Some New E-Cat Milestones Listed on (Hot Cat Safety Certification, Patent Extendability, 60 Patents Pending)

Thanks to Pekka for pointing out this section on the website (which is now described as the “Official E-Cat Website of Leonardo Corporation”) titled E-Cat Milestones (see There are many familiar events listed here but a couple of new ones to me:

July 7, 2013 – Safety Certificate of E-CAT -HT by Bureau Veritas

October 19, 2015: extension of the patentability of the US Patent in 124 Countries issued by the International Patent Office of the USPTO

Also, in the Patents section of the site ( is this note:

Leonardo Corporation and its CEO & Founder Andrea Rossi have filed the applications to extend the US Patent in all the world in accordance with the received PCT from WIPO october 2015, (ref). Besides other 60 patent applications related to all the improvements of the technology are pending.

Industrial certification by Bureau Veritas would seem to be important and useful, since it is one of the top testing and certifying agencies in the world (see:

  • pg

    Sorry everyone but it is getting worse for Rossi every time he talks this way, now that he is not with IH any more.

    • US_Citizen71

      Nice piece of FUD have any proof or is it your opinion?

  • Mats002

    Pekka or if anyone else know: Is Bureau Veritas a government or private organisation? Are they open so we can get more information? We can learn a lot here, an interesting possibility!

    • ecatworld

      It’s a France-based publicly traded company with operations around the world. One of the biggest testing/certification companies out there.

      • Mats002

        Thanks, to what extent are they open with information?

        • ecatworld

          I would guess that they keep client information confidential unless there is agreement to release it.

          • Omega Z

            They are not to disclose info as there may be proprietary information that could be used by competitors. At most, you may learn whether something received certification or not after the fact.. Even the certification can be of value to competitors. Thus, Rossi’s SGS certification was acknowledged only by agreement between them.

      • Bob

        What would really be interesting to know is what is there certification. As I have posted here before, there is no “safety certification”. There are standards that one can get certified to, but no “industrial safey cerficiation”. For example, Rossi’s SGS se certification is to (Directive 2006/42/EC Annex I ). It specifically states Annex I, so only the requirements of Annex 1 are included. Also it distinctly states on page 2 the following is taken directly from the Rossi provided document:
        .”This certificate relates solely to the above identified prototye machine within the limits of the request for voluntary testing of essential health and safety requirements relevent to Annex I of Directive 2006/42/EC. The certificate does not constitute a “product certification” and cannot, in any way, be used for commericial purposes and / or advertising by the company on whose behalf the certificate was issued. The machine must be used according to itw own instruction manual and in any case, according to the regulations and presriptions applicabe to the country of use”
        So if one takes time to actually read data and not assume what everyone posts is accurate, you can clearly see that Rossi does not have an SGS se safety certificate for the 1MW plant that has any commercial applicable usefulness.
        Also it is interesting to note, that Directive 2006/42/EC specifically states that nuclear devices does not fall under it’s scope. So if the eCat is fusion, even cold, it does not fall under this scope. I do point out that there is a question as to the core process reaction. Some say fusion, others state a non-nuclear process.
        So again… to state that one has a certificate means little. One needs to state what standard the certificate is to and what the scope that certificate covers. The SGS certificate, Job Number 12.6063, issued to Leonard Corp is not a commercial use certificate, covers a limited scope of a general standard and specifically states it is for the one prototype unit tested and not approved for any commercial use.
        This is not to say that the certificate is useless! It does show that Rossi provided a prototype. That SGS evaluated the controls and general external apparatus and found no violation of health and safety as far as electrical and mechanical controls. It does not confirm anything about it producing heat at all, much less over unity.
        This is a good example of a brief general statement getting some over hype.
        Unless we know the standard the Vertias certification is to and any restrictions on that certificate, we cannot really state much about it at all. It could be a very important certificate! It could just as well be as the much hyped SGS certificate that has no bearing at all on commercial use. So I know nothing about this Vertias certification. It MAY be very important.
        I DO know that the SGS certification is really of little value or significance as I have actually read it and it clearly states the parameters and restrictions. I am not guessing nor speculating. It clearly states exactly what it is.
        Even though the SGS certificate is sometimes posted here as proof of the eCat has a safety certification, in reality it does not. The truth is the one prototype has a voluntary evaluation for general electrical and mechanical safety that is not applicable to commercial use. It does not apply to any other 1 MW plant, including the one currently being tested.
        We know nothing about the Veritas certification can say almost nothing about it at this point, until the specifics are released and known. Again, one gets certified to STANDARDS not “safety”.
        The weekend nears and I await good news…

        • Bob

          “does not have …..that has any commercial applicable usefulness”..
          I need to amend my post to to predicate “that I am aware of or that has been posted or reported on the eCat World site”.
          It is absolutely true that I do not have all knowledge of what Rossi / Leonardo Corp. has. They may have a certificate to a standard by SGS se for the current working 1MW plant and have not published or released the information. So I was in error stating that he does not have any certification. He may have and it has not been revealed. Thus my clarification!.
          (Trying to take heed to the constructive advice some have given me lately!)

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Bob, Bob,Bob: Negative, negative, why would anyone pursue a useless certification? Just to say he has a certification to sell his worthless scam; unbelievable.

          • Mats002

            The certification can have a good purpose for example for the control system. But if so, that certification will not cover the LENR/Rossi effect. I know nothing, just saying…

          • Bob

            I am not negative nor positive. It is simply fact. For this site to propagate the fallacy that the SGS certification is valid for commercial use, for all eCats and meaningful is simply incorrect and harmful to the cause to a degree. It take away credibility when invalid statements get posted as fact or out of context. Read the certification, do not take my word for it!
            (On a side note, I do not know where the worthless scam remark is related. I never stated that at all. Quite the contrary.)
            I did state that the certificate was not useless. If one has experience or been involved in certifications, they would know why people get voluntary non-binding certifications. A voluntary, non-binding certification cost much less than a binding one. It is not unheard of for a company to first attempt to get a non-binding certification to see how their product will stand up to the standards. If it fails, they can then make the changes needed in preparation for the formal binding project. Also, sometimes a binding certification is not possible. A binding certification often requires the manufacturing process to be certified as well. If the manufacturing plant is not built or ready for production, then the binding certification cannot be obtained. There are reasons. It is not blind speculation.
            So being positive about some unknown, undocumented post means nothing. It does not make it valid, not matter how much one wants it. There are posters on “anti-rossi” websites that make ludicrous claims. These continued ludicrous claims take away almost any legitimacy they have. Likewise, if a group clamors to any and all posts in a positive way, no matter how silly or unfounded the posts may be and support every item just to be “positive”, then it removes credibility in the same way.
            We should be balanced. I admit and have admitted that I tend to be very scrutinizing of certain posts. Especially ones that get hype as being really meaningful when they are not. Rossi has posted about COP or SSM or even how long the reactor has been running. I have never posted a criticism about those posts because I have absolutely no evidence to post either way. Positive or negative. I have made several posts about Darden’s involvement being very positive. When there is a topic that is clearly being hyped or blown out of proportion, I do not hesitate to state what facts I know. Facts is the key, not desire.
            So I do not know where you get the idea that I am saying Rossi is trying to sell a worthless scam? Because I do not blindly support every post he makes? Because I offer hard evidence that some posts on this site (Not Rossi) sometimes make extreme assumptions on a meaningless sentence. (Such as “safety certification”).
            To one person’s negative is another person’s adhering to facts!
            Since 2011 I continue to wait for factual significance…..

          • Bernie Koppenhofer


            You can say the same thing in a positive way, in a hundred less words. Like, Rossi’s certification is a good first step toward selling his e-cat.

          • Bob’s lawyeresque comments above about the nature of the ‘SGS certification’ appear to be entirely accurate and I for one welcome such factual input here.

            As he says, it isn’t ‘negative’ to point out the facts of a situation (so long as fact doesn’t morph into opinion) and his cautionary comments do serve as a counterbalance to the slight tendency of some to go rather beyond the facts and to make unsupported assumptions.

            That said, the SGS certificate is now ancient history, and as stated has no bearing on manufacture or sale of any current version of e-cat. It will be far more interesting to learn more about exactly what has been ‘certified’ by Bureau Veritas, the parameters of the certification procedure, and which country’s safety standards have been addressed by the tests applied.

          • Omega Z

            How to certify a previously nonexistent device.

            It appear Rossi has had many devices run through the certification process. Most if not all without the intent of marketing them. Merely prototypes.

            Perhaps this is all ground work. To prepare the way for certifying the ultimate marketable product. A previous precedent has been set for certification..

        • Omega Z

          ->There are standards that one can get certified to, but no “industrial safety certification”.<-

          We build automotive brake shoes to a certain standard.
          That standard is focused on Safety 1st & foremost.

          I like that my furnace is certified to a standard. One of those standards is a safety switch on every burner. If a single switch fails, the furnace will not continue to operate. Those safety switches are themselves certified to a standard. A standard that should the safety switch itself fails, it is seen as a system fail & the furnace will not function.

          You've said there is no codes pertaining to furnaces where you live. If there were issues, there would be. There is no issue because furnaces are built & certified to standards(that 1st & foremost involves safety). No professional installer would install a furnace that didn't meet those standards. If he did, his insurer would cancel his business insurance policy & he would be out of business.

          The term standard in this situation primarily involves safety. It is why they are commonly called safety certification. Industrial certification has a lower (safety)standard then for private use as Industrial settings have technicians on premises.

          To argue that these certifications are not about safety is just semantics and kind of lame at that. Most here at ECW know that.

          • Bob

            I understand your point and see that I have not communicated by statements clearly.
            Yes, many certifications are about safety. When someone on this site states that Rossi has a “safety certification” for the 1MW plant under test… because a post from 4 years ago showed a certificate from SGS-se does not make it true!.
            The point I was trying to make is that a certification is much more than a simple statement. My whole point about the SGS certificate if one reads it, it clearly states:
            1) it is only for the supplied prototype. No other eCat. Certainly not the one under testing now, which has went under major redesigns. People keep referring to the SGS certification as if Rossi could go commercial tomorrow with it. You have to read the certificate to see what it means. A posting on the eCat website about a Vertias certificate means really nothing unless you know what the certificate actually states.
            2) The SGS certificate dealt only with external electrical, mechanical and occupational safety. It had nothing to do
            with reactor content, fuel, fuel handling, fuel disposal, radiation safe guards etc. etc.
            I could take a empty metal box, with a few switches and light bulbs on it and get the same voluntary certificate. (A silly example, but it gets the point across)
            3) There are other certifications:
            A) Certificates of manufacturer origin
            B) Certificates for energy consumption ratings.
            C) Certificates for renewable energy compliance
            D) Certification for minority owned business
            E) Certification for NAFTA and EU excise
            and on and on..
            My point is that it is the standard and the details of the certification that are important. The SGS certificate was very specific. It was only for external and general functions such as wiring and mechanics. It had nothing to do with the reactor, shielding or fuel handling!
            My point is not about safety. My point is that because a post is made that states “Safety Certifciate by Veritas” is almost meaningless if you do not know what the certificate really states and is limited to.
            I ask you.. Is the SGS certificate valid for the current 1MW plant? – No- not the one published in 2012 anyway.

            Is the SGS certificate approved for commercial use? – No
            Is the SGS certificate valid for legal liability purposes? – No
            Is the SGS certificate valid for a nuclear device? – No
            Why do people keep referring to it that it is some major stamp of confirmation or that it is an industrial safety certification?! It is not.
            So my point is, that people keep referring in posts that the SGS certificate is a safety certification for the current 1MW plant and that it is of commercial value. It is not. IF you can provide data to show otherwise, I will gladly recant.
            That is my only point. The same goes with the Vertias certificate. Unless it is available to get the actual facts, no assumption can or should be made of it. As one post has already stated “This is a very important document…” We have absolutely nothing to base that kind of statement.
            Night falls and I will happily wait to see the actual Veritas certificate. Perhaps is will be of major value…

          • The fission competition to LENR is significant.


          • Zephir

            If cold fusion works as claimed (no radioactivity, cheap chemicals), then the fission can never become competitive anymore.

          • I hope it works out that way, but the future is always full of surprises, some good and many bad.

          • Omega Z

            The problem with Fission is it will always require major shielding and will run at lower levels due to the risks. Thus it has never been able to compete with fossil fuels economically. So if LENR works, LENR will prevail. Ever more so if it creates electricity directly.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, I do think LFTR (liquied thorium reactors) hold much promise.

            Of course both fission and fusion produce DEADLY amounts of radiation during operation. This issue of course can be dealt with by shielding the device.

            Fusion is preferred since there should not be any waste products from the fuel, but the “machinery” most certainly does become radioactive and significant shielding is required for both Fusion and Fission reactors. So any replacement of internal parts of a Fusion reactor will be radioactive.

            In fact a real sticking point for many to accept LENR is the “lack” of radiation during operation – this not supported to be possible.

            LENR looks to win the race over Fusion reactors hands down and this is “much” due to no radiation seems to occur during operation of an LENR reactor. And if there is any radiation during operation, very little shielding is required.

            And the working parts etc. of a LENR reactor don’t seem to become radioactive over time (which cannot be said for Fusion or Fission reactors).

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Zephir

    /* Besides other 60 patent applications related to all the improvements of the technology are pending…*/

    This is quite an investment. And also anything good for public spreading of cold fusion technology.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Patents are what protect inventors and motivate people to invent, or so the theory of old went. What approach is used to market has far more impact nowadays.

      If IH follows current approaches like Elon Musk, and Steve Jobs have made popular the distribution could be quite rapid.

      If IH were for instance to specialize in a few premiere brand name complete models of core ala Intel Inside, making the plans for the housing control systems and all external apparatus public domain, and kept only the chips propitiatory, they would have a license to print the chips like casino chips. All the while profiting wildly off their patents.

      • Zephir

        /* Patents are what protect inventors and motivate people to invent, or so
        the theory of old went. What approach is used to market has far more
        impact nowadays */

        Color me impressed

      • Omega Z

        The primary purpose for patents was to protect the little guy.

        I had a great Idea, but no means to implement it. Thus I go to those of means.
        They like the idea, buy me a Starbucks & send me on my way.
        They produce product from the idea, make billions, fly about in their private jet.
        While I sleep under a bridge in a cardboard box.
        Patents were to prevent this & see that you were paid/benefited for your intellectual property.

        Like all things based on good intent, there is always those who will find a way to game the system. To add insult to injury, it seems as if any attempt to fix it tends to benefit only the big players. Not those for which patents were meant to protect. We need the patent system, but we also need to find a way to fix it.

    • radvar

      If it’s important enough the government will force broader licensing

  • georgehants

    EFF Action

    Stop Patent Trolls: Support the Innovation Act of 2015
    The Innovation Act is the best patent troll-killing bill
    yet. Last year, it flew through the House but was stalled in the Senate.
    This year, it’s back. Tell your representative to pass this strong
    patent reform legislation.
    E-mail your representatives
    The Innovation Act offers a host of reforms to stop “patent trolls,” entities that are exploiting loopholes in our current patent system in order to chill innovation and harm small businesses. Trolls extort money from businesses by threatening expensive lawsuits and forcing settlements. The Innovation Act provides much needed transparency, important litigation reform, consumer protections, and tools to challenge bad patents. By empowering innovators to fight back, this act will discourage trolls from making baseless demands in the first place.
    Please stand by innovators and job creators and support the Innovation Act (H.R. 9).

    This is the year for patent reform.

    The Innovation Act (H.R. 9), introduced by House Judiciary Committee
    Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and co-sponsored by a bipartisan
    coalition, offers a host of critical fixes to the problem of patent
    trolls. Trolls’ abusive litigation tactics have exploded in recent
    years, putting a drain on our innovation economy and harming innocent
    end users.

    Patent trolls buy up patents and use them offensively against
    unsuspecting businesses—without creating or selling anything themselves.
    Making broad claims of infringement based on patents of questionable
    validity is the troll’s favorite move. Most defendants choose to settle
    because patent litigation is risky and expensive, and trolls offer
    settlement amounts that are burdensome, yet far cheaper than a lawsuit.
    Businesses who are targeted—including cafés running Wi-Fi, app
    developers, offices using scanners, and podcasters—lose both time and
    money, and innovation suffers.

    The Innovation Act aims squarely at trolls’ litigation campaigns by
    adding much-needed transparency around patent ownership, making
    defending against a patent suit less prohibitively expensive, and
    empowering end users.

    Help us stop patent trolls from gaming the system. Send a
    message to your representative asking them to support the Innovation Act
    (H.R. 9).

    • radvar

      Thanks for the link

  • clovis ray

    Way to go,Dr. R.
    This is a very important document, as your kittens will soon be on the world market. and we want the world to know that you Dr. Rossi are the father of this magnanimous device.

    • Winebuff67

      What’s the chance we’ll see something on the market by 2020?