Energy Catalyzer first test videos – January 14th 2011 – Bologna-Italy
Energy Catalyzer Bologna University Test 1/3
Energy Catalyzer Bologna University Test 2/3
Energy Catalyzer Bologna University Test 3/3
Today, Saturday january 15th, at 10:00 AM Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi will be on-line for the press conference with Journal’s readers.
The press conference will start at 10 a.m. Italian Time.
To put questions, you will have to send your inquiry as a comment of this post, you will receive the answer in real time online.
Warm Regards,
The Board Of Advisers of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics
Dear Stuart Sanderson,
Of course I did, and I am convinced that if I withdraw from the investors the perspective of exclusive and therefore profitable applications, no investments will be seriously done.
It is simplicistic and superficial to say “give it away for the good of Humanity”. It would become “Give it away and waste it”.
I understand that it is not easy to understand, so just take look at the History of technology.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Luca T:
Sounds nostalgic.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
It should be interesting to evaluate the application of an Ecat to an hot air zeppeline.
You have only to warm atmospheric air.
No dangerous Hidrogen, no expensive Helium, a six month autonomy, easy recover and maintenance.
I migliori saluti Mr Rossi
Luca
Hi A.R.
Although I fully expect that you and your associates will be well rewarded for your great achievements, but I am sadly concerned that your products will become another source of revenue and tax across the world when it doesn’t need to be.
Have you considered the non financial gains of rolling out your product as an open technology that can be quickly distributed to 3rd world countries?
Egr. Ing Rossi,
la ringrazio per la compiuta risposta e le porgo i più vivi complimenti per la sua invenzione.
Cordiali saluti.
Dear John Dlouhy:
1- The plant will not be a demonstration issue, will be an industrial application not open to the public.
2- The last problem I have now is a media event
Warm Regards,
A.R.
To Mr. Rossi
1) Will the 1 megawatt plant serve as a demonstration plant to prospective licensees or only to customers of Defkalion for unit purchases?
2) Will the inauguration of the plant be accompanied by a media event?
Thanks-Looking forward to something wonderful
Dear Wallas:
No, noi non utilizziamo materiali radioattivi e non produciamo rifiuti radioattivi, nè abbiamo emissioni radioattive.
Cordiali saluti,
A.R.
[…] Rossi, rispondendo a varie domande sul suo sito[4], ha detto di avere una teoria che spiega il funzionamento del suo apparato, e di volerla poi […]
Egr. Dott. Rossi,
l’esito del voto referendario ha abrogato la parte del D.L. 112/2008 che prevedeva la “realizzazione nel territorio nazionale di impianti di produzione di energia nucleare” (senza distinzione alcuna fra fusione o fissione).
Significa che la sua scoperta/invenzione non potrà trovare applicazione nel territorio italiano fino a nuova legge?
Grazie.
Please contact us in November for the commercial issues.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gent.mo Ing. Rossi,
come sarà possibile contattarla a Novembre per investire nella sua tecnologia e/o per rapporti commerciali?
Il mio contatto: marko.grande@gmail.com
Grazie,
Ing Marco Grande
Dear MS:
1- No
2 a- b-c: as I said, we will disclose the theory in November, after the start up of our 1 MW plant.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I understand from the blog discussions that the theory behind the Ni-H fusion will be made public only after the startup of the 1 MW power plant in late October.
Please let me know however – if possible, which is the situation for the following general topics related to the Ni-H fusion theory:
1. Does the explanation need revision of the mainstream theory about Standard Model or other basic concepts of official Physics ?
2. Where from the energy comes from:
a) is it a mass defect (delta mass) converted to energy (E=mc2) effect ?
b) is it a neutron repulsion energy source (as one of the new non-standard possible explanation of the nuclear energy) ?
c) is it something else ?
Thank you in advance for your feed-back.
Many thanks and best regards,
MS
Dear Masterlock01:
Please contact us in November for commercial issues or for financial proposals.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi,
Can you email me who I should contact about investing in this technology? This would not be a trivial investment. (My contact details should have been included in my sign-up.) Thanks.
Dear Eng. Meister,
believe me: absolutely no opinion from me about your personal design being good or not.
In fact my comment was not addressing anyone specifically: it expressed my own position as different from the one of those who would the E-Cat fully disclosed, that I do not agree with: without reference to the reasons that bring to such opinion.
Thank you for your kind use of my language to make easier for me to read your words.
Cordially,
“random”
Caro Random,
grazie per su commentari. Scuzi, ma le lingue che domino sono per ordine decrescente: francese, portuguese, spaniolo, tedesco, inglese, holandese e italiano molto poco. Lamento che Lei non ha creduto mi buona intenzione con le idea che ho argumentato, si ho capito corretamente. Respeto la sua postura che mi parece clássica, dentro di la economia tradizionale. Ma ho observato che la economia di mercato con patenti, licenza, contratos milionarios, non è adequata per la difusione di energia libera. E le multinazionali non possono fabricare generatori, motore, etc che fogem de la física clássica. Non è permesso per il establishment. Espero che il futuro demostre io sono errato, per il bene delle planeta. Aspettamo per vedere…
cordialmente, guga meister
random
June 10th, 2011 at 4:26 AM
Caro ingegnere,
tutti qui a cercare di convincerLa a “cantare”: un “terzo grado” morbido, insinuante, “quasi” convincente.
Li riconosci subito: cominciano con grandi lodi, riconoscimenti di valore, entusiastiche previsioni.
Poi, alla fine, con modestia (quasi con altruismo !), si affaccia il piccolo “ma”: ma perchè tutto sommato non aprire al mondo, marciare alla testa (sicuro ?) di legioni di emulatori, aureolarsi di gloria.
‘Sto gattino me sa proprio che er gatto e ‘a volpe si lo vonno magnà….
Io mi ritrovo abbastanza spesso ad andare controcorrente, per cui una voltà in più, una in meno… nulla rileva.
E così, tranquillamente La esorto: vada avanti per la Sua strada !
Pensi solo a concentrarsi sugli aspetti del Suo lavoro ed abbia cura di sé.
In attesa di ottobre però devo darmi una mossa anch’io: Le ho promesso qualche quartina Nostradamus-like, dovrei metterci mano. Ma sa, da pensionato si può finalmente assecondare la tendenza a prendersela comoda…
Sempre cordialmente,
random
The best protection against the Chinese may be to collaborate with a Chinese company. The market is huge in China and production costs low. Just look at how Apple and many other manufacturers make it.
I totally agree about what Mr Dawglas stated: ….. since a Chinese patent application would, like its US counterpart, describe the E-Cat in detail, the mere act of filing a Chinese patent would disclose the invention to the Chinese. China, while communist, is also corporatist. It would be a matter of hours before top Chinese companies had their hands on the patent application.
Let me add that not only China but the West is a corporated based economy and Mr Rossi should to take in account that big business boys have already in their hands the patent draft ant hat is higly probable that unofficial experiments are running in the dark.
Be aware of the danger of a industrial secret is important because of if this secret is unveiled the value is zero.
[…] and many scientists from the italian physic community were invited (including journalists) Press conference here (it's only in italian tho. but comments are in english) Even if the exact structure of the device […]
Caro ingegnere,
tutti qui a cercare di convincerLa a “cantare”: un “terzo grado” morbido, insinuante, “quasi” convincente.
Li riconosci subito: cominciano con grandi lodi, riconoscimenti di valore, entusiastiche previsioni.
Poi, alla fine, con modestia (quasi con altruismo !), si affaccia il piccolo “ma”: ma perchè tutto sommato non aprire al mondo, marciare alla testa (sicuro ?) di legioni di emulatori, aureolarsi di gloria.
‘Sto gattino me sa proprio che er gatto e ‘a volpe si lo vonno magnà….
Io mi ritrovo abbastanza spesso ad andare controcorrente, per cui una voltà in più, una in meno… nulla rileva.
E così, tranquillamente La esorto: vada avanti per la Sua strada !
Pensi solo a concentrarsi sugli aspetti del Suo lavoro ed abbia cura di sé.
In attesa di ottobre però devo darmi una mossa anch’io: Le ho promesso qualche quartina Nostradamus-like, dovrei metterci mano. Ma sa, da pensionato si può finalmente assecondare la tendenza a prendersela comoda…
Sempre cordialmente,
random
I am a US patent attorney, and I’d like to shed light on some of the misconceptions regarding US patent rights. My comments are in no way intended to malign Mr. Rossi’s efforts; rather, I’m excited by his technology and sincerely hope it works.
It appears that Rossi has at least one pending, non-published US patent application on file at the USPTO. I surmise that Rossi chose to file a non-publication request with the USPTO in order to keep the content of his application non-public until and unless a patent issues. Indeed, filing a non-publication request is a reasonable choice for many inventors, and it makes perfect sense for Rossi’s E-Cat.
Rossi’s decision to delay publicly using, selling, demonstrating, or otherwise disclosing the E-Cat are not supported or induced in any way by the Patent Office. First, since a patent application is already on file that presumably describes and claims the “heart” of the E-Cat technology, there can be no harm to, or loss of, patent rights by publicly disclosing the E-Cat today. Sure, someone can copy it, but Rossi will have an enforceable patent right (in the US) against the copier the day the patent issues. Moreover, to the extent that someone physically copies his device, that person would arguably be a “willful” infringer of the patent and likely subject to an injunction and triple money damages. Rossi’s scenario in these legal and business respects is absolutely ordinary. Simply put, once you have an application on file, you are generally free to disclose the invention. Often, as would be the case here, post-filing disclosure is not only possible, but highly advantageous.
Second, for any invention of value, every engineer understands that there is no reliable ” self-destruct ” mechanism. There simply is no mechanism that can withstand the resources of large business or government agencies.
Third, since such a mechanism is presumably not already described in a pending patent application, Rossi would need to file another application to seek protection on the E-Cat + mechanism, thereby further delaying (for years) bringing the technology to market.
Fourth, all patent rights are territorial by nature. A US patent only confers a right to exclude in the US. Every other patent right in existence is the same. Unless there is a Chinese patent on file, no amount of patent protection outside of China will do Rossi any good. Moreover, since a Chinese patent application would, like its US counterpart, describe the E-Cat in detail, the mere act of filing a Chinese patent would disclose the invention to the Chinese. China, while communist, is also corporatist. It would be a matter of hours before top Chinese companies had their hands on the patent application. In short, it’s sheer folly to withhold the E-Cat based on what the Chinese will or will not do.
My comments are of course general in nature and in no way constitute legal advice. That being said, I hope they are helpful.
Regards
Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi,
Your invention and its development are fascinating, not just for the long scientific and experimental work they represent, but also for the wide hope it opens for mankind and this abused planet.
You have in hands the key to improve dramatically the Earth energetic dead-end. Many European countries are questioning or better closing future nuclear (fission) projects. US is going ahead with the nuclear path. Present alternative energy technology only could fulfill very partially the needs. There is no true solution with the present technologies, only palliative ones. The best solution would be to decrease the per-capita energetic consumption, but this needs a huge change of the present way of life. Very unlikely to happen due to human inertia, but also due to vested interests. Free energy perspectives are totally ignored by the governments.
Researchers in the free energy field fall usually in three categories:
– the true inventors who really found a potentially valuable solution (to be confirmed for the diffusion phase). Intuitive geniuses fall also into this category.
– the false inventors who boast inexistent results, either consciously just to collect investments from gullible people, or just to flatter their ego; this category does more harm to the F.E. researchers than the vested interests, and actually deliver plenty of arguments to these.
– the inexperienced or naive “inventors” who are unable to do correct measurements.
In 20 years of gathering information and doing some very modest research in the F.E. field, I am aware of very few real inventions, which invariably are suppressed when they try to come to the diffusion phase, threatening the existing markets.
I believe that your invention belongs to the first category, then in the best case, at least for you, suppression can mean the invention being purchased and kept undisclosed in a safe, and unexploited, as it happened in the past with other inventions. This would be very frustrating and I am sure you will do every effort to avoid this.
Going through the classical channels (patents, licenses, advertising, dealing with big companies) to diffuse your invention is very risky. You cannot dream to threaten a multi-trillion market with your invention without suffering sabotage, at best.
Patents are difficult to defend in practice, unless you are a multinational company with 50 lawyers and much, much money. And either your catalyst is thoroughly disclosed in your patent application (which is recommended by the Patent Offices and the attorneys), permitting easy replication for non-commercial use, or you keep part of the information undisclosed, which opens the way for competitors to apply for concurrent patents. Furthermore, as you already know, most Patent Offices are reluctant to grant patents in this area. But even remaining non granted, once published, the information is available. Even US and Swiss patent applications, for example, are no longer kept secret till the grant, they are published 18 months after the priority, before to be granted or not. Anyway, you are conditionally protected by the Patent Law starting from your priority date. In case of proven patent infringement, you can only sue the infractor once your patent is granted. In case it is never granted, your competitor(s) can also not patent the same claims; once your application is published, you can also try to block the patent procedure of that competitor. Still on the intellectual property question, US patents recognize the “first to invent” concept, not the “first to file” event of Europe, and this means that your lab notes, duly dated, can be important.
Trying to self-destruct your heat generators is not realistic, as non-invasive methods like neutron activation, particularly PFNA, some X-ray backscattering techniques, special Magnetic Resonance methods, etc. will permit to analyze your devices. And insurance companies and/or certification institutes could not accept this kind of preventive measure, depending on possible hazards.
It is probably unrealistic to say that free energy inventions should be left free (open source philosophy, etc) for replication, as many idealists do claim. You and your investors deserve rewards for your efforts.
How could you deal with these conflicting facts ? there is probably no miraculous solution, but you might want to consider one or a combination of the following ideas:
1) Whether technically feasible, mask the catalyst with some inactive ballast which would be just a trick. Or mixing a “poison” in the catalytic sense with delayed action, which can only be inactivated by a last on-site operation done by trustworthy personnel doing the starting-up of the units.
2) To disclose the invention by simultaneous internet publication on different sites, keeping the copyrights, instead of or complementary to patents, through some new intellectual concept like the Intellectual Passport (www.univention.ca). Patent attorneys will say this has no value… Anyway, with or without granted patents, your invention will be soon or later replicated; the most important point is that you are the pioneer of this technology, and you must think dynamically to remain always more advanced than your competitors, continuously improving your generators, which will be considered leaders in quality. As an example of non-conventional device where the pioneer remains the leader, think of “Brown gas” generators, the Chinese ones are recognized bad copies.
Thinking of improvements, you might want e.g. to develop a solution to regenerate the nickel.
3) Address marginal users and third world or poor countries first; let competitors, if really that strong, struggle against the vested interests. They will have the same challenges you are facing. You will perhaps not be financially rewarded as hypothetically dreamed, but you will gain an internationally recognized reputation as a great, benefactor man, and this is more important than just a lot of money… which is still hypothetical, considering the big issues mentioned above. Without speaking of a possible collapsing of the financial and economic system, considered by many prophetic experts in finance. Winners will then be those who possess real solutions for a new start on healthier basis.
It is crucial for you to choose the right strategy, and I sincerely wish to see soon your invention revolutionizing the actual dark scenario. Sure you and your collaborators deserve it, and I congratulate you for your outstanding work. I would also be glad to collaborate to the diffusion of your products the way I could, once your strategy is defined. And, oh yes, I would like to purchase right now your generator to heat my house with your technology !
Thanks for your attention reading this, all the best!
Retired Engineer Guga Meister, independent researcher.
[…] in regularly and looking forward to your success in October. Best regards from the UK Alan – http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=20#comment-43089 Andrea Rossi June 2nd, 2011 at 11:02 AM Dear Mr Alan C.: 1- I have not yet an international […]
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I have been tracking your developments and solutions for (almost-free) energy technologies for some time. I understand Your caution as to revealing Your idea to the public. That’s ok. I understand the neccesity to make profit out of Your invention, at least to pay back the money invested into research. Still, I would like to encourage You to reveal all the details of Your invention. Why? If Your technology works as it’s presented, it will change the World … (don’t have words to describe how much it will change the World). Believe me, if it works, the secret catalizer to enhance fusion to take place will be searched and discovered within a few weeks. It won’t rise Your profits enough to satisfy You. It will just make You reach. Nothing more. Just give it to the Public. If Your technology works You will have a historical place along with Newton, Faraday and Einstein. Just think: thousands of “home-grown” inventors have been trying to get cheap and clean energy out of ordinary elements/substances (e.g. water). Just google them on “youtube”. And You are the lucky beggar to achieve it. What the f..ck more do You need? Best regards, Grzegorz Lachowicz
Dear Gilbert Schmidt:
I cannot give information regarding the reactor.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Gilbert Schmidt:
If you send a comment, it is automatically posted, unless our automatic spam-firewall erases it. Also we trash comments comntaining illegal messages, insults or amenities. Your comment are absolutely acceptable. Of course, to approve does not mean to agree.
Warm regards,
A.R.
After my posting I do have a question.
I do not expect that this would have been posted.
Has anyone else said this before, or am I the first ?
I forgot to put my email for easy contact.
Gilbert,
Nova Scotia, Canada.
docscience at hotmail dot com
You will not be commenting on this anyway, and I am not needing an answer to any question.
It is probably better to not post this.
I am just telling you what I understand.
Eli Gin had very good ideas, but could not understand what did not seem to make sense.
The cartrige heaters are made in many lengths.
The reactor is only in a smaller part of a longer tube.
The heater heats the H in the reaction area and also along the length of the rest of the tube.
The front end of the tube where the water first cools, will cool that end of the tube faster.
When the heater element is turned off, that first section of tube cools faster and the hydrogen in that part of the tube cools faster.
That lowers the H pressure, which slows the reaction.
Likewise, turning the heater back on, increases the H pressure all along the tube.
This gets the H pressure back up to the operating pressure, and temperature.
At this time, I do not wish to post this on the blog, that I often post on.
If you wish, if you think it is better for you, that I do not post this, I will not post it.
Just let me know.
It is a very interesting control mechanism.
Dear Gilbert Schmidt
The valve, in that occasion, was voluntarity opened before the start up of a test, to check the purge.
Warm regards,
A.R.
I am responding to Eli about his question:
Eli Gin asked on May 25th, 2011 at 1:10 AM
” 2. How do you shut down the E-cat? What is the emergency shut down procedure? ”
This may partly help answer his question.
Some time ago, Rossi confirmed that there is a safety valve.
That would provide an emergency shut down.
That made me think of another question.
In the past, when a safety valve has opened, has it ever not shut properly because of getting nickel dust in the seal ?
Gilbert,
Nova Scotia, Canada.
docscience at hotmail dot com
.
Dear Mr Rossi,
You’re invention sounds great. If it was me that invented this I would sell them as planed and if someone copies it, then so be it. You are sure to get back enough money to cover everything, and more. I would be happy knowing that I had changed peoples lives and made governments who control energy and tax the people crumble. This would make me very happy if I had invented it. To see the way in which the world would change after this, to see the governments global warming con be redundant, and see thier excess taxes they make every year from people who cant afford to pay it dwindle away. To see people using clean energy and not being slaves to energy companues. This would make me happier than any moeny in the world.
Perhaps you could consider this, and realise something that most inventors in new types of energy don’t realise. If the government could stop you they will, and this would never see the light of day. Mass produce and get it out there, for yourself and for the people.
Cheers,
Stuart
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
I totally agree with you,
Warm regards,
A.R.
A.R.
The latest updates on the Fukushima-Daiichi reactor disaster said there were three meltdowns – and one or more occurred before the tsunami. (which only made it worse.)
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/06/fukushima-twice-as-bad-as-thought/
http://newsblogged.com/fukushima-nuclear-power-plant-reactor-latest-news-real-time-updates
http://crisisjones.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/3-nuclear-reactors-melted-down-after-quake-japan-confirms/
How many nuclear reactors were deliberately melted down before they were sold?
J.F.
Dear Mattias Andersson:
1- yes
2- yes
3- It is a matter of contracts
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I have some further questions:
1. Have you signed any non-disclosure agreements with third-parties that would prohibit you from disclosing intellectual property related to your invention?
2. I’m curious about technology diffusion versus technology secrecy; how far would you be willing to go to protect your intellectual property? Would you be willing to delay the launch of the E-cat in order to invest time and resources on “self destruction” technology?
I’m working as a programmer and sometimes I see the benefit in making a project “open source” (i.e. free for everyone); it allows other people to advance the project in ways that I might not have thought about on my own and it allows me to benefit from the advances made by others. Additionally, if a project has any defects, I will receive reports about these defects so that I can easily fix them. For me it’s a very delicate process to decide what should be open and what should be closed source. However, I would argue that both alternatives have their own respective advantages and disadvantages. Also, I think that referring to the “communist model” and saying that it doesn’t work is just making things a bit too simple (as I’m sure Einstein would have put it.)
Kind regards,
Mattias
Dear Mr Luca T:
Yes, the potable water distilling is a possible application.
About the referendum, should I have been i Italy, I would vote against the nuclear fission plants. Just to get other enemies, as if I had not enough of them…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr Rossi a open cicle of your E-cat should be a good way to produce distilled (potable) water.
There is a number of countries actually oil producers that should be interested in your device and maybe obtain a tradeof for the reduced sales of oil.
L
Mr Rossi, far from my intention to flame the debate, …. I see You sayd nothing about the imminent referendum in Italy about nuclear energy.
The plot is to spend 20-30 billions euros forfour nuclear central and I’m astonished by the fact that You mantain a so low profile about the debate.
Italy, as You well know, has no energy sources Sun apart and Your involvement in our energetic future should be appreciated.
So far I undestand that there is NO plan for Italy.
Best Regards
L
This geat scientific achievement will hit other technologies very hard. Suffice it to say that reasearch in nuclear fusion power and the ITER project have been going on for 50 years, eating up billions of dollars in research funds, and employing thousands of scientists, engineers and technnlogists. There are already people who have only worked on this research for their whole working life and are already on pension.
But the e-cat’s worst hit technology will not be hot fusion, or oil or coal or gas, but the green energy technology, mainly wind-turbines and photovoltaic panels production industries. The reason for this is purely economical. These green technologies produce the most expensive type of energy, while Rossi’s e-cat produces the cheapest type of energy. Therefore, Rossi will be hit very hard by Big-Green. Big-Green is today heavily funded by politicians who want to look green and politically correct. Hence today, politicians are very much friendly with manufacturers of PV’s and wind-turbines. Therefore these industries will be Rossi’s greatest enemies.
Ghandi once said of his enemies: First they try to ignore, then they try to ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.
I believe that Rossi and his e-cat will go through this 4-phase war. In fact, this is currently in phase one, where the scientific and mass media have practically kept silent about this great scientific achievment. Next pahse will be the ridiculisation of Rossi and his e-cat, but this will be short-lived since Rossi has wisely prepared the proof by making marketable products ready for use. Then will come the big fight, helped by the politicians who will try to help their Big-Green friends save their production facilites from total collapse. This fight will include politicians trying to make the e-cat illegal onsome technical excuse, safety etc. Considering that politicinas arepowerful people, this fight could be long, but hopefully I may be wrong. Ultimately Rossi will win together with all humanity. This new energy is capable of reaching all corenrs of the earth, especially the very poor who still use dung to cook their food, and carry water in jerry cans from dirty wells.
Meanwhile, while the e-cat starts impinging on the global energy market, the price of oil, coal and gas will also be effected, getting cheaper and cheaper and therefore, running the ecat will become even cheaper, since the input electrical energy required to run the e-cat will get cheaper.
May God be with you Ing. Rossi.
[…] In an open forum, Rossi said, "We have passed already the phase to convince somebody. We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing." […]
Dear Mr Cures:
Our attorneys are working on this.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Egregio Dott Rossi
Sono ancora io, Cures
Le sottopongo un’idea che mi è venuta in mente ma che francamente non so quanto efficace nel difendere il prodotto. Non mi viene in mente altro, almeno per il momento
Se lei crea una rete di licenze di costruzione e vendita suddivise per aree geografiche e target (industria o privato) dell’ E-cat trattenendo per se la quota ed il tipo di produzione che ritiene utile, può sempre incassare le royalties trasferendo l’onere della difesa dalle copie illegali a coloro ai quali ha concesso la licenza.
Il contenuto della licenza si può estendere anche agli sviluppi e varianti ritenuti plausibili
Dear Mr Alessandro Coppi:
We will resolve the problem .
Warm regards,
A.R.
Hi Ing. Rossi, I have to add to the previous my post regarding the self destructive mechanism: due the value of the challenge you have to consider that the efforts to crack the design opening the e-cat certainly will include inhert atmosphere, or / and extremely low temperature, where most chemical reaction are impossible.
Best regards A. C.
Dear ing. Rossi, I follow every day this forum, and appreciate a lot your effort in updating the news.
I ask a question: it is not enough for you (and your
investors) to produce dozens of millions e-cat, leaving the rest of mankind to develope their variants?
You can take advantage from the brand, staying a step ahead, this is the added value to your work, not a policy based on closed design, using uncertain self-destructive mechanisms, it will trust until one over thousands will fail revealing the technology for the reverse engeneering, then if you cannot base your business over a solid brand, the chinese factories will make the rest, patented or not.
Sorry for this skeptical analysis, but the protection policy based over a self destructive mechanism, does not appear to me realistic.
Mr. Rossi, I am very excited about your invention and the unbelievable change it will bring to this Earth. I would like to invest in You and the Energy Cat. Is this possible? I thank you, and Humanity will thank you eventually.
Bob K
Dear Mr Alan C.:
1- I have not yet an international patent granted, I have a National patent granted, the international application is still pending
2- It is difficult to make this self destruction technology, this is why it will take time. We must find a way that is not dangerous for the persons, but that annichilates instantaneously all the sensible information if somebody tries to open the sealed parts
3- I have to defend the People that have invested in this. And I will.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
You have said “…We have to resolve the problem to make them self-destructive in case of opening the reactors…”. Is this necessary if you have a patent? Is it possible to achieve this against someone with sophisticated tools and equipment? Won’t your secret necessarily be in the public domain once the technology is widely distributed?
All the best with the project. I am checking in regularly and looking forward to your sucess in October.
Best regards from the UK
Alan