What Would Happen if the E-Cat Secrets Were Revealed?

I have read in a number of places people hoping and calling for Andrea Rossi to spill the beans and just go ahead and reveal his secrets for the benefit of humanity. We know that that is not his approach, and it seems to me that it is unlikely that he is going to change his mind. Here are a couple of Rossi’s comments the topic of open sourcing his technology:

“As for the development of the technology: the maximum development can be reached with the maximum investments. Nobody could invest significantly in a technology without having exclusive rights on it. When a thing is own by everybody nobody gives value to it. The story of communism has teached this to us. We and our licensee will put all our force to develope this tech . . .

“Nobody would invest anything in a non proprietary technology.”

I see the logic of his philosophy, and also understand the sentiments of those who wish that his secrets were revealed so that a revolutionary technology (assuming it is real) could be come the property of the whole world.

Personally I am not invested fully in either approach. Naturally I want to know as much as I can about what makes the E-Cat work, and I also would like to see something with as much potential benefit as I believe this technology has, to be made available to people everywhere.

The question I would like to throw out to readers here is what do you think would be the practical consequences, short term and long term, if Rossi one day decided to give up on he proprietary approach and give away his secrets? We’re talking real world here, not what would happen in an ideal world.

I am anticipating some divergent opinions on this question, so please, be nice to one another!

  • giro

    I for sure do not agree with Rossi on this one. There is near to infinite manpower and infinite creativity around the world, and lots of them would like to invest resources (with private/public investement or their own). I believe currently, business models are showing that to keep a technology closed is often helpfull on the short term, but on the long term it’s not a good strategy.

    • Chris

      Exactly what patents are for, but Rossi made a hash of his application (and most of all by not specifying his 11 herbs and spices).

  • jedslater

    I don’t see anything wrong in earning money, what is wrong is to limit a certain technology to a small group of people. If you have a technology that could be beneficial for the humankind, it should be accessible for everybody in one way or another. This could be done by price tagging the product in a way where the majority can afford it.

  • Chris

    I think that, in this particular case, Rossi is totally mistaken.

    It has nothing to do with the failures of Marxism, simply because there is far too much incentive in new, inexpensive energy sources. There would be more competitors vying to improve upon it. The automotive industry does plenty of R&D despite the fundamental design and engineering criteria of Otto and Diesel having absolutely no secrets. Even when Herr Diesel was acting as a consultant and French agents threw him off a ferry in the English Channel, to prevent him from providing the same services to the Brits as he had already done for the French, there wasn’t really any secret, he was simply the most obvious choice of an expert consultant for the purpose.

    But there was nothing that Diesel really could have kept secret even if he had reasoned like Rossi. If he had been able to do so, he likely might have and perhaps those French agents would have dented the progress of ICEs much more than they actually did. Aside from his fate, he could have bet for higher profits with an actual exclusive but, all the same, there continued to be great investment in the technology.

    Likewise Rossi would simply not have nearly as much chances of ROI if he were no longer the only person in control of his eleven herbs and spices. Likewise, a well-known beverage vendor never gave away the Atlanta pharmacist’s original recipe, few people have ever had it. This is the only reason for him to keep his secret for as long as he will be able to hang on to it, which won’t likely be long, especially if he releases a domestic product for any Tom, Dick or Harry to buy and take home. He would have done much better to get excellent consultance for his patent application instead of making such a hash of it.

    If he did have adequate IP coverage instead of a dire secret, many would be endeavouring to make further inventive steps (instead of disbelieving not only Rossi but any witness to his claims). He could get his share according to what is fair and just.

    As it stands, the minute his secret escapes, it’ll go viral and no end of folks will be seeing exactly how well it works and what potential there is. From the general public’s point of view it would be vastly better than all of us sitting here waiting for each next clue or tidbit of news. But of course Rossi would hardly get back what he has so far put in personally and wouldn’t even be the best candidate for an unshared Nobel. As it is, he even has to watch who he sells it to, which doesn’t help to maximize his own benefit.

    Celani is already a demonstration that Rossi’s excuse is lame.

  • John

    If he spilled the beans, he’d get sued by the investors.

  • barty

    In my oppinion, if Rossi’s device is realy working, he should sell his technology exclusivly for 1 – 2 years, and then publish the secrets.

    So he should have earned enough money (million or billion) and will go into human history.

    What wants a mankind more than this and healthy?

  • Karl

    I think the whole debate of release of secret business information is totally wrong. This kind of debate is created by the dishonest agenda set by those who tried to prevent research and development in the area of ColdFusion/FPE.

    The segment was not only silenced by the scientific community followed blindly by MSM but also by patent organisation.

    The unique and brilliant idea of patent process once created to have the dual function of creating public averseness of successively gained knowledge and protect the innovator has been disrupted in this case.

    The society grants through the patent process that an innovator or a company get a reasonable protection of 20 years to invest time, sweat and money before the information of the patent is considered public domain.

    I judge this is a brilliant and fair idea and compromise that helps all of us (the society) to gain knowledge but it also the societies help to protect the innovator under a reasonable long time in most cases.

    One must admire the ones that once had set the agenda to quiet ColdFusion to have done a very thorough job.

    The patent situation seems clearly an obstacle for Rossi et al. At the same time it also prevent a natural development of products that would help us all to reduce the cost of energy and create new jobs and multiple opportunities.

    Don’t blame Rossi, blame the ones that set the otherwise natural and working development process that would be beneficial for all, out of order.

  • Peter Poulsen

    He dont have to show all the secrets. Im happy just to see proff that he have a working device, or some 3rd party confirmation. It could be an official responce from a respected university, or maybe Siemens as there have been rumors he is connected to them.

    Probably the most famous inventor who gave away a groundbreaking discovery was the inventor of the Polio vacine, Jonas Salk. The fact that it was free basically removed Polio from the western world very fast.

  • Ivan_Cev

    Rossi can not, release his secret.
    He will never have independent tests.
    And all his customers will be always secret.
    you must understand Rossi does not sell ecats! He sell licences.
    His secrets are so secret that no even him know them.
    The ecat is really safe.

    • Peter_Roe

      If you really believe that – why do you bother to post here?

      • John

        Being a skeptic is a legitimate opinion here. The idea that Rossi is making his money through licences is one opinion of many, which have ranged from open sourcing to New World Order to numerous conspiracy theories to hot fusion opinions to crop circles and finally aliens. Each of these topics has been discussed here.

        Admin has never said that skeptics are unwelcome here.

        • Peter_Roe

          Legitimate skepticism is obviously acceptable, but in this case the comments are almost invariably just negative opinion that do not contribute anything to the discussion. I can only suggest that you review some comments in the last few threads by this individual, and decide for yourself whether their consistent pattern suggests legitimate criticism, or destructive tro11ing.

          I believe that my own question is valid – why would someone who appears to believe that the whole thing is a sc*m, spend time every day posting repetitive negative comments that are usually completely out of context? I can only think of two reasons, neither complimentary.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            In my opinion, a person cannot consistently be motivated by negativity unless they are either:
            1- Paid shill
            2- Suffer from “argumentive personalty disorder”

          • Peter_Roe

            Yep, bullseye – those are the 2 reasons I had in mind!

          • Ivan_cev

            Time will say!

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    October 2nd, 2012 at 6:59 PM
    Dear Pietro F.:
    The military have helped very much our developmenmt and this is giving a substantial contribution in the civil applications.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,

  • b4FreeEnergy

    … revolutionary technology (assuming it is real) could become …

    Why on earth everybody keeps on adding this kind of remarks? Get over it, yes it’s real, he is really working on something! What man would spend so much time and so much of his own money only to be able to say after he kept this going for a few years: “Well hey I got you fooled there, didn’t I !!!”

    I understand that he doesn’t want to share this with the world just like that, his arguments are valid. The technology is too complicated for everybody to make his own little E-CAT in his garage even with the blueprints available. So yes somebody has to invest a lot of money to get the technology out there.

    I only hope he took his precautions so that his technology cannot be buried easily if something would happen to him. It happened more than once with other inventions or promising technologies in the past! They suddenly disappear to be heard of ever again …

    • Jon

      Except with Rossi some of the fundamentals are known, due to Ed storms and celani…I think one could get to where Rossi is from the work of those two…albeit it would still be difficult, but not impossible.

  • Visitor

    “Nobody would invest anything in a non proprietary technology”?
    Why want you try giving the secret to the US government for example, would they not invest and develop for the benefit of humanity?

    • Peter_Roe

      Unfortunately it is difficult to think of a single example of the US govt. (or any other) acting for the ‘benefit of humanity’ without some hidden agenda.

  • Communism has shown us what, exactly?

    If I got my hands on this technology with the possibility of improving it myself (I want to save as much as I can on my heating bill) – and in a world where I myself could not sell this new improved e-cat (by the same token as Rossi’s, that it would be somehow forbidden to keep business secrets), I would definitely share it with the world. What would be the point in just having a smaller heating bill than my neighbour, and that’s it?

    We would all benifit from private development of the e-cat. Couple that with 3D printers and the ability to grow your food from home and we’d have a whole new planet.

    If he saw the bigger picture, where this technology could lead us away from capitalism as such, then why would he try to make money off it, rather than give everyone the opportunity to live ‘rich’ in a world without money?

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      “Communism has shown us what, exactly?”

      It’s certainly taught hundreds of millions that were once under its yoke that it only benefits the apparatchiks. Communism however will always hold an allure to malcontents and class haters.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        China’s richest village got rich by secretly going capitalist.

        Wu, who served as the village Communist Party secretary from the start, realized that residents would never prosper as farmers. He encouraged a return to household farming, away from collectivized work, and wanted to contract out the communally managed bamboo grove. The ideas were dangerous during Mao’s call to purge all remnants of capitalism during the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution. Younger villagers paraded Wu in the village square for being a “capitalist roader” and detained him for six months. Still, he was determined to try his ideas. He set up a small hardware factory in 1969, hiding its existence from higher government officials when they visited. “The factory was a secret. If the leaders came to visit, we called all the workers to go out to the fields. But when they left, we would go back to work,” Wu said, chuckling in remembrance. “On the outside, we criticized capitalism but on the inside, we were doing it.” http://www.wessociety.com/News/World%20Entrepreneurial%20News/Economic%20Development/China's%20village%20a%20capitalist%20commune.aspx

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Both the Jamestown Colony and the Plymouth Colony started out as communes and both resulted in mass starvation. In desperation they both quickly switched to free enterprise.

        Bradford also described the consequences:
        “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use…and gave far better content.”
        The change from communal to private property rights dramatically increased the Pilgrims’ productivity. The beginnings of that productivity led to the bounty celebrated at Plymouth’s famous 1623 Thanksgiving. And as historian Russell Kirk reported, “never again were the Pilgrims short of food.” http://www.ocregister.com/articles/plymouth-277610-property-jamestown.html

      • “Communism has shown us what, exactly?”… in regard to product development, naturally.

        However, all the arguments here are only based on conditions where people not actually practise communism, right, but only – capitalistically – grabbing from the poorer when they can. I’m not sure we’ve ever had communism anywhere yet.

  • Thierry Robelin

    I don’t think that the question is as simple as that, as there are implications to be thought of. All the businesses existing around natural resources like oil and gas have interests contrary to the development of new, low cost energy sources. Releasing patents to the public on this technology would bring it into the hands of who has the power and resources to develop it, probably only governments.
    If there are governments able to develop this new technology independently of oil giants, then I tend to disagree with Andrea Rossi. However, if there should be massive diffusion of e-cats and derived, I am wondering about the economical implications on a global scale. Oil producing countries that do only that might have something to say about it. Shouldn’t we give them time to adjust so their people won’t starve? Making such technology public wouldn’t give them that time. So, although it may look selfish, and Andrea Rossi’s interest might be this way, this surely can’t be condemned as it may well serve the world’s interests after all. And, to be honest, who is the intelligent person who would give up the potential of making money?

    • Sam

      “who is the intelligent person who would give up the potential of making money”

      Making money and intelligence is not the same thing if you ask me.

      A technology like this will redefine resources and the value of money. Money will be less worth(?) if you can produce cheaper energy.

      The guy who invented internet and gave it away is in my world a very intelligent person.

      • Thierry Robelin

        You are confusing intelligence with altruism.
        Altruism is built on personal projections due to lack of love and only exists as people elude themselves into believing that they are “good” by working on the well-being of others (in psi terms, they are looking for acceptance).
        All this in turn should not be confused with idealism, which is believing that contributing to the well-being of all will eventually bring well-being to oneself.
        Internet was invented by a person while working for a public institution, many people forget to mention this. So whether he was altruistic, idealistic or just plainly disinterested is of no importance.

        • georgehants

          Thievery, You said —
          “and only exists as people elude themselves into believing that they are “good” by working on the well-being of others (in psi terms, they are looking for acceptance).”

          So if you found a person lying at the side of the road you would only help them for self-exceptence, not a truly altruistic caring for another person.

          • Thierry Robelin

            And you are confusing altruism with social responsibilities, and with idealism.
            It is self-acceptance, not self-exceptence (did you mean self-exception?), and that is not the term I used as I wrote about being accepted by others, not oneself. Big difference.
            I can’t explain things to who has decided “a-priori” that they will understand whatever they want just so that they can criticize.

          • georgehants

            What a silly excuse for your inability to explain Love.

  • Redford

    I think pantone’s engine is a good exemple of what would happen. Here’s a solid technology, well known and replicated plenty, that just stays forever in the media limbo, even when the economy is starving from oil prices and war are waged to secure some. Why is that ? Really don’t know, but apparently some people just don’t want cheap energy.

    • LilyLover

      You provided the perfect example covering what I was trying to say all over!

  • Tony76

    The following would happen:

    1.Rossi would live off receipts as the most famous and important man to have ever lived.
    2.The information would go viral in hours – the start of Humanity version 2.

    That Rossi does not provide his recipe is indicative that :

    1.He is green with envy of the riches of Bill Gates.
    2.He may have exagerated his achievements.

    From the previous thread:

    “In 1989, Tim Berners-Lee, then a researcher at CERN, invented the World Wide Web as we know it. When he created it, he could have chosen a path wherein the Web would have remained under his control. Instead, he chose to share his work with the world. Thanks to that decision, the standards behind the Web are free to all. The ability to communicate and share freely via the Internet has become such an integral part of our lives that the U.N. has stated that access to the Web should be considered a human right.”

    Pity Rossi admires Bill Gates instead of Tim Berners-Lee or Alexander Fleming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fleming

    • LilyLover

      Useful news NEVER goes “viral”.

  • daniel maris

    This question is a red herring.

    Rossi can offer sufficient assurance that he has a genuine product without giving the secret away.

    To date he has not given enough assurance. For instance, why not have a webcam showing long term operation of the E Cat? Nothing. Why not have lots of people who have seen the E Cat products working tell us about them?

    It’s good we have the SGS safety certificate for the 10 MW water heater but that, to date, is the only really significant confirmation we have so far.

    • Chris

      The SGS certificate doesn’t confirm anything about COP and he could have obtained it even if the apparatus had been no more than an electric water boiler, so long as it turned out to be safe to use.

      No doubt the disbelief is self reinforcing, because secrecy gets in the way of convincing more people that it works. Most folks need to try it out themselves and they get confused about the overall issue. Rossi’s main problem is the failed patent application, which is his own fault due to the hash he made of it.

      • LilyLover

        Don’t you know that patents are used FOR retarding the technology adoption?

        • false. they were invented at e period many inventors where hiding their secrets in the tomb, slowing progress…

          at that time, 20 years was a short time for technology.

          patent is simply a contract of publication against temporary monopoly… the bad patents are only the trick to maintain patent over 20 years…
          I don’t understand how you can do, but it seems that with enhancement you can prorogate a patent validity.

          copyright 90 years after death is much more shocking for me, but hopefully art is not so vital.

          • LilyLover

            were used vs are used … is the key.

        • Chris

          Oh that depends on who owns the patent and it certainly isn’t what Rossi would do with his.

  • G. Westreicher

    I was at the congress in Zurich an discussed with many participants.

    I’d like to believe in Rossi,
    but it becomes increasingly difficult for me.

    I have been following the ecat development now already 2 years,
    but there are always more questions marks, not less.


    10KW ecat … never sold?
    1MW ecat … mayby 1# sold?
    10KW ecat plant in construction …still?
    10KW hotcat … in development?
    10KW ecat certifacition stopped?
    1MW hotcat … in development?
    1MW hotcat … new design in development?

    • Sceptical

      In fact the issue is why searching for 1KM hot cat when it would be enough a boiler 60° to heat houses and make a real revolution.

      Heating houses is about 15-20% of the consumption of energy in Europe and North America. So would be already a real revolution.

      That is why it is hard to believe there is something concrete in ECAL or is only an illusion.

  • Voodoo

    If secrets revealed, so 1400 Chinese companies immediatelly stop “shanzaing” of all gadgets, handys etc. and immediatelly in 4 shift regime including saturdays and sundays will starting shanzaing (copying) all sorts of LENR/E-Cats etc reincarnations: home, for shower, for swimming pool, with 3action steam engine as electric generator, for laundries, for restaurants, all sorts, all volumes, all shapes.
    Quality of air finesses by XX percent within XX months.
    Folks with 54 foots sailing boat with Chinese copy e-cat generator and engine sail around the globe and self-sustain with reverse osmosis.
    Folks will dance on streets. And Rossi earn not 50 billion, only 25 billion dollars. What tragedy !!

    • kwhilborn

      Fire! Fire is a non proprietary technology and lots of people care about it, and have cared about it. The developer of fire making tools was likely happy to keep it open source for the benefits of humanity.

      —–This is a technology that could possibly slow down or advert global warming.

      —–This is a technology that could feed millions through desalination and provide fresh water to even more.

      —–Illnesses because of smog harm millions daily (even babies), imagine taking a deep breath of crisp country air in the middle of a city.

      ***** So YES! I know if it were in my hands to possibly save many lives I would not hold out for money. I’d be happy if they named a bunch of schools after me instead, or even remain anonymous like the fellow who started rubbing sticks together.

      • Chris

        I betcha the first people that were most skilled in getting the fire going had a special place in society, up until every dumb kid was expected to learn and master it.

      • H. R. Gillis

        If Rossi were to reveal his secrets today (assuming he has any) others would make further developments and quickly make patentable improvements. The release of the technology would lead to duplications, proving whether or not it is real. If it is, then the patent blockade would probably be eliminated (based on unequivocal proof), and this would open the door to further innovation. The understanding of the phenomenon is still in its early stages. So; I think there is going to be plenty of room for further improvements. If proven to be real, the level of industrial interest would likely explode. Therefore I would expect to see more R&D investment, not less. However; if we don’t see something tangible out of this soon (ie. a real customer, out in the open) there will be a waning of interest. It will be treated as just another pseudo-science. I think rightfully so.

        • Casey

          >>>>>>>If Rossi were to reveal his secrets today (assuming he has any) others would make further developments and quickly make patentable improvements.

          And, it is the way, Chinese are doing business. Instead of work on something, already was developed in others countries, they buy licences of western technologies and make patentable improvements. They have many talented peoples to do this.

          The new improvements are blocking original inventors from compensating theirs expenses of R&D, because Chinese setup cheap and mass production.

          This is already cause of bankruptcy, of many American companies.

      • Cliff Bradley

        Small, motivated teams get stuff done. Open it to the world and the only thing that will happen is to delay its release to the world.

        Creative excitement might motivate some. A spirit of philanthropy might motivate some rich guy to put a team together, but without the specter of failure to drive people, nothing gets done fast. Who, in your opinion would invest the thousands of hours without fear of failure that it takes to turn this into a working product.

        People forget that failure is just as important as success in a free market. Fear of failure motivates, but people don’t work for nothing, so unless you have the carrot of financial gain, they won’t do it either.

        If you put it into the hands of the whole world, it will delay everthing for decades.

        • georgehants

          For the U.K. Olympics and Paralypics thousands of people volunteered and donated their own time unpaid, just to achieve something good for the whole community.
          It is all a frame of mind, left to themselves most people (I think) would be naturally altruistic.
          Society’s dependence on money and reward distorts peoples True willingness to pull together for the common good, as in times of war and emergency.

          • Cliff Bradley

            Are you saying that in the U.K. Olympics and Paralypics thousands of people donated all their time unpaid for years? Wow. Maybe you’re right. But if they only did it for a short time and didn’t sacrifice their livelihood, their reputation, their hobbies and relationships, then I’d say we’re talking apples and oranges here.

            Putting on a single event is dramatically different from bringing a product to market that requires certification, research and a personal investment of your personal time and money.

            People can experiment on their own now. There is enough proven stuff on LENR now. Nothing is stopping them from discovering the same kind of stuff that Rossi did, except commitment of their whole life to it, like Rossi did.

            Rossi deserves the reward for his efforts.

        • LilyLover

          People do things for fun too.
          Here, that option is not open.
          Open LENR = shutting down big business.

          If Large format battery patents were bought by the big oil just to shelf it off… imagine what kind of desperate measures they’ll take this time. I’ve given up hope in people… only the fifth column may be useful as of now… to save the LENR.

          • Cliff Bradley

            People are currently doing LENR for fun. There is enough technology that is proven right now that people can experiment with. Why should Rossi give his secret away? Let someone else figure it out, for fun.

    • LilyLover

      I wish China was “that much” free from the influence of big oils…


  • Voodoo

    If secrets revealed, so 1400 Chinese companies immediatelly stop “shanzaing” of all gadgets, handys etc. and immediatelly in 4 shift regime including saturdays and sundays will starting shanzaing (copying) all sorts of LENR/E-Cats etc reincarnations: home, for shower, for swimming pool, with 3action steam engine as electric generator, for laundries, for restaurants, all sorts, all volumes, all shapes.
    Quality of air finesses by XX percent within XX months.
    Folks with 54 foots sailing boat with Chinese copy e-cat generator and engine sail around the globe and self-sustain with reverse osmosis.
    Folks will dance on streets. And Rossi earn not 50 billion, only 25 billion dollars. What tragedy !!

  • Keith

    As soon as he accepted funding from an initial investor to deveop the technology, his hands were tied. Changing his mind and giving away the technology would now be unethical.

  • David Smith

    Rossi is correct in his approach to keep his information close to the vest until he has an undisputable apparatus. There are forces in this world that simply do not want any technology that is an affront to the present status quo. He’s already experienced some of what they can do and he knows his only chance at succeeding in getting the technology on the market and into the hands of consumers will be to hold all his cards until there is so much proof, with so much backup that even the Illuminati will not be able to stop it.

  • Andrew Macleod

    I think Rossi is right in his approach. If he let the cat out of the bag on how it works people could build their own but the big corporations would file so many patents that the tech would on lockdown.

  • Bertil Krakenberger

    I think the question is very relevant.
    Assuming Rossi have useful results to show, the revelation of them would start hectic research at so many academic institutions, both to investigate the new physics behind and to develope applications in every possible field. So many industries would see the threat that competitiors will use the new technology to make their products better and cheaper. So many governments would see the need to engage in the development so the industries and the population in their countries don’t fall behind in the development of new applications, both in producing them and in using them.
    All together this will change the world much faster than if all development has to be made in one company.
    The most important changes will be:
    – That the green house effect development can be effectively broken.
    – That no one, particularly the third world peoples, will have to lack clean water for drinking, cleaning and irrigation and heat for cooking and house warming.
    We are in desperate need to fulfill both these ends!

  • Frank

    “What Would Happen if the E-Cat Secrets Were Revealed?”

    If you believe Rossi, then he has sold and delivered a container with about 100 single e-cat reactors several months ago. – In that case the secrets of the e-cat would be already revealed to a “military organization”.
    Why would the government, to which this military organisation belongs, not go public?
    The perspective of cheap energy would spur the economy – that’s what every nation could need now.

    • Max S

      perhaps because it never happened ?
      Note sales to the military of certain magnitude are public records and there was never any business recorded of Leonardo Corp. with the US military, according to Gary Wright’s website.

      • tappanjack

        Yeah, I always have counted on transparency from the military.

        • Frank

          … and I was always wondering why the first (military) customer wouldn’t carry away the container immedtiately (just forget about the leaking gaskets) and examine the single e-cats in their labs, but let the container with that “revolutionary technology” rest unattented in Rossi’s garage ???

      • Cliff Bradley

        The answer is obvious to a free market thinker.

        There is magic in the free market when someone has something to offer that he can expect to make money on. He will invest thousands of hours of his time, sacrificing his time with family and other interests. He will work on it until he gets it right. Chances are he’ll also fail, so the specter of failure drives him to lengths that would not be possible for someone working for a paycheck from a stable company.

        If Rossi turned it over to the world, there would be a lot of tinkering and some big company would probably put their best engineers on it. Would it result in a product or something that would benefit the world? Certainly a large, bureaucratic team would not get a product out in the time frame that a single entrepreneur with a small team could achieve. This has been shown to be the case in nearly every endeavor. Small, motivated teams get stuff done and quickly. A large company might even bury it because it competes with current products, like oil.

        The only possible exception to this is open source software. Think about the differences. Does software need to be certified safe? No. Does software need a laboratory and a pile of manufacturing equipment? No, it just needs a P.C. and someone who can program in a specific language using a group of standards. Open source software is driven by people who have needs and want to share the software they developed to meet those needs. There is virtually no monetary component. They are already making money on their software somewhere else. Open source software is, therefore, not a good example of what could happen if Rossi gave out the secret.

        So, Rossi is driven by creative excitement, the future hope of a great financial reward and is spurred on by the looming failure that always is possible when you’ve invested everything in an enterprise, product or idea.

        If Rossi gives the “secret” out to the world, that would delay the introduction of this tech by 10 years or more, IMHO.

        • Ged

          Good point all around. There are realities to how markets work. For instance, in the pharmaceutical sector, these same issues rear their heads all the time. No one will develop a cure for anything unless they can patent it and be guaranteed to get return on their investment, since it often costs upwards of billions to fully develop and market a drug.

          Investors need a ROI to warrant taking the risk of investment. If secrets are given out, then others can take the hard work and investment that was originally put in and churn out products without any risk to themselves; but leaving the original pathfinder left in the cold and with a huge debt.

          Once things are patented, that’s not an issue, and secrets can be revealed. Then, just like in the medicinal sector, once the patent runs out you can have vastly cheaper knock offs hit Wal-Mart shelves everywhere. But at least the original investors have gotten their money back and made more, with which they can invest in new projects. And that is how the wheel turns.

          • Jon

            Jonas Salk.

          • Ged

            He was a great man, to say the least. The ideal.

            However, academic funding and rules of discovery are different than industry. Money has to come from somewhere. For Dr. Salk, notice that, “As the fear of polio increased each year, funds to combat it increased from $1.8 million to $67 million by 1955.” Being in academics, he was able to fund his work through government and fund raising organizations like the March of Dimes. This national level of investment in polio research was the turning point of the fight against it, and was how a great man like Dr. Salk got the resources he needed to end that terrifying plague.

            But, where will Rossi get funding? In the industrial, private sector, that’s by investors, personal fortunes, and or company profits (as it is for pharmaceuticals). All of those require return on investment to be sustainable — and the assurance of such to entice to fund a project in the first place. He doesn’t have the benefit of a massive government and national funding movement for his work. So, he has to play by the patent and venture capitalist rules. I wish he didn’t have to, but I can’t fault him as this research is not cheap and he has a board of investors to answer to.

            The ideal for scientific work is Dr. Salk’s, but the reality is the market we’ve got.

          • Jon

            I agree… Context matters, and I believe if it were up to Rossi he would have gone the open route, like you said market investors need an roi to justify the risk… Especially one that the scientific establishment says is hogwash.

        • For me, the big question is why, when there are so many ways to use steam to generate electricity already well established, is it so hard for AR to do it? Ehy reinvent the wheel?

          • Chris

            Oh that’s not Rossi’s problem at all Joe.

            Indeed, the very reason for his efforts toward higher temperature is cuz a dude named Carnot once told him that efficency is limited, in converting from thermal to other forms of energy. You need to have a very high and a very low temperature if you want to be serious. This goes whether you do it with steam, or by any other thermodynamic contrivance. Unless you are far luckier than it takes to win the least likely lotto scheme ever concocted, like guessing billions of numbers yet to be drawn and keep guessing the next ones as long as you keep the thing running. In fact there is even a name for a fictitious critter that knows all those numbers and acts accodingly on a microscopic scale; it’s called Maxwell’s Demon.

            Yup, that’s the hottest reason for him developping the hot cat.

          • jacob

            the self sustaining Hot-cat,heating steam to run a turbine to turn a generator to produce electricity to run a few more Hot-cats,it is obvious by now,that is what is going on now.

        • Chris

          You are overlooking a few things and you don’t prove that a grassroots would be no better, let alone that it would be much slower.

          The first thing is the sheer number of folks that would be working on it, some more, some less. You argue as if the failure of any single one of them were the failure of all. You don’t allow for the fact that, as far as guessing goes, many independent entities are better than a few. It’s different for methodical approaches but accademics can be good at that if not better than enterprise R&D, especially on the theoretical side which can reduce the amount of guessing needed.

          Many enterprises are and always have been making money on things not patented, add the cases where they patent some improvement on fundamentals which are not per se patented. I and others have supplied plenty of examples, starting from internal combustion engines.

          As some others have pointed out here, many folks have worked hard on things with no intention of patenting them and selling them. See the mentions of Gates vs. Torvalds, but it goes far beyond that. Torvalds was a young student who had accidently erased his OS and dumbly hadn’t kept any backup, he didn’t want to pay for it again and made another choice. It ended up being not just for his personal use but instead the third PC OS widely used, the PC I’m posting with now is running it. Tim Burners-Lee was a researcher at CERN who thought up something that would be useful for cooperation between him and his colleagues who were already using the networking technology that had grown out of ARPANET. His idea got taken beyond research; as a project rhat several people and companies worked on, it became one of the most important additions to the internet, indeed the one that most helped make it popular, that’s how you and I are comunicating with each other right now. C and C++ were made by dudes at AT&T which did not retain any property of them but chose instead to make them industry standards. Before Java and .net they were the key languages for developing high tech software and they are still important where speed is essential. There are other examples of companies investing on standards, even in cooperation with competing ones, to achieve an advantage in their work rather than to sell the result itself.

          In short, the conclusion you draw is inconsequential.There is far more reason to think that, if some nonprofit org persuaded him to let the ecat out of the bag for some big prize, it would be an advantage for the development of the whole new technology. My only doubt is on how essential it would be for Rossi to blabber; enough good folks working on it instead of scoffing might not be much less quick, but he would certainly spare a lot of efforts even if they did quit scoffing.

          • artefact

            Ugo Abundo on JONP:

            The “Quantum Space Theory” (QST) could explain the LENR
            F. Santandrea (1), U. Abundo (2)

            “Andrea Rossi
            October 3rd, 2012 at 2:38 PM

          • Omega Z

            No intelligent business man would invest in something without some kind of protection. A product that any Chump with a big chunk of change can jump into equals financial disaster & ruin. No one will put up hundreds of millions at risk without some protection. No one will develop exchangers, electric generators or any other add on that doesn’t have a proprietorial design to it. Individual Custom built systems just cost to much for individual sales.

            On the Other hand. If I wanted to derail LENR technology, I would be all for open source. If it didn’t kill LENR products, it would sure delay it for several decades.

          • Voodoo

            “no intelligent businessman ….”
            thousands breadmakers have IP protection ? No.
            And they invest ? Yes.

            Your socio-economic theory is flawed.

          • Omega Z

            I didn’t say some wouldn’t try. I said no Intelligent businessman would do it.

            Bread is a different item all together & your major bread producers do have an IP for their recipes. 4 out of 5 new business flop within 3 years.

            Building LENR products will require hugh amounts of money. Even Corporations would have to borrow large sums of money. No IP. No Loan. That includes most Venture Capital.

          • No, building this device won’t take lots of money. It is a trivial device. It is the Ni powder that makes or breaks the success of small manufacturers.

            Look, automotive tires take a fair amount of sophisticated equipment to build. More than Rossi’s device. Yet, there are ONE BILLION tires made annually. It’s not the technology, but the scale of manufacture. Until the price was driven down, you could find small tire recapping shops in every town in America. Now, not so many, because unit price of new tires is too low.

          • Omega Z

            There’s still Millions of tires recapped. It’s just all done at large central plants. Most at the Big name Tire companies. They ran the mom & pop out of business.

            Most don’t realize that most of your new tires are manufactured the same way now. Tread is applied to the tire after it’s made.

            As for costs per unit, They may come down in time. But you probably grossly underestimate the cost to build these. The 1Mw Hot Cat will probably be manually assembled individually for years. There’s so many costs the average person doesn’t give a thought to.

          • Adam Lepczak

            So U Abundo and A Rossi do work together!

          • Ivan_cev

            NO is just a reference in the article.

          • Omega Z

            George Miley Examined Rossi’s E-cat.

            Now George is working on his own NI+H LENR project to patent & Market. Currently working on the design of a 3Kw & 30Kw system.

            Several professors have examined Rossi’s E-cat & are now working on their own projects.

            The Only real question about Rossi is how far ahead of the pack he really is.

          • LCD

            You went in my brain and took the words from me.

          • Cliff Bradley

            Actually, you prove my point because you try to disprove it with things that can be done with little equipment by a single person in a relatively short time.

            Remember that LENR tech is available to everyone that wants to play with it NOW. Millions of people could be researching it, just the same way that millions of programmers could do open source coding. So, why aren’t they? Because bringing a totally new product using totally new theories that requires substantial financial committment and equipment is fundamentally different from writing a primitive OS when all you need is a $2000 PC. Try creating the integrated circuit by yourself.

            The commitment to do PC OS was a matter of months a long time ago. The commitment to write DBase II was a matter of weeks. Both required just a couple of thousand dollars of hardware and a single person, albeit a brilliant person. C and C++ were small enough that they were written, again by a single person. They were expanded over time by programmers contributing, but software is fundamentally different from what Rossi is doing.

            The commitment to do the e-cat is years for a team and millions of dollars of equipment and thousands of experiments.

            Apples and Oranges.

            I stand by my position that releasing the tech would simply delay getting it to the world. Small, motivated teams are the best for getting this kind of work completed in the shortest amount of time. Ever heard of Skunk Works?

          • Chris

            Cliff, it’s you that’s proving my point by making flawed arguments against it. I don’t have too much time to waste.

            Skunk Works is an example of one of the very kinds of things I had in mind, “given a high degree of autonomy and unhampered by bureaucracy, tasked with working on advanced or secret projects” (wiki) except that we’re talking about something that would go viral whereas you’re assuming that only huge players would have the resources and funding capacity to support projects for improving on Rossi’s crude device. Yeah, it would take a large effort (a repetition of his) to find his eleven herbs and spices, or any other good recipe. But that isn’t the case we are discussing, is it? You’re the one whose talking apples and oranges, the case is that of his recipe being disclosed, hence relieving a lot of the effort.

            Now don’t lecture me on software, it’s my occupation and, if I so chose, I could even talk about my own project I’ve been working on for quite a while, in stretches, but my intention sure isn’t making it open source… despite the high trend of this in software. I could almost claim myself to be an example against you. Anyway you are totally strawmanning what I said as well as being oblivious to the scale of the things I was talking about. Ever heard of the IETF, the W3C and so on? Even MS participates in these, so much for not investing on anything they aren’t in exclusive control of.

            You just totally missed my point. Look at the example of Herr Diesel. Who had exclusive rights over his engine? He took no secret into the English Channel with him, and those who did that dirty deed failed to halt all the R&D which has elaborated on the Diesel engine since then. At the most they caused London a spot of delay in catching up with Paris.

            Here’s tha most fundamental thing, it didn’t quite come out yesterday;

            In ultimate analysis, the drive behind new developments is not the investors, and this is what should be obvious to a free market thinker. What investor would put their resources and efforts into something if they know it won’t either sell (directly) or be a benefit to their business? Just as obviously as this, I was saying that plenty of folks put mighty efforts into things that will increase profitability, even if it’s only to be the first and gain a competitive edge that will be imitated in due time. But often an improvement can be patented, even when the basic thing that you improve is not itself patentable. Even an improvement on the wheel might be patentable. Now a new energy source, as Rossi claims to so far have, will surely sell like wildfire as soon as disbelief dissipates and, further, there will be an increasing number of parties putting efforts into improvement. Believe it or not, there already are and there will only be more of them as more people quit scoffing at the very idea of cold fusion. This is the answer to you asking “So, why aren’t they?” Indeed they are, but only folks who aren’t scoffing at Pons and Fleischman and all who followed in their wake.

          • Chris, you’ve made a lot of good points on the value of openness. You might like this essay I sent to Andrea Rossi back in January 2011:
            “The key point here is that breakthrough clean energy technologies will change the very nature of our economic system. They will shift the balance between four different interwoven economies we have always had (subsistence, gift, planned, and exchange). Inventors who have struggled so hard in a system currently dominated by exchange may have to think about the socioeconomic implications of their invention in causing a permanent economic phase change. A clean energy breakthrough will probably create a different balance of those four economies like toward greater local subsistence and more gift giving (as James P. Hogan talks about in Voyage From Yesteryear). So, to focus on making money in the old socioeconomic paradigm (like by focusing on restrictive patents) may be very ironic, compared to freely sharing a great gift with the world that may change the overall dynamics of our economy to the point where money does not matter very much anymore.”

            I feel most of the comments here promoting secrecy and intellectual monopolies are ignoring the scale of the change LENR would make to our world (if it works). They also ignore the huge number of engineers and scientists in the world who would want to work on this in various ways if they thought it really worked and so was worth their time. And further, they ignore how broken the whole patent system is right now. They also ignore how our economy is heading for some sort of phase change anyway with cheap robotics, AI, biotech, and nanotech and other things like that. Most human labor will be worth less and less in the market very soon — most people are in denial about this, but it will ultimately require big changes in our society.

            Also, even if Rossi out of thousands of people who have worked on LENR found some new idea or “catalyst”, his work still builds on generations of learning and experiment. Wikipedia has an article on “Social Credit” and C.H. Douglas which reads in part: “Douglas disagreed with classical economists who divided the factors of production into only land, labour and capital. While Douglas did not deny these factors in production, he believed the “cultural inheritance of society” was the primary factor. Cultural inheritance is defined as the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization. Consequently, mankind does not have to keep “reinventing the wheel”.”

      • Omega Z


        Gary Wright Also said there was no record of certification at AGS

        A 1.5 million dollar sale to the military could take years of digging to locate. Even then if you new exactly what your looking for & there are billions of expenditures under the For Eyes Only.

    • LilyLover

      This assumes, government/s are interested in public well-being!

  • Bernhard Kochs

    I think Rossi is absolutely right with having the personal exclusive rights on his technology. But there is a question behind that:
    What happens with his technology if he is not permitted to sell his e-cat or home e-cat ? Many chances I see: this certification process gives the one who rules it perfect chance to block the technology for whatever reason. We know the american authorities are not the kindest ones and do not act having benefit for humanity in mind.
    I don’nt know why a person signs a non disclosure agreement. I know the purpose of such a agreement, but I as in invertor would not visit a country where this procedure is well established. They should be allowed to live in the stone ages as long as they want. Here in europe a paradigm change might occur and firms may be helped with tax tranfers because of their economical decline if such a technology is introduced to the market.
    Only if Rossi realizes that he will not be able to market his device he should disclose his technology ; there exist several ways to do that.

  • Adam Lepczak

    Mr Rossi made a first successful LENR generator that produces useful power and is practical. He invested his time and money to make it happen. Therefore he deserves to reap all the benefits from his success.

  • Kim G. Patterson

    What Secrets?

    Rossi could reveal the entire process down to the
    last detail, and the cavemen would still be huddled in the corner with abject horror!

    Waiting for the Goverments (our parents) permission!

    Give me a Break


  • (Slightly off-topic)Greetings from International Astronautical Congress (IAC) in Naples, Italy. There was one LENR talk in the programme, entitled “Low energy nuclear reactions – a bonanza for space exploration?” and given by Roger Lenard. I haven’t heard the name earlier. The audience was about 30 (room nearly full) and it was the last talk of session “Advanced space propulsion technologies and concepts”. The lecture was 15 minutes long and he mentioned most of the LENR players, including Rossi.

    To a person who has followed LENR there was nothing really new in the presentation as such and some details were slightly wrong. After the talk there were some questions and comments, maybe five or so. The most critical one was from someone who said that they had looked into LENR earlier in the context of Mills’ theories and found that the theories are too far from reality to be taken seriously.

    The message of the talk was basically: “hey, look around and follow this because it might be true”. It was successful in the sense that the audience listened, overall speaking.

    • georgehants

      Pekka , good stuff, where you there, if so what was the response from those listening.

      • I was there. As I said: about five questions. I saw the speaker and the main critic discussing afterwards among themselves.

    • sparks

      Now here’s a topic where, for once, I completely agree with Rossi. No reservations whatsoever. What Rossi says is the essence of what drives and motivates forward progress for society. Rossi is showing wisdom and experience on this topic.

  • tappanjack

    Uhh? Did I miss something? We all pay for access to the web to the tune of 100’s of dollars per year. Where is it free? Please let me know where I can unload these monthly fees for the “free” internet. Otherwise I will continue to believe as there is “No free lunch” there is not a free internet.

    • Allen McCloud

      Go to a library. Plus I can find free lunch at plenty of places. 😉

      • Omega Z


        It’s still not free.
        The cost is hidden in the products you buy.
        The amount of Energy used to keep the internet going is Hugh.

      • Not quite true.
        You may not directly have to pay for Internet at you local library, but your local county or state government is picking up the tab.
        Someone has to pay for that huge network pipe that the Telco owns.
        No, unfortunately, nothing is totally free.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        “Plus I can find free lunch at plenty of places.”

        County jail, state pen, Leavenworth, soup kitchen…

        • tappanjack

          “Two hots and a cot” is always an option to be considered for the “looters”. He He

    • jacob

      take a deep breath,the air is still free,nobody charges you to walk on the ground .

  • tectak

    What secret? We have not yet seen anything to be secretive about.

    • Chris

      Uhm no, we haven’t yet seen it because it is a secret.

    • jacob

      who is we?

  • Thierry Robelin

    There are so many people totally involved at an emotional level with this stuff that they did not even manage to correctly read the question, and went on writing answers about presumable ethics on whether the E-cat secrets should or should not be revealed.
    This is fascinating (and scary).

    • georgehants

      Thierry, you appear to have a very narrow mind and are quite aggressive.
      There is a special Cold Fusion Webpage especially for people like that at —
      You will find many people like yourself there.

      • Thierry Robelin

        George, you are acting projection.

      • Stephen

        Oh no, it’s not a narrow minded view… it even opens to the great mysteries of human psycology! 🙂 Beyond jokes… I agree that there are many blind believers here. I also honestly hope there will exist a LENR machine in the future, but I won’t blindly believe in anything that is told to me: what I have seen so far does not convince me, at all.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          “Beyond jokes… I agree that there are many blind believers here.”

          You’re so discerning, and clairvoyant to boot.

    • Stephen

      Fascinating, indeed…

    • Chris

      Actually, you are correct in saying that the discussion here is much broader than the actual question. But this question is a no-brainer (in each of the cases between “it does work” and “hogwash” and of course it’s also a no-brainer that the truth about which case would become patent, pun intentional).

  • Kim G. Patterson

    The only way we will see free
    energy is if it is connected to
    the I-Phone.


    • LilyLover


      • It’ll be when the Fanboi’s are queuing up around the block to buy the new I-Cat that we’ll know the game is lost!

  • LilyLover

    Open Sourcing E-Cats will:
    -Make Rossi poor
    -No money, no Italian/Russian mafia protection
    (governments screwed him in Petroldragon)
    -No protection = Rossi dead
    -Having made an “example” out of Rossi, people won’t touch LENR if it were as simple as A-B-C, or, given away free.
    (You cannot underestimate the brevity of current people.)

    So, like Rossi says, chance of maximizing LENR is only through private enterprise. …At least until people become stronger than their oppressors.

  • georgehants

    Anybody think it worthwhile paying for Nature articles this one is hidden from free viewing —-
    Article preview View full access options
    Cold fusion: Fleischmann denied due credit
    Brian D. Josephson
    (04 October 2012)
    Published online
    03 October 2012
    Philip Ball’s obituary of Martin Fleischmann (Nature 489, 34; 2012), like many others, ignores the experimental evidence contradicting the view that cold fusion is ‘pathological science’ (see http://www.lenr.org). I gave an alternative perspective in my obituary of Fleischmann in The Guardian (see go.nature.com/rzukfz), describing what I believe to be the…

  • Mr. Antacid

    Could a nickel copper alloy be Rossi’s first secret? A nickel copper alloy can have ten or more times the catalytic power than either element alone.

    • Chris

      That, actually, is Celani’s non-secret.

  • mrG

    “When a thing is own by everybody nobody gives value to it.” — I guess Rossi has never heard of the cellphone (Android in particular, Linux being its core). Or the Internet (approx zero proprietary infrastructure). That doesn’t surprise me, actually.

    • Einar

      Then again, neither Linus Torvalds nor Sir Tim Berners-Lee are nearly as rich as Bill Gates.

      • LCD

        Agreed but that’s not what Rossi meant. He should just say he wants to be rich. Either wayi would go about it differently.

    • Omega Z


      There’s much more proprietary infrastructure then your aware of. It’s just done in a way to make it appear seamless to the public. Behind the scenes are a lot of licensing fees & quid quo pro going on. Also the occasional Law Suit.

      Linux over 20 years in the Making with the Support of Millions of Dollars & available hardware from IBM to help make it happen. By the way, IBM did this in their own self interest to fend against Microsoft monopoly.

  • Auenland

    If i look at the speed how fast Rossi sells his working 1MW units, penetrates the market and establishes his working product in this world and the brand, then i’m quite sure, that ANY other company, run by a 16 year old that would be able to build a functioning E-Cat, would destroy Leonardo Corp.’s business within a month.

    But if Rossi would really have a working unit and would reveal it to the world and initiate an energy revolution, he would be praised all over the world and would receive so many honorations, that he would become a rich man, too.

    Not to mention, what he could cash by offering paid speeches or writing a book how he achieved it.

    • LCD

      I agree at some point i think you have to say you did your best and let others take a shot from where you left off. If not them i would suspect you had nothing of value.

    • Chris

      That’s not how Edison made his money, he took out patents and set up his production lines and conducted the business. Rossi is still waiting for an international patent to be granted, that never will be. The only thing he can rely on is being on the market and selling as much as he can before competitors start swarming. Except here in Italy where he does have patent coverage.

      He’ll certainly be hailed, as disbelief subsides, maybe his bio will sell too, but that’s not going to make him a Bill Gates.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      “If i look at the speed how fast Rossi sells his working 1MW units, penetrates the market and establishes his working product in this world and the brand, then i’m quite sure, that ANY other company, run by a 16 year old that would be able to build a functioning E-Cat, would destroy Leonardo Corp.’s business within a month.”

      Auenland, I look forward to your 16th birthday.

      • Omega Z


        It’s curious how many state how simple it is & that a 16 year old is going to do it.

        But they neglect to look at all the brilliant people who are working on LENR with Impressive Credentials but who are still only at the proof of concept stage after many years of research.

  • David Smith

    There is another perspective that many refuse to entertain which is that there are a few groups with power that believe they know what is best for mankind. Especially if it has anything to do with changing their position of power in the world. I am not talking about any particular government, politician or guru. These groups of people have been around for centuries and they have the power to direct what goes on in our societies outside and inside the influence of governments. They do it with the manipulation of the worlds currencies. They own the central banks and those that direct them. Through out history when there has been times that mankind could have bettered themselves by the minds and inventions of those brilliant few that have come along and changed our whole existence through their work and inventiveness (Tesla, patents and certifications) these power groups have stepped in to either take over those directions ( JP Morgan) (petroleum) or stop them in there tracks (Stanley Meyer) I am sure that Mr. Rossi has given this some thought especially now that he is on the verge of changing every thing about living and much of what we thought we knew about physics not to mention how it will expose the vulnerability of the power groups.

    • Robert Mockan

      We will all know the answer to the question, “..what would happen..”, when the E-Cat secrets ARE revealed. As they will be when the first products on the market are taken apart and studied, if Rossi does not disclose the secrets before that. It would be interesting if the details were to appear on the Internet for all to know, from an anonymous source, with no person taking credit for it. There are such people in the world. In any event, we will soon know everything.

    • Robert Mockan

      Saying they know, “..what is best for mankind..”, might be overly gracious. An alternative view that has more followers is they do not really care “what is best for mankind”, and are more interested in what is best for them, viewing mankind more as cattle, if not something lower on the evolutionary scale.

      • GreenWin

        You mean like, “Look, 6 billion mouths to feed. Let’s sell ’em genetically modified corn that does not reproduce.”

        • Robert Mockan

          No, more like, “Look, 6 billion mouths to feed. Let’s force them to eat genetically modified corn that will cause organ failure, give them cancer, and create genetic defects that will be passed on to their offspring. Oh, and let’s make them pay for the corn every growing season, since it was designed to have sterile seeds, and they have to buy new seeds from us every season. That way we can get the rest of their wealth, and they pay us to murder them.”


          • jacob

            You are right Robert,my business is with the farmers and Monsato has now the monopoly and patents to control the markets,what used to be hundreds of seed companies,is now only a handful,the few that are left have to pay Monsato royalties,they come to all farms to check the fields,those who are found to have breached the contracts are sued for everything they got.

            Hard to find corn ,canola or soyabeans that is not contaminated with genetically modified seeds.

            Non GMO is seed containing less that 5 % GM

          • GreenWin

            That’s exactly what I was inferring Robert.

          • Oh – a ‘prison planet’ ref; THAT has some credibility to it!

            Please, cite the National Enquirer next.


    • jacob

      For those that know the reality of what you are talking about,David,and most likely Rossi knows as well,all we can really do,to take advantage of that knowledge and try to benefit from it,I mean profit from it,in my case building advanced technology based on Tesla ,like pumps and aeration fans ,super efficient and practical products superior in performance,requiring only a smaller electrical motor to run,and super quiet.
      But to sell self running machines is plain nuts,there will be a path beat to your door,but you don’t want those kind of people there.

      • Omega Z

        So many don’t grasp the magnitude of replacing today’s Electric Grid.

        For Electrical Production
        Required- About 100,000 E-cat cores per day.
        5 days a week, 52 weeks a year for 25 years.

        Installed in individual homes would triple that to about 300,000 per day. Far more E-cats are needed if done on an Individual bases for peek demand.
        This doesn’t include Cars, trucks, trains, ships, desalinization or Agriculture use.
        And as of the Life Span of the E-cat, when you reach 25 years, it’s time to start replacing them.

        This doesn’t include the Generators, Coolers, heat exchangers or all the other components required or Vast numbers of batteries for the home.

        This is just the U.S. For World Electrical replacement Multiply by 5 as the U.S. is only about 20% of the Market. Now your looking at the range of a Million per day for 25 years. If you bring the World up to U.S. levels multiple by about 20.

        What effect will this have on Oil. The U.S. only uses 1% of Oil for Electrical production. Possibly another 1% to 2% for home heating. Little if any.

        To replace Oil, you’ll need E-cat cars or Electric. Until there’s an Efficient & Cheap way for direct conversion, (Years away) your stuck with Electrics & this will require the new lithium air battery to increase driving range to 300 to 500 miles per charge. Probably wont be available for another 3 years. 10 to 20 years to convert to mostly electric cars. More E-cat plants will be needed.

        All this will require many hundred’s of Billions in Manufacturing Facilities. Nearly all of it will be borrowed. IP’s are needed for guarantees or no loan. No loans, no Factories. No Product.

        • AstralProjectee

          Oh my gosh, when you put it like that it makes you realize how big this will be. I feel bad for most of those in an energy job right now.

          • Omega Z


            It concerned me some early on, but doing some numbers & real life experience on how fast things actually happen, I realized it was going to be a gradual drawn out transition. Even if the numbers weren’t so hugh.

            Here it is 20 years after 95% efficient heating system came to market & there’s still Millions of people using 50 to 60% efficient units.

            Whether they can’t bring themselves to spend the money or just don’t have it, They’ll replace the old inefficient system only after it totally quits or parts are no longer available.

            So those who lose their jobs gradually will just transition to the new jobs created. It’s just extremely difficult to transition because the system isn’t properly geared up to help them.

            Hopefully someday a Politician who gets it will push to change this. Someone who wont quit if the going gets tough. Someone driven like Rossi.

          • Disk brakes were in common usage FIFTY years after the patent was filed. Just because something is obviously “better”, there is a lot of inertia, not to mention retooling, that has to happen.

            In my opinion, Rossi should forget about manufacturing and selling to the market, or preserving his IP. He cites “communism” as the evil of public ownership. He blithely ignores the competition Microsoft’s Encarta encyclopedia, a paid product, and Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia supported by donations and a HUGE amount of work by volunteers! Which encyclopedia won out? Was it Open Source, or a product with a TON of capital and an established business behind it?
            Rossi has less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the capital and manpower available, and he’s working himself to death. When you’re over-tired, you make mistakes, like not seeing the last step of the stairs, and then plunging down for a serious fall.
            Mr. Rossi, PLEASE simply go to a laboratory, like Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Lay it all out. Get a modest IP arrangement, and then let real researchers prove it out. So you don’t make $1million right off. Get an agent, and go on a speaking tour after this gets famous. You’ll get $20k per speech, work two days a week, and feel fabulous and fit, four years later, and still be able to make speeches. You’ll never get this product into production by yourself. I can virtually guarantee it. Not because it doesn’t work, but because you’re sixty-two, and trying to do everything. You need a VAST team, whether it includes you or not. Look at Elon Musk and his electric cars. He hired dozens of established people. And he =still= need help.
            What chance have YOU!??

          • Omega Z

            Any University will check it out as soon as he pays them. Unibo has stated multiple times they are open to assist as long as they can give a full report & & & 1/2 a Million Euro’s.

          • GreenWin

            Scott, you seem not to realize that Rossi works at levels right now that far SURPASS any national lab in innovation and original thought. How else has he astaff of 65 and gotten his catalyst working at 1200C?

            What the curmudgeonly old school wants most is to grab his original IP and likely declare it bogus. How else would you kill off a disruptive technology?

        • Stephen

          This just proves that AR could go on with no patent at all…
          The market is so massive and his product so useful that he would never be out of job… at least not in the forseeable future.

          So, to answer the question, if AR revealed his secrets we would first of all finally know whether this stuff is real or not, and – if it’s real – we would move from words to real applications. In the process, AR would become immensely rich and famous.

          • Stephen

            …of course he could wait for patents. Who knows for how much more… months? years? decades? In this case I see the following risks and gains.

            Risk: a competitor (apparently there are many) hit the market before him… note the competitor might just patent the same sort of secret and cut him out of business. In my opinion this possibility makes the whole patent issue not as worth as it seems.

            Gain: in some indefinite future he might gain an edge over the competitors so instead of becoming just immensely rich he would become ASTRONOMICALLY rich 🙂

            Surely it’s not up to me to judge but… as usual this whole story is so strange…

          • Omega Z

            Actually Stephen, I think if Rossi can get half a dozen of these built & in operation for 6 to 12 months in a Customers plant, he’ll be able to get his patent.

            If they work as proposed/claimed he can at his expense pay the patent officials to come & see it working with the customers as validation.

            This is actually an option in order to get a patent. A Working product. Which may be his plan.

          • Stephen

            I agree with you, as long as that happens in a finite time…

            In principle he should be able to do it immediately, for instance with the 1MW power plant. Keep it running for 6-12 months with a trusted and trustable Customer. I mean, he could even borrow the plant out for free: it would still be a very worth investment! Instead we end up hearing in the news that one affiliate claims that no excess heat exists, that somebody else witness one of AR tests and claims the same, that he answers that the instruments were miscalibrated by a factor 3+ (please… wherever is the error, this is not serious)… etc, etc. This is just a war of words leading nowhere. This surely does not help his cause, I think. He should just show it works, if he can.

            So while in principle I agree, in practice I am not really understanding the behavior of AR.

          • No, get it running with a publically-accessible entity, customer or not.

            Give tours, have it run for all to see. But don’t try manufacturing. You are not skilled enough to set a huge business. You need DOZENS of well-established people on your team. Give up this “one guy in a lab” stuff.

        • Bård Havre

          The task may look impossible, but products are manufactured by the thousands and millions every day. Cars 100.000++ washhers, dryers,ovens, mobile phones etc. As volume grows, production cost fall, for every tenfold increase the cost is roughly halved. Industrial products of this complexity have production costs ranging from 2$/lbs.(3€/kg) and upwards. The E-cat core is little more than a piece of plumbing with some electronicts, the cost will plummet, and so will the cost of setting up automated factories.
          IP is vital when starting up, at that time you can get protection of operating principles, giving broad protection. Later you have to fight for crumbs, like variations in design et al.
          So I think Rossi is right, giving it away at this stage would leave the field open for big corporations to carpetbomb it with all sorts of patents, stopping development for decades. Be sure, they have already sharpened their pencils.

          • I suggest you read on the USPTO website. Once something is public knowledge, you cannot patent it unless you are the original inventor. No one is going to “carpetbomb” with patents…it won’t work. Look at the work of Carlson and his Xerox patents. Some of the best ever written (often used as examples in law school). Yet he did not make money off his idea for twenty years after he wrote his patents!
            …and then, he died!!

          • Bård Havre

            I am an inventor, I have patents all over the world. I know perfectly well how this works.
            The carpetbombing will consist of exploring the new field with vast resources, identifying possible viable venues, and block them as best they can. There are thousands of patents related to wheels, some profitable, some not, on refinements, that block others from exploiting that particular feature. The devil is in the details.

          • GreenWin

            Bard is correct. Much corporate IP is competition control.

        • Babble

          Omega Z you show good reason why this can’t just be given out to the public for free. That might produce a number of companies but they need to be able to profit to take the risk and beside that Rossi must be rewarded.

          I was the first or one of the first to state that Rossi would make industrial units instead of home consumer units. This was helped by the discovery of how to do it at high temperatures of course. So now I predict that once it can be scaled up to near GigiWatt level, it will be used to replace fuel in coal fired plants. This is needed to bring down CO2 emissions (global warming) and should be a low cost retrofit since emission controls would no longer be used. Then new design versions of this can be built for additional electric production at relatively low cost.

          • Omega Z


            You may have been 1 of the 1st to say Industrial units would be built before home units, But I have also thought but didn’t say it for a while. But Rossi probably was ahead of all of us. One of his statements in early 2011 said as much because it would be easier to get certification. That it might in fact be necessary to get the home units certified. Building home units 1st was probably overly optimistic & Hopefulness on his part.

            As for retro fitting existing systems, I think it’s more probable the E-cat will start as an add on. Just to cover demand increase. 2% to 3% a year. Once production gets ahead of demand increase, I would look for totally new plants to be built out for a more dispersed grid instead of central. It’s just more cost efficient that way. Less line loss & grid maintenance cost. I’ve read where the U.S. has between 10 & 15 trillion just in grid structure alone not including power plants. All of which needs to be replaced. With E-cats that can be halved.

            Others have mentioned Retro fitting Nuke plants. Even Rossi has said that will never happen. Everything in & about these plants are contaminated to some degree.

  • Chris

    In Short term there would be some real chaos in the stock market and all over, and there would be many duplications.

    However, it would not be long before governments take control, new laws and taxes which would make it illegal to produce and use an ecat that is not certified and controlled by the energy authorities. The taxes for energy used would be in line with costs of energy today.

    • Chris

      Unless people take control of their governments, which would be a good thing in many ways.

  • H. Hansson

    There will be no patent protection on this side of a Nobel prize. And in jurisdictions like USA or EU antitrust laws will kill any company becoming to big (usually the first). Mr Rossi’s plan on hegemony is just a dream.

    Many companies use a open source business models (like many software companies offerer support for Linux OS). And just having 1% of the Virginie market will make you happy.

    • Jon

      Now that I think about it doesn’t Leonardo corp sound like one of those 1980’s 90’s b scifi movie evil corporation…. Maybe Rossi has bigger plans?

      Seriously though, the open source method may work, but it will likely reduce the roi, and thus limit the pool of investors… If the company becomes publicly traded, then he would have to convince investors that a change n the business model wouldn’t effect the stock price in anything other than a positive way… The enviorements in which Rossi has had to operate under is not conducive to open sourcing, I wish it were, but he needed investors which means his hands are tied… If I were I. His position and think we were nearing the maximum cop we could get, at that point I would release it to the public an betray my investors… It would be much more ethical for me to do that rather than pay back my investors, broken legs or not.

      • So what is the ROI on drilling oil wells? Always a risk.

        He should open source it. So, he doesn’t get to be a “Billionaire”. At this rate, his sixty-two year old body will give out, and all that we’ll see is an expensive funeral.

        Who wants that??? Unleash Open Source Now!!

  • Alan DeAngelis

    All we heard for two decades was: “Please, may I have a cup of tea?” We haven’t heard a peep out of those boys since Rossi arrived on the scene. They never anticipated a Rossi. To say that Rossi isn’t playing on an even playing field is an understatement. Rossi has been moving up a slope that’s steeper than Mount Everest and WINNING! Asking him to reveal his secrets would be a disaster.
    The real problem is that the jealous prima donnas who Rossi upstaged are the gatekeepers to getting a patent. But for some reason this isn’t seen as a conflict of interest.

  • Miles

    The Time Is NOW !!!!!!

    Europe’s nuclear reactors need $30b repairs, upgrades: report

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/europes-nuclear-reactors-need-30b-repairs-upgrades-report-20121004-270fm.html#ixzz28I7DYv5y

    • AstralProjectee

      Oh my gosh, I don’t know if Rossi will be able to do it in time. Does anyone know when they need they money by? Or when they might get approval for the money? I am sure that figure would have been at least somewhat lower if it were not for the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.

      At least Inteligentry is scheduled to reveal their PlasmERG product before Rossi starts selling his product I think. Which is December 11, 2012.

  • AstralProjectee

    It does not matter I think that once his e-cat is sold it will not be to longer after that that someone will post on the Internet what his secrets are and how the e-cat works. Then some open source techs will open up for it to try to develop it in their way. Who knows maybe the open-source techs will do better. But I don’t think so. I think you need a lot of funding. Obviously Rossi should have no problem getting any money he wants after he starts selling E-cats.


  • Ivan_cev

    There is two answers to this question.
    1. if works, Rossi will be a hero, probably famous and rich, every hobbyist will work on ecats and the tech will evolve fast, like in the old days of transistors, thousands and thousands of hobbyist working on it; a new era will start.

    2. if does not work,….you know the story.

  • It would be wonderful: ingenious people can become free of petrol trusts and government taxes making their own e-cat and selling it to friends and neighbors !

    • AstralProjectee

      I would really question buying a homemade LENR device from a friend or a neighbour.

  • Brad Arnold

    Excuse me, I am in the middle of listening (for the second time) to the audio book “Atlas Shrugged,” so I find the notion of Rossi (the builder) surrendering his intellectual capital to the looters to be an evil notion. Just like Hank Rearden being forced by the government to sign over his patients for Rearden steel. Shame on you – I hope that someday you realize how evil that concept is.

    • Something else to read: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/30/0327257/another-call-for-abolishing-patents-this-one-from-the-st-louis-fed
      “The most recent call for curtailing patents comes not just from an unexpected source, the St. Louis Fed, but also in its most basic form: total abolition of all patents. Via the Atlantic Monthly: a new working paper (PDF) from two members of the St. Louis Federal Reserve, Michele Boldrin and David Levine, in which they argue that while a weak patent system may mildly increase innovation with limited side-effects, such a system can never be contained and will inevitably lead to a stifling patent system such as that presently found in the U.S. They argue: ‘…strong patent systems retard innovation with many negative side-effects. … the political demand for stronger patent protection comes from old and stagnant industries and firms, not from new and innovative ones. Hence the best solution is to abolish patents entirely through strong constitutional measures and to find other legislative instruments, less open to lobbying and rent-seeking.’ They acknowledge that some industries could suffer under a such a system. They single out pharma, and suggest other legislative measures be found to foster innovation whenever there is clear evidence that laissez-faire under-supplies it.”

  • senjx

    The technology will be bought (if not already) and supressed for a couple of decades by the Cartel. The oil business will not let this get in the way. Not yet. Rossi will get rich either way.

    • Robert Mockan

      Your view may or not be correct, but either way when the details about exactly how to make the LENR catalyst are revealed, it will be difficult to suppress the technology. Of course simple reactor designs will also need to be publicized, so the LENR catalyst can be used. It will not be much longer before every person knows every thing they need to know.

      • Robert Mockan


      • senjx

        I wish you were right about this. I will give you analogy why I can not agree:
        Cancer is curable for nearly a century now and there have been more than 500 alternative treatments suppressed, hundreds of books written, many doctors and scientists have spoken against medical establishment, some have been ridiculed, jailed and prosecuted, there are tens of thousands of cured patients and their testimonies available on internet.
        In spite of all this and the technology evolution and progression of diagnostic procedures the medical mafia keeps healing(killing) people with 60 years old technology (radiation,chemo,surgery). Moreover they haven’t “found” a single permanent cure for any chronic illness since. 60 years man.
        And it does not change much that all information about effective harmless alternative therapies is freely available nowadays.
        I know it is going to change in a generation or two, but until then it is always going to be just “a year away”.

        • Robert Mockan

          Your reply is depressing. It gets worse. Most chronic illness is man made, even knowingly self inflicted. The adverse health consequences of, cigarette smoking, coffee drinking, excess sugar consumption, fluoride ion in the water supplies, additives in processed foods (now including consumption of GMO foods), known toxic additives in vaccines causing autism, psychoactive drugging of children in schools, pharmaceutical waste such as female hormones from indiscriminate use of birth control pills finding its way into the ground water supplies and causing lowered sperm count, the feminization of males, and pre-teen puberty of females, and so on, are well known, yet the atrocities continue.

          “Business as usual”, is not the answer to finding solutions, but the problem. The mold of apathy, even complacency, must be broken. LENR is an opportunity for change, with far reaching potential positive effects upon the world. Those effects can be realized if people will take initiative, stop being apologists justifying conventional commercialization efforts, and demand the “cure”, that is the LENR catalyst, be made available directly.

          Otherwise the technology will be used to enforce more social control, not enable liberty, and be used to make corporate profits for a few, not free people from the yoke of debt slavery.

          • GreenWin

            Robert, there is one area that I tend to agree with you on: keeping secrets is unhealthful.

            But contained knowledge is necessary if there is good, impartial oversight. The dysfunctions you mention as all anomalies, survive with from conscious attention. As do the “cures.”

            This may sound flaky, but none of this matters in the realm of love. Even flawed love. Physics, matter, worlds, universes, cognition, are all just introspective mind games. To know who we are. Who are we? In our most true, highest, most divine sense, we are that we are. And all is one.

          • Robert Mockan

            As a pantheist I know what you mean. I am all for positive emotions, and will make a sincere effort to feel good, right after the insane oligarchs destroying the world are eradicated from the universe. I agree in a philosophical sense all is one, but the insane oligarchs are not going to be part of it.

            Back to LENR catalyst. The only real secret Rossi has is his catalyst. Everything else is just engineering. I find the question “..what would happen..”, to be in wrong tense, and the Rossi “secret” has been rendered a bit irrelevant. Remember recently the EPRI report was mentioned, at E-cat World, and people were making comments about it. But I wonder how many actually understood what they were reading. In the report, the scientists at EPRI mentioned they used nickel nano-particles and generated about 4 watts per gram near 600 C. The company they purchased that catalyst from is Quantum Sphere Corporation.

            This is the catalyst EPRI was using.


            All I’m trying to do is make it cheaper, and more readily available (that is, affordable) to any person who wants to build their own reactor. It is not an easy problem to solve, but not because of the technology. I simply lack funds.

          • GreenWin

            We are on the very same page: the bad apples will be removed from the barrel. Even on the most esoteric levels I doubt there is argument against this. It is no different than spiritual healing. Eliminate the negative so the positive can flourish. Make sure to check out the Martin Fleischmann Project link I posted above. They are well on the way.

            Since Rossi has indicated his willingness to contribute something like 90% of all profits to a charitable trust, I continue to support LENR competition. I think it will speed the transition.

    • Robert Mockan

      Some of the reasons I suspect what you say is the intent of the Cartel, to suppress the technology, are the problems I have run into trying to complete experiments proving LENR catalyst synthesis.

      For example, this method of making nickel nano-particles in the precise size range that Brian Ahern has documented makes LENR catalyst, is relatively simple, yet try to obtain the materials to do the experiment! Blocked at every turn!

      I will eventually be able to complete it, and show it in a you tube video, but progress is slow. Here is the method I’m presently working on.


      There are simpler methods to make large quantities using less expensive reactants and reagents, but they do not allow precise size control of the nickel particles as does this. Once I have the optimum size then can go to cheaper synthesis methods to make that size.

      • LCD

        Robert the problem with those sizes is as you know it makes the Ni highly flammable. But i do think it has something to do with the nanometer geometry. I just think micron sized particles with nanometer features should also work. No?

        • Robert Mockan

          I agree. Surface treatment of micron size particles, or even surface treatment of bulk material, as with the Celani wire or the Piantelli sheets, to give the active nanometer features, will also work as demonstrated. There seem to be many different synthesis routes to make active LENR catalyst. The problem with many potential synthesis methods using surfaces is that I do not have the equipment necessary to analyze the surfaces. Even a used SEM (scanning electron microscope)is out of my ballpark. On the other hand metal crystal structure and nano-particle size can be determined with readily purchased or custom made equipment, for example using Bragg diffraction for crystal structure and bulk powder characterization, and using technique of “elctrophoretic formed diffraction grating diffusion” to determine particles in the less than 1 nm to greater than 100nm size range rapidly, accurately, with high resolution.
          There is no inexpensive comparable equipment or techniques available to determine the morphology of modified surfaces intended to be LENR active. So I’m stuck with nano-particles for the time being. Since all metal nano-particle reactions are performed in an inert gas hood, and the resulting LENR catalyst directly placed in the reactor under inert gas, the oxidation problem (metal burning in air), can be avoided.

          • LCD

            Well your methodology and reasoning seem very logical to me. I wasn’t aware of your level of experimentation. I was really thinking of the garage level home experimenter.

            Listen please do me a favor and sign up on my website so i can contact you privately. Have some questions for you if you don’t mind. Thanks

          • Robert Mockan

            Member registration did not go through at your website. You can contact me through the forum email account here if you like.

          • LCD

            Yeah had to disable auto registration because 90% is spam bots.

            I’ll email you.

    • Robert Mockan

      “What would happen…?”.

      Well, let us find out. People will need to read this to get a modern start on what they need to know.


      (This link was also re-posted at the Vortex-1 message board by fznidarsic Thu, 04 Oct 2012 09:19:53 -0700 in post titled: “nice cold fusion article”).

      Notice the size range of the nano structures to make LENR catalyst.. 3nm to 11 nm. That is the size range the other link I posted enables specifically to make).

  • GreenWin

    The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project is moving along with the greatest of vigor (JFK.) Spacegoat at the other site provided this inspired link:


    They are replicating the Celani experiment with great precision. There is what appears an excellent data acquisition package from HUGnet – green inventors. I expect to see a kit from these folks available to all but the most backward physics departments around the world. THIS will accelerate LENR toward light speed. Congrats to MFMproject personnel!