Andrea Rossi, Partners & Domestic E-Cats

It Is said that nature hates a vacuum, and this is certainly true in the world of communication. If we don’t know all of the facts and details on a subject, we tend to fill in with fear, suspicion, and conclusions that are not necessarily correct.

This is reflected in some of the exchanges on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Andrea Rossi’s blog. Here, people from all over the world discuss Physics, and keep track of Mr. Rossi’s development of E-Cat and Hot Cat technology. Mr. Rossi plays his cards very close to the vest, to use an old Western phrase. He has seen intellectual property stolen more than once, and has learned the value of silence.

This, however, makes it hard for those who follow his work to stay abreast of developments, and they often find themselves in the dark about changes. Take, for instance, the recent partnership formed between Leonardo Corp. which owns Mr. Rossi’s technology and an unnamed U.S. partner. Many people were shocked to find out that the partner had full access to even the most secret aspect of Mr. Rossi’s IP – the identity of the catalyst.

Since then, many have feared that the new U.S. partner would change the direction of Mr. Rossi’s work. He has, however, repeatedly told his followers that the new partner has the same philosophy as he does toward working toward the betterment of mankind.

Just a couple of days ago, Frank Acland (of E-Cat World) asked Mr. Rossi about progress with the domestic E-Cats. He said:

“Some people have surmised that since you are now in partnership with a large manufacturer of power generation equipment, that they may not have an interest in providing home-based E-Cat units which could affect the economic interests of large power producers. Is your new partner committed as you are to manufacturing the domestic e-Cats?”

This is a thought that many of us have had, expressed very well by Mr. Acland. Since the new partner’s interest appears to be with the production of the industrial units, it could be a conflict of interests to later promote domestic units.

In response to the question about remaining committed to production of domestic E-Cats, Mr. Rossi replied:

“Absolutely yes, provided we resolve the certification and intellectual property issues.”

That is encouraging, but the next statement by Mr. Rossi caused some dismay:

“The certification, in particular, is absolutely necessary (I mean safety certification) and, believe me, there is no certificatory in the world that will take the liability to certify a LENR device for domestic utilization.”

This comment caused panic, because it very clearly states that without safety certification, there will be no domestic E-Cat, and that safety certification is impossible. However, keep reading. Mr. Rossi continues:

“It is necessary that a history of safe and reliable industrial plants makes up a lattice of good statistics before this certification becomes possible. This is the truth, who says the contrary does not know the issue.”

Andrea Rossi has said all along that the domestic units will not be certified until the industrial plants have been in use for a while. The proof of the safety of LENR and Hot Cat/E-Cat technology will be carried out on an industrial level, under constant supervision of certified operators. THEN, when the technology has proven itself, the domestic applications may begin.

Another poster on the forum, Bernie Morrissey, expressed the thoughts of many with his comment:

“Your answer to Frank Acland about no certificatory in the world willing to take the liability to certify a LENR device just shattered my hope of getting the home unit I ordered. I have followed you progress since your story came on Peswiki and this is the first time that I have negative feelings.”

Mr. Rossi’s response was somewhat encouraging:

“Nothing is shattered: we will get the certification for the domestic E-Cats after good industrial statistics and your pre-order will be followed by our offer. The price will not change in real value.

“Obviously, the certification does not depend on us, but we will do all the possible. In the meantime also the Intellectual Property issue will be resolved. That’s easier.”

Mr. Rossi and the Leonardo Corp. have never taken a deposit of any kind for the E-Cats. He has said that the home models will be about $1000, and apparently intends to stay with that quote. He has also said that the IP which he must guard so jealously will, perhaps, be more at risk in the domestic market. This is due to the fact that millions of individuals will purchase his devices, making it impossible to supervise the uses. Individuals are certain to dismantle their devices in an attempt to replicate the technology on their own. With the industrial units, Leonardo Corp. forms an agreement to protect the IP responsible for the technology to work.

A few months ago, when the domestic E-Cats and the industrial ones were beginning their certifications, Mr. Rossi said that the domestic version will take longer than he had hoped to become certified. Some thought that he, at that time, abandoned work on the domestic models. However, Rossi seems to have simply accepted the facts as they are, and continued developing his technology in the area most likely to become certified. The industrial Hot Cat and Hot E-Cat are being his major focus now, the almost monthly developments and discoveries of new power from this technology are clearly moving the work of Andrea Rossi in the right direction.

11 total comments on this postSubmit yours
  1. Rossi is an open book / sieve compared to Dick Weir of EEstor.

  2. It is frustrating for many to follow the E-Cat and Hot Cat news and see little hope of obtaining a home E-Cat soon. However, if you install an E-Cat under your kitchen cabinet, it better be safe, or you could loose your house if you have a fire. It must be certified safe. An industrial energy reactor can be installed out in an enclosure, away from the industrial building. That would make it much safer if there is an accident. Eventually, Rossi and his partners will know how safe the reactor is and can feel confident installing a unit indoors after it has been certified. If many industrial reactors are installed, that will help drive the price of energy down. jdh

  3. Why is the certification issue a surprise? A gas boiler for domestic use in Europe has to fulful the requirements in the Gas Appliance Directive to get a CE mark. A number of standards describe tests and for example emissi0on limits. Where are the standards/methods for e-cat testing and certification, at least for Europe?

  4. The certification issue should NOT be a surprise when we have a new science and technology. All that Rossi knows about his reactors, is what he has been able to observe in his factory – that is NOT enough to guarantee safety to a customer. It is much easier to start with an industrial reactor and obtain the safety and operating data he needs. jdh

  5. I am also disappointed that we will not get the home e-cat soon, but the problem of certification is completely understandable and even confirms to me the viability of the Rossi e-cat for industrial use. It is my opinion the home e-cat will not be realized unless governments underwrite the liability exposure, similar to its indemnification against liability given to nuclear power industry.

  6. I cant wait till it will come out. I hope it will get certified soon!!!

  7. Both industrialisation and intellectual property rights work differently than most people think.
    Should Rossi ever sell a working reactor, within a year hundreds of reverse engineered products will appear all around the world.
    You cannot patent a natural phenomena. If cold fusion works, then anyone is free to produce their own version of a working heat source.
    It’s also practically impossible to protect certain classes of devices or products if they are truly useful to mankind.
    Take penicillin. It didn’t matter that one company held patents, everyone simply copied the product and then sorted things out in court (or not).
    While it may appear that ‘just 100,000’ 1Megwatt units won’t change the world, you can guarantee that several tens of millions of other units will soon be produced should Rossi be successful and regardless of patents and legalities.
    The second point I would like to make is technological revolutions always start out slowly.
    Most people think that Edison invented the light bulb, IBM the semiconductor transistor or that Lindbergh was the first to fly the Atlantic.
    Over 100 working light bulb patents existed prior to Edison – he simply bought the two most successful patents and then entered a partnership with a third inventor from Scotland who had a proper working tungsten light bulb already on the market (you can see a sample of this bulb in the Smithsonian). Lindbergh was number 80 to fly the Atlantic and the silicon transistor was patented in Canada in 1929.
    The point in all these examples is that in each case the inventions or activities existed prior to becoming popular knowledge. In each case it took a showman and entrapanur to understand the potential of the technology and enter it in to the common consciousness.
    The third point – and related to the above – is that industrialising even a successful design from prototype to working product usually takes 3-4 times longer than the inventor estimates. In most cases if an inventor says ‘within a year’ to market, you can add another 3 years at least to the time frame.
    In this respect those who are disappointed in Rossi progress, don’t understand the complexities of moving from prototypes to mass production – sadly neither do most inventors.
    I have no idea if the tec is real or not, but I don know how commercialising new technologies and the illicit duplication of patented technologies work.
    If Rossi produces a working, scalable, mass producible product this year, I’d be very surprised, not because of anything Rossi says or does, but because of the sheer complexity of scaling to mass production and getting it certified – I often think the whole process is so time consuming its designed to fail!
    There is an old saying among inventors – if I knew how long it would actually take to go in to production I would never have started!
    So don’t knock Rossi for timeframes etc. His experiencing the sad reality of industrialisation.
    It always takes more time – a lot more time! – than the inventor expects.

  8. IBM did not invent the transistor. It was invented at Bell Labs in the late 1940s. As for who owns intellectual property, if Rossi is granted a patent on his catalyst he owns the intellectual propert. If anyone reverse engineers the e-cat and makes use of the Rossi catalyst Rossi can go to court and demand an injunction on the copied product being sold. If the court finds in his favour the copy cat firm is out of business. The court may then levy damages and if it finds that the defendant acted with prior knowledge of committing theft those damges can be very steep ie they can be tripple of the original award. It cost the Kodak film company close to a billion dollars in damages back in the 1980s for infringing on Polaroid instant film patents and the court ordered Kodak to cease selling its version of instant cameras and film. The court did not award tripple damages to Polaroid because it determined that Kodak did not act with prior knowledge of committing theft.

  9. Mannestein – you are both right and wrong about Bell Labs but people *think* – incorrectly – that it was IBM not that they invented the tec – that was my point (and as I say it looks like patents actually go back to 1929).
    As far as the enforcement of intelectual property rights go, you are plain wrong. It works sometimes and then usually, and not always in the western world – enforcement outside Europe and North America is weak or ignored, as I say look at the histroy of penicilan. But don’t take my word for it, just go ask anyone who does business in China or elsewhere in Asia to see how much patent rights are ignored.
    But the main point is that people who except Rossi – or even Rossi himself – to keep to his estimates on production times and then to be annoyed don’t fully appreciate the difficulties of new product comemricalisation and certification. If Rossi hits his deadlines – great! But if history is a measure he’ll be delayed not because of anything he does but due to the sheer complexity of the task.
    That’s how it works.

  10. While it is well known that experimenters used crystal diode detectors in simple radios in the 1920′s that does not mean they invented nor were able to engineer transitors. These crude devices consisted of a piece of germanium and a steel needle. In principal this was a semiconducting device but solid state physics which is the underlying theoretical basis for modern semiconductors was not developed until well into the 1940s to produce practical devices. This pioneering work was done at Bell Labs and the inventors received the Nobel Prize for Physics in recognition of their accomplishment. Notice that none of the early tinkerers received such recognition.

    We all understand that to defend a patent against theft requires resources which puts lone inventors without money to pay high priced lawyers at a distinct disadvantage. The further east one travels the more one runs into Kleptocracy especially in dealing with communist countries and the former USSR as well as Eastern Europe. It’s part of their culture.

  11. @Mannstein
    good reminding of early semiconductor history.
    At the beginning the anomalies of resistance in germanium were just discarded as errors (like anomalous heat, long time noticed with PdD permeation tests in the 50s, and discarded).
    In the 80s I was told that transistor was the result of quantum mechanics calculation… it seems a myth, and that the beginning were as usual the result of ununderstood physics.
    Note also that in LENR like with semiconductors, the key is the lattice.
    With my education it was clear that the claims that LENR was impossible looked like pathological claims, sign of incompetence…
    of course it was not incompetence but conservatism and bias, based on less scientific facts (like some F&P mis behavior about publications, neutron detection errors, disdain for cookers=chemist, over mediatisation, budget in risk)…
    of course for few years those stupid claims were ignored by many labs that tried to develop the new fire. finally most of them abandonned because they did not find a useful way to harness it… yet there was no doubt on it’s reality…
    finaly the denialist won in the media and politic, because nobody have interest to fight the “mouse in the cheese”.

1 pingback on this post
Submit your comment

Please enter your name

Your name is required

Please enter a valid email address

An email address is required

Please enter your message

© 2016 All Rights Reserved