Overcoming Anti-Cold Fusion/LENR Inertia — Can E-Cat Patents Be Fast-Tracked?

One of the major obstacles facing the commercialization of E-Cat/LENR technology involves patents. Andrea Rossi has said that he won’t release home-based E-Cats until he has patent approval for his invention. Although they have made no public statement on the subject, it appears that as a matter of policy, the US Patent office does not issue patents for cold fusion/LENR inventions.

For years, people who have applied for cold fusion patents have received the same information back from the U.S. Patent office: a copy of a New York Times article explaining that cold fusion does not work, and a copy of a statement by MIT professors stating that they could not replicate Pons and Fleischmann’s cold fusion claims.

Since Andrea Rossi is seeking for patent approval in the United States this policy will have to change before E-Cat devices appear on the mass market ly– and this will surely be the case for anyone who seeks patent protection for any similar device.

How is such an impasse broken? Most likely the decision makers in the patent office are subject to pressure from the prevailing opinion of the scientific community — and if that opinion were to change in favor of cold fusion, then we might see a thaw at the Patent Office. A change in sentiment would only come, however, if influential scientists were able to satisfactorily test and replicate some CF/LENR device.

Rossi has so far refused access to his E-Cat devices from curious scientists apparently fearing that people are out to steal his ideas — but he does seem happy to allow his customers to allow outside testers to examine the 1 MW plants if they so desire. We are still waiting for a non-secretive customer to step forward and announce that they have purchased an E-Cat plant, however. It will be big news when someone does so.

Another approach that some are recommending is to have political pressure applied to the patent office. On Andrea Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics site, a reader, Bernie Koppenhoffer, makes this suggestion:

To all people interested in LENR and what it can do for our world:

I sent the following email to my Federal government Representatives please add or delete your own thoughts on the subject, but please write you Representatives.

“Subject: LENR

There is a preposterous situation occurring within our government that I hope your leadership can correct. Our Patent office refuses to grant patents for LENR reactors because it is their position LENR is impossible. LENR has been demonstrated in hundreds of experiments by many scientists around the world. In fact, Mr. Andrea Rossi has demonstrated his reactor many times and it has now been demonstrated the reaction can be reproduced from his patent application. This bureaucratic or purposeful obstruction is stalling a revolutionary energy source the world desperately needs. Your leadership is required now to remedy the above situation and to put LENR patents on a fast track. Thank you.”

It’s possible that such an approach could have an effect. If you can convince people in positions of influence that LENR is real, they may be able to generate enough pressure to change some minds, especially if there develops a strong public movement in favor.

It seems a shame that a technology that holds so much promise for people of the world should face such institutional obstacles — but this has often been the case with scientific and technological breakthroughs throughout history. Perhaps 2012 will be the year when the barriers to cold fusion will finally break down.

Frank Acland

  • Steve Robb

    If you use email your letter will be ignored and you will receive a form email in response. The only way to improve the odds is to send a hand written letter whose content is essentially the same but slightly modified.

    I hate to say it but the response will be weaker than that for the “We the People” e-petition to the White House asking for an investigation of the Rossi e-cat. That petition garnered about 527 signatures, far short of the 25,000 required.

    Rossi’s path of commercialization first is the correct one. The business men who want this device will be the ones to push for any change to the governments attitude toward LENR.

  • The problem is too many interests going against LENR. From oil to coal to gas to fusion to fission. Representatives are representatives of the lobbies, We the bussiness. No chance. Maybe in China. Good luck, so long Western world!

  • Hampus

    When (and I do mean when) the customer comes out or when a new costumer gets their plant all hell will break loose. We just have to sit back and relaxe. A couple of month is nothing, we have waited almost a year for this, what’s a few more months?

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    Rossi should abandon his efforts in the US. He should concentrate on industrialized ENERGY-POOR countries such as Japan, Germany, and S Korea.

  • It would seem to me that the easiest way to solve this problem would be to sue the patent office for damages for stonewalling your patent. there is enough real LENR proof out there since Pons to make your case in court. the Court filing itself would get a lot of attention and all the scientific support would be ‘on the books’. Keep trying, let’s make the Keystone pipeline obsolete before it is finished. From what I have read. LENR is very real too bad America will be last in line to develop it because of vested geopolitical economic interests.

  • Wes

    Well, folks the solution is simple. Have a working LENR device thoroughly tested by a small committee made up of recognized university scientists (many whom have already stated they would be happy to test such a device) for its functionality. Have this committee communicate their findings in the press and directly to the U.S. Patent Office. Under strong industry pressure, the U.S. Patent Office would have no recouorse but to grant the patent.

    Only the willingness to allow thorough testing by recognized independent experts stands in only thing that stands in the way.

  • sapain

    if hot fusion is so heavily pursued and is successful, would a patent be denied on the grounds that u can only have the forces of the sun and a fission bomb to accomplish it. i read that rossi applied for a patent (patent pending) in italy and under the paris convention he would have 30 months of international patent protection. once throughly proven, a patent would b awarded because it couldn`t b denied.

  • s

    As outside observers, we might be able to look at several hours of data provided by the inventor and say the device might have produced excess energy for several hours. But, I’m sure the scientific burden of proof is much higher than what casual observers might accept. It has been almost a year and, as far as I can tell, we have still not had a long duration “black box” test where independent experts test the input and output of the Ecat with their own instruments.

  • Patents are not preventing him from selling
    his 1MW plant. If he has the edge now he will
    have to have a rapid ramp up in production as
    he stated last summer.

  • Wes

    Can anyone share any experiences/details from inquires they made through Rossi’s ecat.com site?

  • John E

    Just sell them as large paperweights and let history take its course.

  • Pingback: Overcoming Anti-Cold Fusion/LENR Inertia — Can E-Cat Patents Be Fast-Tracked? | ColdFusionBlog.net()

  • With such ideas, it could take a long time ! What’s more important: Rossi’s fortune preservation ?

  • Prometheus

    Provided that AR and NI are in close cooperation it can be expected that NI will strongly support AR`s patent process with their experienced and powerful patent lawyer attorneys. The costs for a patent process and related litigation can be tremendous and might exceed AR`s financial resources. Moreover, years of valuable time might be wasted and the marketing process severely hindered. Hopefully the US Patent Office will not stubbornly obstruct AR`s revolutionary E-Cat and proceed a fast track. To convince them, AR should provide them an E-Cat prototype free of cost.