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

 

22,664 comments to United States Patent US 9,115,913 B1

  • Andrea Rossi

    Ila Gabak:
    He,he,he…
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eike:
    1- must be an industrial concern or a centralized heat distribution facility
    2- must give evidence that really already consumes the thermal energy he claims to need
    3- must give financial references to guarantee to be able to pay the bills
    4- must be in a geographic area where we are organized to serve
    5- must be a well consolidated activity
    6- must have all the necessary authorizations, certifications and permits necessary to make their activity
    7- must have a back up in case of malfunction of the Ecat
    This is the preliminar screening, after which specific situations must be analyzed.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Eike

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Which are the characteristics that a potential customer must have to be fit for the Ecat?

  • Ila Gabak

    I watched http://www.ecatskdemo.com
    It appears you made sad the guys that bet on the scratch!
    On january 31st I will win 100 Euro.
    Thank you,
    Ila

  • orsobubu

    Dear Andrea:

    Rossi said: “red sky in the evening, good weather tomorrow”

    better:

    “Red sky at night, shepherd’s (or sailor’s) delight”

    the opposite:

    “Red sky in the morning, shepherd’s warning”

    A brand new invention by the orsobubu:

    “After the January presentation, queue no more at the gas station”

  • David Pierini

    Dr Rossi,
    will be shown also the remote control system at the presentation on http://www.ecatskdemo.com ?

  • Bedy

    How will be able to put questions during the presentation?
    Cheers
    Bedy

  • Alessio S.

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    How much plants per week can you install at the beginning?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Monty:
    The final decision will be mine.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Monty

    Dear Andrea.

    In your answer to Lars you wrote:

    3- we will say yes to all the Customers that will be fit for the Ecat

    Who will be the judge for which company will be “fit” for the Ecat?

    regards
    monty

  • Andrea Rossi

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

  • Chuck Davis

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Did you think to Experimental Certifications for applications like http://raptor-aircraft.com?
    By the way, you could team up with them.
    Best Regards,
    Chuck Davis

  • Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    1- yes
    2- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Italo R.

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    If not confidential, can you tell us if:

    1 – You are already in contact with potential customers
    2 – You already have new confirmed customers.

    Thank you

    Sincerely,
    Italo R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Brokeeper:
    This information is confidential.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Brokeeper

    Dear Andrea,

    Could you share how you are circulating the news of the January 31st commercial presentation to potential customers? Thank you.
    With much respect,
    Brokeeper

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Thank you for the suggestion,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    When you develop an eCat to turbine engine, why not couple it into an automobile and do a non-stop for refueling trip from the East Coast to the West Coast – a Cannonball run, but at normal highway speeds. Include GPS real-time tracking and notify the news media. A proof of the long term supply of power. Alternatively, an eCat to electrical generation with an electric car. Have a documentary film made of the trip.

    No need FAA approval for demonstrating an aircraft flight. But common people would believe the technology by making a cross-country trip without refueling. Solar can’t provide enough energy for highway speeds, or at night.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    That is an R&D that continues and will be the next step after the production of heat that, obviously, is easier because direct.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Anything you can say on the eCat integration testing with a jet engine?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Annmarie:
    All that having been said, electric cars are anyway an important resource IF their columns are connected with solar plants, eolic plants or other sources not dependent on fossil fuels. It is just important to separate the myth from the reality.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Annmarie

    Dear Andrea:
    I totally agree about your position on the electric cars

  • Andrea Rossi

    Lars:
    1- yes
    2- depends on the specific situations
    3- we will say yes to all the Customers that will be fit for the Ecat
    4- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Marco:
    Sorry, you missed the point: the loss of efficiency is not just from the car, it is mainly from the power station that feeds the car. Therefore the pollution that is not made by the car is made on its behalf from the power station that burns fossil fuel to feed the car. The problem has not been resolved, has just been displaced from one site to the other.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Karen:
    Yes, exactly.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Patrick Ellul:
    Yes. Do the same experiment where are the power stations from which electric cars get their soup.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    P.S.
    I made a synthesis of your email to save time transferring it here, but I think I conserved genuinely its content. When a comment is sent by email instead of here as a comment, it takes time to me to transfer it, therefore when it is long I make a synopsis.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N.Karels:
    Good points, I agree on the fact that there are niches in which electric cars make sense. But we are talking of niches. I also agree on the point that all the energy sources must be integrated.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You posted “Is somebody out there that can explain to me why electric cars save pollution, since to charge a battery we have to plug it in an outlet that gets electricity mainly from oil, gas and coal fueled plants with efficiencies that are never over 35% ?”

    Like everything else, there are exceptions.

    1. Imagine a home with a large solar collection farm. My sister-in-law in California has such a farm on her property. An electric car, and the household, can be powered during the day provided she doe not drive too far each day. She is retired and need only drive her car at night.

    2. You live near a conventional nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric dam. Its power goes to your immediate community. An electric car’s source of power would be non-polluting.

    3. An eCat local area electric power generation system, powering the businesses and home during the day and charging the electric vehicles at night, assuming eCat technology works AND is widely accepted/implemented. Time will tell.

    As you have pointed out, an integrated power solution is the best approach. Reducing carbon emissions is a societal goal. Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, and possibly eCat technolgies can find their place in such an integrated system. Economics and public policy will dictate the mix of that integrated system.

  • Patrick Ellul

    Dear Andrea,

    Thanks for paraphrasing parts of my email and replying with valid points of course. I was mainly not talking about CO2 pollution. CO2 in itself is not a pollutant, especially if it comes from a burnt tree that regrows in a few years. It’s the particle pollution released from car exhausts that is very unhealthy.

    I encourage your readers to do the following experiment for themselves: Leave a clean tray at a busy car intersection when there is no wind. After a few hours you’ll notice a layer of pollution on the tray. This all ends up in people’s lungs. There is no such thing coming out from electric cars.

    Best regards.
    Patrick

  • Karen

    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    If I have understood well:
    On January 31st at 9 AM New York Time if I will go to
    http://www.ecatskdemo.com
    I will find a link to click upon and I will be in the presentation, correct?

  • Marco

    Dear Andrea,

    Regarding your question about electric cars. Even if all energy is produced with fossil fuels at 35% efficiency, electric cars reduce pollution because of efficiency:
    1) Energy recover during braking
    2) Maximum efficiency at every speed and regime (an hybryd Porsche of 700HP does 30Km/lt just recharghing the batteries with the 500HP low efficiency motor)
    3) Engine efficiency is at most 20% and only at half the maximum power. At low speed (50km/h) you need 3Kw of power. At this power all engines have awful efficiency (probabily less than 5%) and moreover all energy is lost when you brake
    4) No gear losses

    At low speeds (25-30km/h, a common speed in traffic) an electric car can do 1Km with 85wh of power. The energy of 7g of gasoline (45MJ/kg the energy of gasoline, 85Wh=85*3600J=0.306MJ)… This because the energy required at low speed is cubically less than high speeds and engines at low power have awful efficiency, as i said, plus the losses in the gears, water and oil pumping, air inlet and exhaust gas outlets etc… Electric car instead have high efficiency also at low speeds.

    To summarize: even not considering regenerative braking, an electric car can extract about 35%(conversion)*80%(transport)*80%(recharge)*80%(discharge+DC/AC conversion+electric motor+mechanical losses) of the energy. A petrol car at most 20% (at half the power: a 40kw car must go at 100km/h to have maximum efficiency, but for the cubic formula of the energy versus speed, it’s better to go slow, but at slow speed the efficiency is not 20%!), plus gear losses, plus other losses. Most of the time the efficiency is way under 5%…

    Regards,
    Marco.

  • Lars

    Dear Andrea,
    1- will it be possible for industries to have an E-Cat and buy the heat from it now or soon after the demonstration?
    2- how much heat do they have to buy to be allowed to have an E-Cat?
    3- Will you say yes to most costumers?
    4- do you expect many requests?
    Thank you for this blog and all the honest answers.

  • Andrea Rossi

    TheFutureIsNow:
    Thank you for your insight,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • TheFutureIsNow

    Dear Andrea,

    In regards to your post about electric car patents, I’d like to say there is a huge difference between that sort of technology and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

    1) Electric cars have existed for well over a hundred years. If my history is correct, the first cars for a short period of time were all electric before the internal combustion engine began to dominate.

    2) All of the concepts of electric cars are absolutely established scientific reality – electric motors, batteries, and even on board computers. LENR, on the other hand, is considered absolute pseudo-science by mainstream scientists. To this day if you go to a random university and bring up the topic of LENR with a physics professor I’d wager that 95% of them claim it to be impossible, 4% of them claim it to be unproven, and 1% to be open minded if you promise everything they say will be off the record.

    3) There’s not a single technology in a Tesla Roadster or any other electric car on the market today that has any potential to dramatically change the world. They are a conglomeration of existing ordinary technologies and NOTHING MORE. They aren’t going to solve the energy crisis, help the environment to any significant degree, or provide any breakthrough in transportation (they don’t fly through the sky). However, LENR is a truly BREAKTHROUGH technology that holds the potential to change all aspects of human civilization. An unlimited source of dirt cheap and completely pollution free technology that’s both COMPACT and PORTABLE will have FAR reaching impacts. Moreover, even if you ignore the practical implications and potential of LENR, the scientific discoveries that explain how the reactions can take place could continue spawn a revolution in understanding of how our universe works.

    To be blunt, the SK is without exaggeration ten thousand times as important of a product than any electric car, any new lithographic process for producing computer chips, or even any pharmaceutical being developed. This puts it into a category that in my opinion gives you a moral obligation to ensure that the knowledge and know how is shared with the world. I’m in no way whatsoever opposed to you making money if the SK is what you have claimed. For goodness sakes, we live in a world where untalented, vulgar pop stars can do sickening things and end up making millions of dollars by profiting on the media attention. If they and others can make money for producing NOTHING, you deserve to make a FORTUNE (even more) for inventing the SK which could do so much good for the world. But I think regardless how it impacts the potential for profit, positively or negatively, the fact this technology is real MUST be proven beyond any doubt to the world and the basic phenomena behind it’s operation revealed.

    Holding back knowledge that could prove the reality of LENR is like being the first caveman to master fire yet instead of explaining the process to others, that caveman decides to have all his neighbors bring their meat to his cave where he will cook it in secret. If there were already a dozen ways to make fire keeping yet a new method confidential wouldn’t be an issue, but when all cavemen are ignorant that fire exists it’s an issue that must be resolved.

  • @ Brian and Leanne Balding
    January 9, 2019 at 3:19 PM

    This is not the first time it has been suggested on this blog that the inventor who has spent many, many years conducting experiments to figure out how to make LENR a reality, should – now he has already accomplished all the most difficult work – donate his IP for free to everyone.

    I may be mistaken, but the impression I have had when this was previously suggested is that those making this suggestion – carefully worded, of course, not to give the game away – just cannot wait to get their hands on the rights in the expectation that they may be able to find a way to make a ton of money out of it themselves while, if that is the way it works out, leaving the inventor with nothing.

    Mr Rossi has been working very long hours, for many many years (I am under the impression he initiated this project nearly 30 years ago) to try to find a way to create, and finally now to perfect, an invention which will, in due course: A) appreciably reduce energy costs for everyone across the globe; B) help diminish substantially carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere; and C) raise productivity and living standards worldwide in a magnitude that may be unprecedented.

    In your opinion, Brian and Leanne Balding, is the above list of benefits inadequate for Mr. Rossi to bestow upon the world? Do you seriously think it is appropriate that he give away rights to his invention to those who have contributed NOTHING to its creation? Do you expect me to believe that you would do this had you invented the Ecat?

    I believe it is appropriate that those choosing to devote a substantial investment of their own personal ingenuity, time, effort and financial resources to provide the rest of us with benefits should, when successful, be rewarded. And rewarded very approximately in proportion to the size of their contribution. That is why the countries of western nations created patent protection. There are other political systems that ‘work’ on different principles but, in every case, all they have ever produced is poverty for all, other than for a few within their political leaderships:

    For example, not long ago the monthly salary of fully qualified and practising medical doctors in Cuba was $30. (Yes, MONTHLY.) A minority of them recently enjoyed a pay raise to a positively whopping $67 a month. Please read about it here:

    http://www.medicaldaily.com/cuban-doctors-get-salary-raises-67-month-after-government-cuts-100k-redundant-jobs-272310

    Or take the Ukraine – a nation with the potential to be massively productive in agriculture – where, after nearly a century under an alternate system, GDP per capita is approximately $2000, compared with a range generally between $50,000 and $80,000 among the nations of western Europe, the inhabitants of which, incidentally, are not materially different genetically (so that can not be used as an excuse): goo.gl/bgba7

    The message is clear: where there are no powerful incentives for innovation, resource conservation and impressing the hell out of customers, there will be no innovation, nor any inclination to pay attention either to customers or to the conservation of resources. The results are entirely predictable.

    I am fortunate to live where serious incentives encourage residents to exert effort in pursuit of reward, and where, in consequence, nearly everyone – not just doctors, inventors or CEOs – earns orders of magnitude more than medical doctors in Cuba: The incomes of coffee shop workers here are more than thirty times greater than those of the average Cuban physician.

    So, when the time comes, I will be more than happy to pay Mr. Rossi the royalty on my domestic E-cat. And I very much hope he will profit very substantially from his patent protection. He has, after all, devoted enormous effort and ingenuity to this task over a period of decades, outperforming, essentially on his own, legions of government-sponsored scientists, while enduring ridicule or, at best, incredulity, from perhaps a majority in the science professions, while at the same time incurring appreciable financial risk on a project which must, at the outset, have seemed to have only a tiny likelihood of success.

    Sincerely,

    Rodney Nicholson.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Patrick Ellul:
    First and foremost, thank you for your continuous attention to the work of our Team.
    You say the average power stations are better provided of pollution control system; since I worked for many years in that sector, allow me to correct you, because:
    1- the power stations fueled by fossil fuels ( all of them, no exception) have not systems to reduce the percentage of carbon dioxide, therefore the main source of the so called “global warming” is not affected by their anti-pollution systems…yeah, I know, they talk of CO2 capture, but it’s not working, yet.
    2- it is much more easy to control the emissions of a car engine, because of the small amount of cfm, with the catalytic apparatuses, than the emissions of the power stations, because with the increase of the flow rate the problems increase exponentially ( I was an expert of electrostatic precipitators and made patents on this field in the seventies)
    3- when we read that enormous amounts of MW have been installed of eolic and solar plants, we always forget that a kW of power does not correspond to 1 kWh/h of energy when we talk of solar and wind, because the rate of service is, at the best, the 10% , because the sun is not always there enough to fulfill the power of the plant , as well as the wind. Be sure that the 90% or more of the electric energy pumped in an electric car comes from fossil fuels as an average in the world, the rest being mainly hydro and nuclear. The guys that write in the advertising ” We use only clean energy” are just kidding the dummies: they buy energy from plants fueled mainly by coal, oil, gas, then paint it green with a layer of a marginal amount of energy made with windmills and solar panels. This is the truth.
    But we live of myths, much easier than serious analysis and studies: ” electric cars do not pollute “, ” we must stop all the fossil fuel stuff and go only solar “, ” LENR is impossible ” ( lucky me that didn’t know ), like to say ” red sky in the evening, good weather tomorrow “. Yeah!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Patrick Ellul

    Dear Andrea,
    Electric cars reduce pollution because the average power station is better equipped to filter and dispose of pollutants than the car engines; besides, electric cars reduce noise pollution.
    In future, electric cars will be fueled by alternative energy sources, among which the Ecat: I am very looking forward the presentation on http://www.ecatskdemo.com
    Wishing you all the best,
    Patrick Ellul

  • Andrea Rossi

    Jerald Arnsberger:
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Jerald Arnsberger

    Andrea:
    love your answer to Brian and Leanne Balding.
    Godspeed,
    Jerald

  • Andrea Rossi

    Brian and Leanne Balding:
    Quite superficial analysis.
    Mr Elon Musk has first collected billions from investors and eventually, when the production of Tesla turned up to be much less than expected and invested for, made the move to say that he will not sue companies that will copy Tesla’s patents. This, obviously, is exactly the contrary of our situation. By the way, because made curious from your comment, I asked to an acquaintance of mine, that is the CEO of a company involved in the electric cars manufacturing, which company or companies manufacturing electric cars is/are using the patents of Tesla: he said “none”.
    I asked also to him: ” Why don’t you give for free to your competitors your patents, so you will be the good guy for the cause ?” When he finished to laugh, he answered: ” Had I done this, our shareholders would have made a class A action asking to be refunded by the billions “.
    This said, Elon Musk has all my respect and esteem for his courage and ingenuity and I wish him and Tesla a successful 2019.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    P.S.
    Is somebody out there that can explain to me why electric cars save pollution, since to charge a battery we have to plug it in an outlet that gets electricity mainly from oil, gas and coal fueled plants with efficiencies that are never over 35% ? Mah!

  • Brian And Leanne Balding

    You have taken as a model the Big Pharma to explain why the intellectual property cannot be given up, to avoid to lose the investments. Now, look at Elon Musk: he donated his Tesla patents to accelerate the diffusion of electric cars. This is the right model to follow, not the greed of Big Pharma.
    Best Regards,
    Brian and Leanne Balding

  • Andrea Rossi

    Angelo V.:
    Thank you for your suggestion,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    TheFutureIsNow:
    Obviously no answers or comments in positive or in negative in fields that we deem confidential.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • TheFutureIsNow

    Dear Andrea,

    Through my online research I’ve discovered that the existence of a fire ball (plasma ball) with a double layer on the surface (protons in the enterior and electrons on the outside) is critical for the negative resistance phenomena to take place. The plasma ball acts almost as a capacitor or a source of energy to sustain the negative resistance. During this same time period, the plasma ball sustains itself by absorbing radiant energy (mostly heat) from the general plasma environment and begins to produce a self-generating oscillation. This oscillation is basically the conversion of heat into electrical current by the plasma ball.

    Due to the production of anomalous energy (in various forms) allegedly generated by a number of different devices producing plasma balls, it is logical to assume that in addition to zero point energy extraction LENR reactions are taking place near the double layers where positive ions and electrons can interact. If this is the case, this amazing self organizing plasma structure in the QX would take the heat generated, convert it to electrical current, and project this electricity through the discharge. A portion of this electrical current (perhaps a significant amount) is converted in the general plasma into heat and light! What remains can be collected as electricity.

    No steam boilers, no thermo-electric panels, no photothermalvotaic devices with tiny gaps: the plasma ball ON IT’S OWN converts the heat generated by LENR into electricity. The light and heat are primarily massive losses, but future versions of the QX could be designed to minimize the production of heat/light and boost direct electrical output.

    So fundamentally to maximize the energy produced by the plasma ball (if LENR produces a significant portion of the heat) the proper fuel mixture should be utilized. The first step seems to be choosing one or more noble gases. Argon is obvious the FIRST choice. However, additions of other gases like neon could also optimize the formation of the plasmoid.

    Next, once the noble gases have been selected, we need to look at the fuels that would be undergoing nuclear reactions. The two most obvious that come to mind are hydrogen (protium with no neutrons) and deuterium (with a neutron). My understanding is that deuterium has a higher cross section for nuclear reactions than hydrogen. Moreover, in spinning up the plasmoid, adding some quantity of deuterium would allow for another layer of positive ions to form with a different mass.

    Finally, we need to think about what the hydrogen and deuterium would interact with, in addition to possibly themselves. My guess is that lithium is an ideal fuel for a number of reasons. Basically, in a large number of experiments by different parties, it seems to be susceptible to nuclear reactions with hydrogen/deuterium at very low energies (a few hundred eV) far below what is predicted by traditional nuclear physics (hundreds of KeV minimum). Another fuel that should not be totally ignored are the NANO-PARTICLES produced via sputtering from the electrodes. These metal particles of nickel, manganese, or potentially even other metals such as platinum could also undergo nuclear reactions, although at a lower rate than lithium.

    Everything else is basically about helping sustain resonance (design of the power supply so it acts like a tank circuit), possibly applying low powered frequencies to the plasma ball after the initial pulse to help sustain it, and to keeping the plasmoid free floating and away from the electrode surfaces which would produce massive erosion.

    Any thoughts or comments?

  • Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I want to propose the following name for the SK Control System:

    eCatTron

    Best Regards

  • Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    The answer depends on the specific situations. One does not fit all.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Italo R.

    Dear Dr. Rossi,
    What must be the minimum conditions for having a plant with Ecat?
    Obviously excluding a single domestic service, would it be possible, for example, for non-industrial applications such as large condominiums or for a group of school buildings and so on?
    In these examples there is always a person responsible for common plants such as heating, water, conditioning, etc.

    Sincerely,
    Italo R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    TheFutureIsNow:
    Thank you for your insight.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Greg:
    All is made in the USA, both Ecat and the control system.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Georgianne Mcanallen:
    Yes, it is ready and industrialized. Very reliable too.
    Thank you for your suggestion, the name has not yet been chosen, the choice will be communicated during the presentation of January 31st.
    Again, to attend go to
    http://www.ecatskdemo.com
    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>