? It is important to be sure that the temperature is at least 2,000 Celsius, to be sure that there is plasma in the reactor, because if it is plasma it is obviously a good conductor of current.
    Thank you if you can answer,
    Cheers
    Mick

  • Andrea Rossi

    SMM:
    We are just working to get the best possible from our endeavors.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • SMM

    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    You have repeatedly delayed the date of the presentation of the Ecat QX. This fact has disappointed many, but it suggests the reality of the existence of something important and serious, because to make a fake demo doesn’t require too much time and delays!
    Godspeed,
    Silent Majority Member

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    1- the number of reactors/area
    2- yes
    3- no, is checked the area
    4- no
    5- yes
    6- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    JPR:
    We are approaching Sigma 5.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You posted “the modularity allows a substitution per area”. Can you tell us:
    1. The (maximum) number of individual reactors in an “area” or the total thermal output per “area”?
    2. Within an “area”, is each reactor controlled individually by an “area” controller?
    3. Within an “area”, is each reactor monitored for health or performance?
    4. Within a deployed system, is there a theoretical limit to the number of “areas” that could be run in parallel (e.g. 2**16)?
    5. Within a deployed system, is each “area” controller monitored by the deployed system for individual reactor health?
    6. For a deployed system, can your company remotely monitor the deployed system for health and performance?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    No, the modularity allows a substitution per area, maintaining the full power in operation if the power is redundant in proportion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    If you have an E-Cat plant consisting of thousands of E-Cat QX reactors, will each reactor need to be replaced every year, and if so, will they all have to replaced at the same time (requiring the shutdown of the plant)?

    Thank you very much,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gerard McEk:
    As trivial as it might be, let it be 1 year, so far.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Gerard McEk

    Dear Andrea,
    When I read the discussion about the 1 year usage of fuel, it make me curious. 1 year seems pretty trivial. Are you able to extend that time to 1.5, 2, 3 years or any duration?
    Thank you for answering our questions.
    Kind regards, Gerard

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    I am sorry, but this issue is restricted.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Joni Ikalainen:
    No.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Can you say anything on why the limitation of one year? For example, in uranium-based fission, there are by-products that “poison” the basic reaction. You, obviously, could add more active components to your reactor during refueling if depletion were the only issue. Is control of the fueled reactor a function of the amount of fuel within the reactor? Please clarify what you can.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Barry Chaiken:
    As politically uncorrect as it might seem, I agree with him, because most of the other Countries were just cheating on this issue, pretending to change everything to change nothing and getting strong competitivity against the USA, while the United States had serious damages in terms of loss of jobs. Besides: coal can be used with respect for the environment, provided proper BACT are adopted.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joni Ikäläinen

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    When you say there’s been interruptions during 3 years of testing (such as refueling a year ago), does it also mean there’s been modifications?

    Warm regards,
    J.I.

  • Barry Chaiken

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Today the Secretary of the EPA Scott Pruitt has said that the Environmental Protection Agency is going to roll back the climate plan, to favour in particular the coal industry an their jobs.
    What is your opinion?
    Barry

  • Andrea Rossi

    C.:
    I’d say 1 year.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

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>