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

 

23,092 comments to United States Patent US 9,115,913 B1

  • Andrea Rossi

    Lotr Mileykowsky:
    I think that who wants to understand has understood.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Lotr Mileikowsky

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    one query wrote here by “Martin” about “why self-sustain is needed, if CoP=100” need slightly more sophisticated answer, than “do math”.

    “Martin” is probably Martin Tůma – an author of smearing articles about E-Cat in magazine VTM (Science and Technics for Youths).

    With Your eventual more precise answer, there is hope that youths in our country will have chance to read and know some real info about E-Cat.

  • Karl-Henrik Malmqvist

    Hello Andrea,
    Maybe this is premature, but is your aim to control the electrical and thermal outputs of the E-CatSK Leonardo independently of each other or will there always be a fixed ratio? I mean if you manage get x Watt electrical power do you think it is possible to decrease the thermal output and maintain the electrical output? Maybe your coming tests will answer that question?
    Best Regards,
    Karl-Henrik Malmqvist, Sweden

  • Andrea Rossi

    WaltC:
    Thank you for your suggestion and your attention to our work.
    As a matter of fact, the issue of the Coulombian force is talked about in par 1, 2 and 3 as per its relation to my technology, that is not related to cold fusion. To understand my paper is necessary forget the concept of cold fusion. The mechanism is totally different from a cold fusion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Eric Ashworth

    Dear Steven N. Karels, Thank you for your response to my posting. I understand what you are saying and agree with your suggestion of paragraphs which in future I shall keep in mind. However, I cannot emphasize enough that I am not out to persuade anyone that I am right with the information that I present. The information is put forward for consideration of a subject that is far reaching and wide ranging. I realize Andrea’s technology is at issue and his quest for a self sustaining mode is now his main objective. The way I present is no doubt novel and difficult to understand but this is the nature of the subject. Should a person wish to correct me I am available or should they ask a question, I will answer it, if I can, if not I shall explain why. At the end of the day i.e. to finalize I will put forward by description two mechanisms. One that provides a unified field of circulating air constructed by an understanding of geometry i.e. theory relating to structure. The other is a mechanism relating to structure but that of magnetic fields. Both mechanisms require an adequate source of power from clean energy. This subject is not to be argued about, it is simply take it or leave it for the time being because the future is inevitable. Regards, Eric Ashworth

  • WaltC

    Dr. Rossi,

    If you do update your paper,
    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions , I believe it could also be improved if you explicitly mention the Coulomb Barrier and how it does or does not apply to your situation.

    I acknowledge that you address the issue implicitly through your references, but it would help to convey your theory if you address and reinforce the subject directly within your paper. And while the paper does talk about the Coulomb Force, it doesn’t talk about how “things” pass into and out of an atom’s nucleus and thus achieves nuclear transmutations.

    For many readers the coulomb barrier is the “900 lb gorilla” in the room: clarity is hampered when there’s the appearance of ignoring its presence.

    Just one person’s opinion based on his own experience reading (and re-reading) what is clearly a very important and fundamental paper.

    WaltC

  • Andrea Rossi

    Clay:
    Thank you for your kind attention to our work,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Clay

    Your publication on Researchgate is still by far the most read on Researchgate. It is impressive.
    Congratulations
    Clay

  • Andrea Rossi

    Brett:
    Probably yes, after the end of the tests on course. The paragraphs 3,4,5 in particular and the references. Many things are in the making.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Foster:
    Externally yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Foster

    Dr Rossi,
    Will the SK Leonardo, if it will be born after the tests on course, have the same body shown in
    http://www.ecatskdemo.com ?

  • Steven N. Karels

    Eric Ashworth,

    Thank you for posting that you think my previous post on eCat SSM operation was correct. However, I could not follow nor understand the remainder of your post. Some suggestions from what I learned in Law School.

    1. Break common ideas into paragraphs.
    2. Use a format such as IRAC — Issue, Rule, Analysis and Conclusion. It makes for a more coherent argument.

    You are free to post what you wish but, to be persuasive, your argument must be easily comprehended. Some thoughts.

  • Andrea Rossi

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

  • Andrea Rossi

    Brokeeper:
    He,he,he…thank you for the suggestion!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Brokeeper

    Hello Andrea,

    My compliments on your recent progression in the ECat SK Leonardo electric theory and developments.
    Suggestion: With the term ‘Long Range Interaction of Elementary Particle’ will result in an unpronounceable acronym ‘LRIEP’ or ‘LRIOEP’. Perhaps, if the words do not change its meaning, the term ‘Long-Range Exchange of Atomic Particles’ could deliver a more pronounceable ‘LEAP’ acronym and imply a monumental advancement of nuclear physics.
    With much respect,
    Brokeeper

  • Eric Ashworth

    Dear Andrea and Steven N. Karels,

    The question of systemic as opposed to system is with regards an overview of a situation which as you are aware of, is with regards parts of a greater whole. I mentioned this fact with regards entropy which is why you can’t get all the power out of the atom. Time with regards distance is the (could say problem) but it is not, due to the present situation being of a specific position. People unaware of the systemic nature of the system are unaware of the Absolutes of the system i.e. the system within which we live and have our being. Because this subject is nebulous I feel it necessary to approach it from the bottom up as opposed to half way. When a person solves a problem based upon his own reasoning and solves it, not by theoretical understanding but by an embodiment of the understanding. The understanding cannot be disputed with regards what is comprehended as true or false. it simply represents an embodied belief which is what every part of physical nature is comprised of. Embodiment only requires one aspect of the two aspects because we live in a binary system of entanglement i.e. interacting aspects. This single aspect is called gravity. The other aspect is what gravity has its effect on which provides effects due to gravity having its varying degrees of magnitude. Thereby effects produced as apposed to a single effect and consequently a systemic system of evolution as apposed to that of a system. This is with regards to material substance being structures within a spectrum, the spectrum being that of gravitational fields that dictates density which equates as a value of positivity or negativity of a structure (yes density). This understanding should be related to a volume and size relationship both within structure i.e. of the micro and the macro and between structures. Is gravity a manufactured aspect?. The mechanism behind gravity is annihilation of the values of potentials (not annihilation of a structure) thereby out of destruction of the potentials comes creation, first the gravity value, then its effect upon the outer structures/particles. A.J. Wheeler and Richard Feynman did provide a clue when they mentioned orthogonal/perpendicular planes with regards charge potentials. Thereby every structure must contain a value of gravity that is within a value of gravity. It is the outer value of gravity that is overcome by the inner gravity of the field within which the structure resides. The structure navigates a journey from creation to destruction within a gravitational spectrum over a distance involving time. As it navigates through the spectrum of its creator force, it undergoes transitions of its two dimensions i.e. an increase in its potentials. Obviously at one end of the spectrum is an absolute of volume and at the other an absolute of size. Maybe the dinosaurs were a natural stage in the evolution of an environment of a volume dimension. I believe that to enter the subject of energy without what I consider a basic understanding, a person can become hypnotized and spellbound by the myriad of permutations of these two basic interactions that create a structure that represents a value of energy. Every structure can be looked upon as a battery of electrical energy. As an analogy it appears that the study of energy with regards its particles can be likened to the studying of knitted objects produced by a woman without being aware of the raw material and the mechanisms. I have come to realize that fixed ideas are probably the most difficult tasks to overcome. As is well known the atom is a misnomer with regards its Greek meaning but does it matter?. Not one iota because things are what they are not what they are called. I do intend to continue with this method of presentation so that a pattern can become apparent because without joining the dots the subject is unable to be understood. Steven N. Karels, with regards your remarks your posting August 22nd at 7.21 am is direct and deals with the issues required to achieve a self sustaining eCat reactor but these issues involve a far greater understanding regarding planetary integration (Pi) but your posting is correct. Regards, Eric Ashworth

  • Andrea Rossi

    Michel:
    When you go in the wood looking for mushrooms you must know how they look like, otherwise you pass through thousand of them without seeing any.
    For example, if you think that mushrooms look like dollars or euro, you find dollars and euro, but when you cook them they have a bad taste.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gerard McEk:
    Yes.
    Thank you for your kind attention to our work.
    In this very moment we are starting the final series of tests in the USA.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Martin:
    Do the maths.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    1 corresponds to our context, mutatis mutandis.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea,

    In a recent post, you used the word “sistemic”. I believe you want the word “systemic”.

    adjective: systemic

    1. relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part.
    “the disease is localized rather than systemic”

    2. Physiology denoting the part of the circulatory system concerned with the transportation of oxygen to and carbon dioxide from the body in general, especially as distinct from the pulmonary part concerned with the transportation of oxygen from and carbon dioxide to the lungs.

  • Martin

    Why is necessary SSM if you have COP > 50 or 100 ?
    Best Regards,
    Martin

  • Gerard McEk

    Dear Andrea,
    Now you have come to the insight that Cold Fusion nor LENR are the cause of energy production in the E-Cat SK, I and many others wonder where the energy comes from.

    Does it mean that you believe the energy, generated in the E-Cat SK, is not from nuclear origin where ‘E=mc’ plays the main role?

    I really look forward to your answer.
    May your final tests confirm your ideas about the Rossi effect!
    Kind regards, Gerard

  • Michel

    Dear Dr Rossi,

    It is interesting to note that finally, the hot fusion and you, pursue the same goal: to get a self-sustained reaction.
    ITER will have to obtain the same reaction that occurs inside the sun: from a certain threshold of physical conditions, all plasma heating devices can be turned off, the reaction is maintained itself (obviously with neutrons production).
    First plasma planned by the end of 2025

    About your paper, how do you explain that a long-range interaction as you describe it has not yet been detected in labs?

    Regards,

    Michel

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steve_saves_the_climate:
    The paper
    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
    is not easy to read, but I can assure you that for persons that have the necessary bases to understand what I wrote, it is perfectly clear and coherent with what I said.
    Note that it never cites the definitions cold-fusion or LENR. This is not a case, this is a precise choice.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    William Mathias:
    I have a great respect for the work of Dr Alexander Parkomov.
    This does not change what I have said.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Rodney Nicholson:
    besides semantic interpretations, the issue is that what I am learning from experiments is totally strange to what is intended by Cold Fusion and LENR.
    We are seeing long range particle interactions. Our work and our most recent theoretical discoveries, after our experiments, have presently nothing in common with all has been done and is being done in the Cold Fusion-LENR community.
    That’s all and is a fact.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Andrea:

    The acronym ‘LENR’ is, of course, usually intended to be an abbreviation for the expression: ‘Low Energy Nuclear Reactions’. Of those four words, “low energy” is intended to signify simply a temperature far below millions of degrees; while the word “reactions” does not seem controversial; so, only the word “nuclear” seems to be up for discussion.

    So, it seems the Ecats would qualify as LENR if the reactions do indeed involve the nucleus. While the material in your recent Researchgate paper is far beyond my familiarity with physics, your use of the term “elementary particles” suggests the nucleus is involved.

    But perhaps you would like to make the point that your reaction is a very specific and different type of reaction in the nucleus. Different, that is, from any of the other reactions people have sometimes claimed to have achieved that involve the nucleus. Indeed your reaction appears to be an entirely novel phenomenon, never previously even imagined.

    Is this perhaps a realistic appraisal of the semantics?

    Rodney.

  • William Mathias

    Dear Andrea,

    For example the results of Dr. Alexander Parkhomov and colleagues, who consider them to be LENR (or Cold Nuclear Transmutations as these reactions are often named in the Russian circles).

    More generally speaking, I was curious knowing if your latest thinking of what happens inside your E-Cat reactors could be applicable to what LENR researchers believe to be observing, whether real or imagined.

    I hope this clarifies -WM

  • Steve_saves_the_climate

    Thx. Mr. Rossi.

    Look, You really should update that paper.

    Because CNTRL-F did not even find the word “potential” in it.

    Therefore it is quite hard to get, what You are explaining in this blog while comparing it to the paper.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Sven B:
    1- yes and we will
    2- The name of the energy is heat or electricity, it does not change, but obviously you mean the name of the processinvolved: I think Long Range Elementary Particle Interactions is more proper, but the problem is not semantic, it is sistemic.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Fox:
    LENR is a so wide definition, that it is not a definition and it makes a lot of con-fusion. Since this term is commonly used to connotate “cold fusion”, I prefer to say we are out of it, also to be honest with the recent development of our R&D. Isotopic changes do not imply fusion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    William Mathias:
    Which results ?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steve_saves_the_climate:
    I started to explainthe bases of the on-thre-making theory in my paper
    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
    We are performing our last period of tests before the final definition of what we made. I hope in extremely important results. At that point we also will publish a more defined theoretical frame.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steve_saves_the_climate

    Hello Mr. Rossi.

    You said finally, that You’ve got to the point, where You decided, that there is no fusion in Your device.

    In stead You assume, that it has to do with the atom’s potential.

    Can You explain in detail ?

    Best regards

    Steve

  • William Mathias

    Dear Andrea,

    Do you nevertheless think that your work and theory can explain results in the LENR field?

    Best regards -WM

  • Fox

    Dear Rossi,
    you say you don’t have “currently” anything to do with LENR and that the current machines based on the exploitation of a plasma depend on the “potentials of the atom” as shown in the article on researchgate.net. But the many experiments inspired by F&P and the absorption of H on a metal, in particular the Lugano experiment have highlighted isotopic and elements transmutations beyond any doubt and therefore LERN exists and happens even if normally with a non-exceptional COP and probably with reliability problems.
    You are now on another plasma-based technology that gives better results. What we do not know is whether isotopic and of elements transmutations also occur in these plasmas.
    We would appreciate if you can clarify and specify it.

  • Sven B

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    1. Today you clearly confirm that your effect is not at all related to LENR or Cold Fusion.
    Does that mean that the description of the Rossi effect at ecat.com has to be modified?

    2. If not as “LENR Energy”, how do you now prefer to name the energy released from Ecat SK
    plasma?
    Maybe “Clean Plasma Energy” as proposed at https://lenr-energy.info?

    Regards
    Sven B

  • Andrea Rossi

    Giovanni:
    No. I arrived to think that cold fusion does not exist.
    At this point of our theoretical and technological development, after 20 years of hard work, we think that cold fusion does not exist. I am sorry, but I feel us lightyears far from the LENR community, to which we, actually, never belonged. My effect depends on atom’s potentials that have nothing to do with cold fusion or LENR. This, by the way, is clearly put in evidence in my paper here:
    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_anf_long_range_particle_interactions.
    One thing I must admit, though: my work initiated inspired by the idea of cold fusion launched by F&P and my former works started from that theory, but after tens of thousands of experiments and twenty years of study I changed idea. Like Christopher Columbus, who thought he had reached India, but eventually it has been discovered it was America.
    We reached important results and much more important we are close to reach with a technology that with cold fusion has nothing to do. As a matter of fact, we do not have any fusion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    KeithT:
    We change the charge every 12 months because that is the sage experimented way.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • KeithT

    Dear Andrea,

    Regarding the E-Cat SK charge lifespan, for equipment out in the field, is it a case of monitoring the E-Cat energy output, then on signs of power dropping at say 10, 11, 12 or 13 months you send in someone to replace / exchange the unit, or can you confidently predict that in any time span within say 12 months plus or minus a month that a replacement can be fitted, so that the customer can choose to schedule in advance for a particular shutdown time window.

    Can you design an E-Cat charge to have a lifespan of say 18 months or 2 years, in future this may be advantageous for isolated equipment in remote parts of the world or for say satellites or space probes.

    Regards,

    Keith Thomson

  • Giovanni

    Dr Rossi,
    Wpuld you consider your effect a form of “cold fusion”?
    Giovanni

  • Andrea Rossi

    Prof:
    Tomorrow in our factory will be initiated the last series of tests that will end, supposedly, around the half of October, then we will know if the permanent ssm is possible or not. We are are going toward a very difficult and complex work, but the target is extremely important.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Some Thoughts on a Self-Sustaining eCat Reactor

    A fully self-sustaining eCat reactor is the “Holy Grail” for LENR technology. But there can be many flavors of such a device.

    By self-sustaining, we mean that other than initial power-up, the device will continue to operate without the application of external power as long as it is commanded to operate and does not “run out of fuel.”

    One variant of a self-sustaining eCat reactor might be one that produces enough electrical power, on the average, to power the reactor including any control unit necessary for safely operating the reactor. The productive energy output would primarily be thermal energy (heat), probably used to heat structures, perform industrial operations, etc. Likely issues here will be producing sufficient heat when commanded to run at less than full power output (e.g., running at ¼ power or an On/Off commanded scenario). Given a reasonably high effective Coefficient of Performance (COP), a reasonably high conversion efficiency of electrical energy production, and a suitable means of conversion of produced electrical energy and storage of that energy for later use by the eCat reactor, this concept is relatively straightforward.

    For example, if the COP is 50, the conversion efficiency is 10% of the thermal output and the efficiency to change the raw electrical power to stored energy in a battery is say, 90%, the eCat reactor should be able to self-sustain.

    A different variant is the eCat reactor used primarily for electricity production. As opposed to the thermal output eCat reactor, heating water to produce stream and turbines to generate electricity, this reactor generates the electricity directly, albeit it must convert such raw electricity to usable commercial electricity. Here, the electrical generation efficiency must be higher than commercial thermal-to-electricity efficiencies of around 40% to be competitive. In fact, the higher the electrical generation efficiency, the less waste heat that is generated by the reactor and must be handled in some manner. So to be practical, the electrical generation efficiency must likely be in the 50% or higher zone to be commercially viable.

    Self-sustaining operation is highly desirable, but high levels of efficiency will likely be challenging.

  • Prof

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Can you give an update of the status of the tests on the Ecat SK Leonardo aimed to obtain a permanent ssm ?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Mariangela:
    SSM, permanent SSM, is absolute.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Anonymous:
    I told already:
    paid billions.
    Got financing from Woodford.
    In shares of I.H.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eric Ashworth:
    I just said what I said, I didn’t infer anything more.
    Thank you for your insight
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Lot Mileykowsky:
    It was just for experimental tasks, to observe the effect of a laser on the plasma in certain conditions
    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>