United States Patent US 9,115,913 B1

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

40,876 comments to United States Patent US 9,115,913 B1

  • Harry

    Hi Dr Rossi,

    On reading your reply to Giuseppe, could you clarify:
    Is the increase in electrical power from a solar panel supplemented by:
    1. Electricity from the E-Cat in parallel to the solar panel output.
    2. Light from the E-Cat shining onto the panel.
    3. Both.

    Thank you if you can answer.

    Cheers,
    Harry R

  • George

    Dr Rossi,
    Is the Ecat SKL NGU based on the same technology explained in
    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
    ?
    Best
    George

  • Franci

    good morning doctor Rossi, I follow you with interest and wish you a 2024 full of satisfactions.
    I leave a link for anyone who wants to spend a few minutes of leisure
    https://www.weeklymagazine.it/2023/01/01/gaetano-fuardo-linventore-della-benzina-solida-che-rischio-di-cambiare-la-storia/

  • Andrea Rossi

    Giuseppe:
    To increase the generation of electricity,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    WaltC:
    Thank you for the food for future thought !
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

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

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels,
    Thank you for your insight and suggestions,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Prof:
    Thank you for the update, and
    Happy New Year to you and your family,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Prof

    Dr Rossi,
    Here are the stats of your papers on Researchgate I read today in
    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
    Total Readings: 136000 (of which 125380 only for “Ecat SK and Long Range Particle Interactions”), more than the 99% od 1.5 million papers on Researchgate
    Recommendations: 10419 (more than 99% of 1.5 million papers on Researchgate)
    Research Interest Score: 2700 (more than 99% of 1.5 million papers on Researchgate)
    Citations plus Mentions plus References: 86
    Most Readings by Cathegories: Electronic Engineers, Physicists, Chemical Engineers, Power Engineers
    Most Regarings by Seniority: Professors, Engineers, PhD Students, Researchers
    Most readings Geographic Areas: USA, Europe, China, Japan
    And counting…
    Happy new Year !
    Prof

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Harry (and to Andrea Rossi),

    It is true that eCat technology could replace Wind turbines just as they could replace Solar panel technologies. It depends how the problems or the goals are defined and presented.

    If we assume that the Solar technology or the Wind technology problem is defined as how to use Solar or Wind generated electrical power when such resources are available (the Sun is shining or the Wind is blowing) and use the supporting electrical infrastructure to carry supplemental eCat generated power over the same circuitry, so that the maximum power is constantly transmitted over the electrical infrastructure, then this approach can make economic sense.

    The eCat technology is unique in many ways (assuming it actually works). One such uniqueness is that its functional lifetime is allegedly determined by operating hours and not by the time since manufacture. By combining eCat technology with Wind (or Solar), we integrate the best of both technologies. Expend limited eCat lifetime when the other technology (Solar or Wind) is not working to its maximum capacity and save the eCat operating time when the other technology is performing at its maximum capacity.

    I would imagine that Wind can be divided into two arbitrary categories – Land-based and Ocean-based.

    I believe the Ocean-based Wind power generation units are usually larger generating devices with maximum outputs in the MWs region. They are separated from each other to maximize electrical power generation but must be close enough to shore to efficiently carry the generated power to land for consumption. In this case, I suggest that the lower portion of each Wind turbine structure could be modified to support a number of eCat containers that would supply power when the wind was insufficient or less than that required for producing the maximum electrical power that can be safely carried by the Ocean-based Wind turbine’s electrical distribution system.

    Likewise, Land-based Wind systems are typically smaller generating devices (kWs) and collocated where the Winds tend to occur. Here, a single eCat container might support several adjacent Wind turbines so that the existing transmission infrastructure capability is fully used. Since the Land-based Wind turbines are on the land, the addition of a single eCat container around a group of Wind turbines should not be an issue — it could be placed on a the ground amid a collection of nearby Wind turbines.

    There is a similar analogy for Solar technology. I suggest that Solar can be grouped into two general categories: Small and Large Solar systems.

    A Small Solar system might be located on a residential or commercial building’s roof or it could be ground mounted. Here, I suggest, that eCat technology might be integrated onto the Solar panel to supplement the electrical power coming from the Solar panel going into a dedicated microinverter. Or, if a Solar Converter was used, where a few Solar panels are combined to feed an input to the Solar Converter, the input to the Solar Converter could be adapted where eCat power would be added when less than the maximum Solar power was being applied.

    For large Solar farms, the eCat container approach might be more applicable.

    Whether it is Solar or Wind, the goals are the same. Convert intermittent power generation of Solar or Wind technology into constant baseload power generation (or the equivalent terms as you may desire), to maximize the electrical generation time of the eCat units by limiting their operating time to that which is only required, and to utilize the maximum capability of the electrical conversion and transmission infrastructure.

    Thoughts?

  • Paul

    Hi Mr. Rossi.
    I was reading A.Hornung question and I think the point of it is your demonstration should show, in the simplest manner, that the e-cat generates excess energy.
    This philosophy agrees with the “Occam’s Razor” philosophy which I know you are fond of, Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS).
    The solar application is far too complex in my mind.
    The simplest demonstration that would prove excess power is to connect a standard power meter to your e-cat ssm and prove that it generates power.
    Any power at all would be revolutionary. The 10W specification is irrelevant.
    Please, please, I beg, do the simple demonstration, not the complex ones.

  • WaltC

    Dr. Rossi,

    While I think the SKLep is a terrific match for EVs, one thing that could make it an even better match would be to offer an optional “Razor and Blades Pricing model” for larger assemblies, e.g., SKLep assemblies of 1KW and up. In other words, instead of only offering an SKLep with years worth of kWh, there could also be the option to buy, at a lower intercept price, an SKLep with some small amount of kWh, and then transact to buy additional kWh later on as needed.

    A lowered intercept cost would have the benefit of making SKLep-powered EVs more affordable and thus drive up sales volume. As with the Razor/Blade Model, profitability primarily comes from the sale of the blades (kWh) because that’s where the pricing margins are greatest.

    Implementation-wise, the kWh limits could be handled by firmware within the SKLep and the incremental purchases could be transacted and verified with private license keys, similar to the software activation keys used by subscription-based software today. Essentially, during a cross-country EV driving trip, a “mid-trip fill-up” could be accomplished wirelessly, over the internet, via a few hundred byte transaction.

    Food for future thought.

    Best Wishes,
    WaltC

  • Giuseppe

    Dear Andrea,
    sorry if you have to go back to concepts already clarified but, I missed reading some past comments and perhaps some concepts are not clear to me. I read that you will show Ecats combined with photovoltaic panels and this will increase their yield x times. This will happen by placing the ECATs in parallel with the photovoltaic panels, thus exploiting their ability to produce electricity or exploiting the light they are capable of emitting.
    Regards, Giuseppe

  • Andrea Rossi

    A.Hornung:
    Please google this:
    “Ecat demonstration in Stockholm on November 24 2017”
    See also
    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
    paragraphs 6,7.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • A.Hornung

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    you write the EV application is complex.
    Is this likewise for an application to operate the ecat with a water kettle?
    Apart from that, this video would be short.

    Best regards
    Hornung

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels:
    Yes,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Harry

    Hi Steven,
    Why supplement?, they would make wind turbines obsolete.
    Cheers,
    Harry R.

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    At one point, I recall you offered shipping containers with SKLep units in the 1 – 2 MW electrical output level?

    1. Are these still valid products?
    2. if still valid, these could be used with wind turbines (located at their base) to supplement when there was no wind.
    3. Or, they could be used as local electrical power generation units.

    Thoughts?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels:
    Thank you for your suggestions,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Since you are suggesting supplementing solar panel technology with SKLep NGU technology, you might consider supplementing medium sized wind turbines with SKLep NGU technology.

    An example of medium sized wind turbines is the KHT300 by Komathatec Inc. It is rated to produce 300 kW of electrical power while the wind is blowing. Their brochure suggests a yearly average output of 600 MW-hrs. This suggests that the wind turbine is operating about 2,000 hours per year. When the wind is not blowing, or sufficiently blowing, or is blowing too fast, the SKLep NGU technology could supplement the wind generated power so that a constant power output level is obtained.

    Thoughts?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Paul:
    We already have a strong demand for the solar connections, and the EV application is much more complex: the issue is not as simple as you painted it.
    Yes, we already have an agreement with the racetrack and already paid the 50% of the due fee.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Ron Stringer:
    Thank you for kind support; yes, the test with Ecat and solar panels will be performed between the restart of the streaming and the EV application,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    ELVIRA Jean Claude:
    Merci Beaucoup pour votre encouragement,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Jitse:
    Thank you, and our Team wishes you a Successful New Year !
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Jitse

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I wish you and your team the best for the year 2024. I hope a successful progress of the ecatSKL NGU 10 W, !00 W and 1000 Kwh,
    kind regards Jitse

  • ELVIRA Jean-Claude

    Bonjour Dr ROSSI
    Je vous suis depuis de nombreuses années et toujours dans l’impatience d’une démonstration probante et incontestable…Je crois qu’elle est toute proche…
    Activer votre équipe s’il vous plait; nous sommes très nombreux à attendre cet évènement mondial qui devrait changer quelque peu la face de la terre…Nous sommes vos messagers et pour ma part j’aimerai tant clouer le bec à toutes mes connaisances septiques de votre invention…
    Protégez vous des voleurs d’idées et plus encore des empécheurs de nouveautés….Que Dieu vous garde….Meilleurs voeux pour la nouvelle année 2024 qui restera à jamais inscrite dans le livre d’histoire de notre humanité grace à votre découverte….
    Jean-Claude ELVIRA, agé de 77ans, ancien sidérurgiste, émerveillé par votre projet….

  • Ron Stringer

    Dr. Rossi,
    Like everyone else here, I am eagerly looking forward to your upcoming demonstrations, getting the headlight back up and running (a bit brighter this time, perhaps, for dramatic effect?) and the e-cat assisted EV. But your response to Anonymous’ question regarding the interaction of the ecat and solar panels has me most excited. This is a new phenomenon!
    Very much looking forward to a demonstration of this – can we hope that it will come between the headlight and the EV?
    Hope you and your family and your team had a lovely Christmas and that your New Year will be peaceful, productive and prosperous!
    Ron Stringer

  • Paul

    Hello.
    I assume you had gotten fairly far along in arrangements for the e-cat EV demo when you discovered the safety issue.
    Now that you have fixed the problem with the e-cat, it seems like it would be fairly simple to restart that demo preparation quickly.
    Why would you not just do that, rather than launching a new “solar” application that frankly is not stirring as much interest?
    Hadn’t you already booked the racetrack, driver, etc?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Anonymous:
    Yes,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Anonymous

    Did I understand well that connecting the Ecat SKL NGU to an existing photovoltaic solar system, the system multiplies by a factor >>1 its efficiency ?

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Juan Carlos,

    I agree with your response 100%. However, buyers of new Tesla vehicles are paying between $40,000 and $100,000 USD for a vehicle. The additional funds for such a suitcase unit must be justified in terms of life cycle savings. A new car buyer might get a new Tesla every few years. It would be important that such a device can either be separated from the car and used in the newer car, or its presence increases the retail value of the vehicle.

    In addition, there is the convenience as you described in your response to my original posting. The economics must be sound for both the car manufacturer (Tesla) and the Tesla buyer. If it meets these criterion, then the idea will sell.

  • Andrea Rossi

    George Hebbard:
    Thank you for your opinion,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • George Hebbard

    For most of us, an EV is not practical. This is because of the time to recharge, the limited number of recharging stations, and the Horrible eventual battery replacement, which limited resale value.
    Yet, electrical motors are the way to go if Rossi can help shrink that problem.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels:
    1. yes
    2. yes
    3. no
    4. not yet decided
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    On the SKLep NGU technology:

    1. Have you manufactured or otherwise put together a 100W unit using SKLep NGU units?
    2. If Yes, have you tested one or more such 100W units?
    3. If Yes to #1 and #2, have the testing of the 100W unit(s) been 100% successful?
    4. If Yes to #1, what are the dimensions of the 100W unit, realizing this might be a prototype and production units could be different?

  • Juan Carlos

    Steven Nicholes Karels:

    Certainly, the monetary „out of pocket“ savings
    are substantial and important.

    But don’t the other „savings“ carry even more weight?

    At a personal level, the convenience aspect
    with regards to time saved:
    no longer looking for a charger,
    no longer waiting for a charger to be free,
    and no longer waiting for the charging process to complete.

    And at a societal/environmental level,
    we all benefit from not having to
    pay for the costs of all the emissions
    that will never need to be created,
    will never need to be filtered,
    never need to be captured,
    and never need to be disposed of.

    What a deal!

  • Andrea Rossi

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

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    A Cost Analysis on whether a “suitcase” charging unit in a Tesla EV makes sense:

    “To get to work, the average commuter travels approximately 15 miles one way. Two out of three commuters (68 percent) reported a one-way commute of 15 miles or less, 22 percent traveled between 16 and 30 miles and 11 percent traveled more than 30 miles.” – Google

    “Tesla’s network of 17,000 Superchargers offers convenience for a price. A Supercharger can zap a Tesla from nearly empty to 80 percent in 15 to 30 minutes, but the electricity costs about twice what you’ll pay to charge at home. Prices range from $0.25 per kilowatt-hour to $0.50 per kilowatt-hour depending on the location.” – Google

    From YouTube – many Tesla owners who live in Los Angeles, where there are many Tesla Superchargers, find they may have to Supercharger once per week but have to go at off-hours (wee hours of the morning) to find an available Supercharger.

    Facts/Assumptions:
    1. Energy efficiency of a Tesla is 0.23 kW-hrs per mile.
    2. Assume the cost of electricity at home or from a nearby Tesla Supercharger is $0.25 USD per kW-hr.
    3. Assume an average one-way commute of 15 miles
    4. Assume working is 250 days per year, 5 days per week.
    5. Ignore other non-work travel (vacations, local travel, etc.)
    6. Lifetime of SKLep NGU is 100,000 hours = 4,166 days.
    7. Assume 20 hours per day charging time – parked – no charging while driving.
    8. Assume 90% inverter efficiency.
    9. Assume Sentry Mode is active all the time while parked @ 300W.
    10. Assume 16 100W SKLep NGU units are sufficient.

    Initial Costs:
    16 each SKLep NGU 100W units – $4,000 USD.
    1 each – 2KW DC-to-AC (120VAC) inverter – $500 USD.
    Miscellaneous enclosure, wiring, connector – $500 USD.
    Labor – $200 USD.
    Total Cost: $5,200 USD – if done by car owner, or assume volume costs by Tesla could reach this selling point (i.e., quantity discounts).
    Cost per hour: $5,200 USD / 100,000 hours = $0.052 USD per hour.
    Energy per day: 20 hrs/day * 1.6 kW * 0.90 = 28.8 kW-hrs per day.

    Sentry Mode Consumption
    Energy consumed per day by Sentry Mode = 300W * 20 hrs/day = 6 kW-hrs per day.

    Energy Available for Charging
    Energy after Sentry Mode = 28.8 kW-hrs/day – 6 kW-hrs/day = 22.8 kW-hrs/day.
    Available energy per week for charging = 7 days * 22.8 kW-hrs/day = 201.6 kW-hrs
    Available travel distance per week = 201.6 kW-hrs/week / 0.23 kW-hrs / mile = 876 miles per week
    Daily average available miles = 876 mile per week / 5 days of driving per week = 176 miles per day.
    Therefore, the average commuter, doing 30 miles commute per working day, will not run out of energy.

    Cost Saving per day: (6 kW-hrs per day + 30 miles/day *.23 kW-hrs/mile) * $0.25 USD/kW-hr = $3.22 USD per day.
    Lifetime Cost Savings – $3.22 USD per day * 4,166 days = $13,413 USD.
    Break Even time = $5,200 / $3.22 USD per day = 1,615 days or about 4.4 years.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Sam:
    Likewise, Merry Christmas to you and your family !
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels,
    Thank you again for your suggestions,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Some other possible applications/benefits for SKLep NGU technology applied to Tesla EVs:

    1. Tesla vehicles parked at an airport for long periods (days or weeks) without discharging the Tesla battery system.
    2. In Jan 2022, multiple cars were stranded on I-95 – Virginia, USA due to an ice/snowstorm. Tesla vehicles quickly exhausted their battery system charge attempting to maintain cabin temperature. Depending on the duration and the outside vs inside temperature difference, the use of SKLep NGU units could have helped. Model 3 vehicles use resistive heating. Model Y vehicles use a heat pump which is about 300% more efficient under most conditions.

    Thoughts?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels:
    Thank you for your suggestions,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Add about 300 Watts for the Tesla vehicles over that required for battery recharge.

    “The actual amount of power consumed varies based on your vehicle’s specific hardware, but tests have shown that the vehicle will consume about 250 to 300 watts while Sentry Mode is on. This is equivalent to losing about 1 mile of range for every hour Sentry Mode is enabled.” – Google answer.

    Tesla owners who park their vehicle on the street will most likely activate Sentry mode in addition to wanting to charge their vehicles. Additional power would be required if they activated environmental controls (hearing or cooling), but that would be in excess of what the design should accommodate, or used when the vehicle batteries are fully charged.

    The simplest way to demonstrate this concept would be a portable unit (e.g., a suitcase unit) that was capable of outputting 120 VAC at 12 Amps. This would provide power to a Tesla Mobile Charger. The Mobile Charger would plug into the normal Tesla charging port to demonstrate a charge of a nearly fully discharged Tesla battery to full charge in 2 – 3 days, with Sentry mode active. Say a 4 x 4 array of eCat NGU 100 W units outputting 48 VDC to a 2K pure sine wave inverter, which operates at 90% efficiency?

    Thoughts?

  • Andrea Rossi

    To all our Christian Readers:
    The Team of Leonardo Corporation wishes you all
    Merry Christmas and a peaceful and successful New Year !
    To all the other Readers:
    The Team of Leonardo Corporation wishes you all
    Happy Winter Holidays and a peaceful and successful New Year !

  • Andrea Rossi

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

  • Andrea Rossi

    George Featherweight:
    No,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wilfried:
    At least maintain,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wilfried

    Dear Andrea,

    Will the stand-alone E-Cat NGU be able to maintain or even improve the performance per weight compared to the SSM?

    Best wishes and a Merry Christmas
    Wilfried

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Chicago, IL, USA.

    “Chicago is home to 12,267 registered electric vehicles — about 5,000 more than were registered a year ago.

    But with 70% of Chicagoans living in multi-unit buildings, charger access can present challenges for EV drivers, said Samantha Bingham, the Clean Transportation Program director at the Chicago Department of Transportation. Most EV charging happens at single-family homes with private garages and driveways, said Evan Carver, a University of Chicago assistant professor of environment, geography and urbanization.” Chicago Sun-Times.

    The article points out that range is not the problem but access to charging stations is a problem – they are few and a considerable amount of personal time is spent at the charging station, 10’s of minutes per charge.

    Conclusion – an Onboard charging system within the EV, even a relatively small one, would be very attractive.

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>