Norway's Aftenposten Newspaper Looks at Leif Holmlid's LENR System as Possible Energy Solution

Norway’s daily newspaper Aftenposten has published a new article about the possibilities of LENR as a new form of energy. The article by focuses on the work of Leif Holmlid (Universtity of Gothenburg, Sweden) and Svein Olafsson (University of Iceland) who last year published an article “Spontaneous ejection of high-energy particles from ultra-dense deuterium” in the journal International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.

The Aftenposten article looks at the potential of Holmlid’s work who estimatates that his LENR system, if developed, could supply a country like Norway with its energy needs with 100 kg deuterium. 100 kg of deuterium costs at current rates no more than 700,000 Norwegian Krone — mentioning that this would be a problem for Norway that lives on oil. Svein Olafsson thinks that Holmlid’s work is worthy of a Nobel prize.

A critique of Holmlid’s work is provided by Dieter Röhrich of the University of Bergen who is skeptical, and thinks that the results are most likely in error and a product of wishful thinking. Holmild counters by saying in his opinion 95 per cent of LENR findings have been luck or experimental error, but 5 per cent are scientifically valid.

The article can be found here (Google translated from original Norwegian)

  • Veblin

    700,000 NOK, at the 2016-04-01 exchange rate equals $84,770.29 USD

  • akupaku

    If anybody ever gets a Nobel prize for LENR it should be Fleischmann (posthumorously!) and Pons. I doubt Rossi will ever be seriously considered by the Nobel committee regardless of what he has achieved. He is not a respected scientist and has a dubious reputation (maybe unfairly). Would not be the first time that Nobel prize goes to the wrong person(s). Al Gore and IPCC comes to my mind as a glaring example!

  • Shiv Singh

    And what prevented them from creating a prototype if the material was so cheap?

    • Bob Tivnan

      Why do you say that something is preventing them from creating a prototype? He already published his results from an actual experiment, and I am sure he is working on improving his experimental results. Keep in mind that Holmlid is a scientist, not industrialist engineer type like Rossi.

  • Shiv Singh

    And what prevented them from creating a prototype if the material was so cheap?

    • Bob Tivnan

      Why do you say that something is preventing them from creating a prototype? He already published his results from an actual experiment, and I am sure he is working on improving his experimental results. Keep in mind that Holmlid is a scientist, not industrialist engineer type like Rossi.

  • akupaku

    Haha, you would be scolded by my physics teacher for showing so many significant digits in your result! I doubt that the zeros in 700,000 are significant with relation to precision. My physics teacher and me too would argue that a more correct answer is 85000 USD, your result rounded to 2 significant digits!

    Sorry but I could not resist, lol!

    • SD

      I would like to do a few foreign exchange transactions through your physics teacher, where do I sign up? 🙂

      • akupaku

        This is kind of going a little off topic but FX transaction amounts are precise to last digit. The amount 700,000 is probably just a rough estimate, the real value could be 691654 NOK or something else, i.e. the zeros are not significant. My physics teacher told me that the result should have at most 1 significant digit more than the input value that has the least number of significant digits. The only significant digit in 700,000 is the number 7, the zeros are just an estimate or guesses, the digits in the real value are probably something else than zeroes. ;o)

  • artefact
  • artefact
  • Bob Tivnan

    I hope other scientists are working to verify Holmlid’s experiments, because if they are valid then his results are extraordinary for two reasons. First, he may have discovered a new form of exotic matter- ultra-dense deuterium or UDD (with a density of 130 tons per liter according to the article). The other extraordinary result is the abundant production of muon particles in his device. Muon-catalyzed fusion (MCF) has been well understood for decades, but there have always been obstacles that prevent it from being used as a practical source of fusion energy. The possibility that Holmlid may be producing UDD and muons in his laser irradiation experiments allows him to make a compelling case for LENR. Recall that Pons and Fleischmann loaded palladium with deuterium (heavy water) rather than hydrogens most stable isotope (protium). I wonder if the “one competitor” that Rossi referred to recently might just be Holmlid. I’m sure some will say that Rossi is not using deuterium and has never discussed muons in his E-Cats. Then again, there may be a reason for that.

    • Ecco

      I’m sure some will say that Rossi is not using deuterium

      Rossi’s provisional patent application 61/999,582 covers the usage of deuterium:
      https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000032278621/PDOC/WO2016018851.pdf

      and has never discussed muons in his E-Cats

      I think Rossi claimed in the past few months that the reaction directly produces electricity, which is what muons would also allow (this is also referenced in the Aftenposten article linked in this blogpost).

      • Bob Tivnan

        Thanks for that Ecco. I’m happy to hear that Rossi and Holmlid may be more connected than I previously thought. Is MFMP taking this seriously? It seems that they have embraced Piantelli’s theory, but I would like to see the open science community explore this avenue as well.

        • Axil Axil

          I have devoted much time and effort to move Bob G of MFMP away from the piantelli theory and toward Holmlid’s dense hydrogen idea. This idea is important in the fuel pre processing steps used to produce dense hydrogen.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We tested the theory with GS5.1 and saw signs of excess heat – I also put Celani first onto Holmlid about 2 years ago and he is heavily working along these lines and is in regular contact with Holmlid and has switched to Deuterium.

            Alan Goldwater also represented the MFMP in the same venue with Sveinn at SRI.

            There is nothing to say that this system is not materially different as it does not seam to account for observed outcomes from say the 2003 paper by Vitorio Violante of laser stimulated hydrided Nickel.

            We only have limited resources – we are not fixated on anything and are always open minded. Leif would say it is not proven and Piantelli would say parts are uncertain in their respective theories – the question is what is right enough to get a repeatable effect – by merging our best learning from Piantelli, Celani, Parkhomov along with our own insight and focusing that on the Rossi patent formula fuel – we achieved GS 5.2 Data and we need to make every effort to see if an exact replication can be done first.

  • Bob Tivnan

    I hope other scientists are working to verify Holmlid’s experiments, because if they are valid then his results are extraordinary for two reasons. First, he may have discovered a new form of exotic matter- ultra-dense deuterium or UDD (with a density of 130 tons per liter according to the article). The other extraordinary result is the abundant production of muon particles in his device. Muon-catalyzed fusion (MCF) has been well understood for decades, but there have always been obstacles that prevent it from being used as a practical source of fusion energy. The possibility that Holmlid may be producing UDD and muons in his laser irradiation experiments allows him to make a compelling case for LENR. Recall that Pons and Fleischmann loaded palladium with deuterium (heavy water) rather than hydrogen’s most stable isotope (protium). I wonder if the “one competitor” that Rossi referred to recently might just be Holmlid. I’m sure some will say that Rossi is not using deuterium and has never discussed muons in his E-Cats. Then again, there may be a reason for that.

    • Ecco

      I’m sure some will say that Rossi is not using deuterium

      Rossi’s provisional patent application 61/999,582 covers the usage of deuterium:
      https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000032278621/PDOC/WO2016018851.pdf

      and has never discussed muons in his E-Cats

      I recall Rossi claiming in the past few months that the reaction directly produces electricity, which incidentally is what muons would also allow (the Aftenposten article linked in this blogpost mentions this as well).

      • Bob Tivnan

        Thanks for that Ecco. I’m happy to hear that Rossi and Holmlid may be more connected than I previously thought. Is MFMP taking this seriously? It seems that they have embraced Piantelli’s theory, but I would like to see the open science community explore this avenue as well.

        • Axil Axil

          I have devoted much time and effort to move Bob G of MFMP away from the piantelli theory and toward Holmlid’s dense hydrogen idea. This idea is important in the fuel pre processing steps used to produce dense hydrogen.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We tested the theory with GS5.1 and saw signs of excess heat – I also put Celani first onto Holmlid about 2 years ago and he is heavily working along these lines and is in regular contact with Holmlid and has switched to Deuterium.

            Alan Goldwater also represented the MFMP in the same venue with Sveinn at SRI.

            There is nothing to say that this system is not materially different as it does not seam to account for observed outcomes from say the 2003 paper by Vitorio Violante of laser stimulated hydrided Nickel.

            We only have limited resources – we are not fixated on anything and are always open minded. Leif would say it is not proven and Piantelli would say parts are uncertain in their respective theories – the question is what is right enough to get a repeatable effect – by merging our best learning from Piantelli, Celani, Parkhomov along with our own insight and focusing that on the Rossi patent formula fuel – we achieved GS 5.2 Data and we need to make every effort to see if an exact replication can be done first.

  • You must be alive to be rewarded the Nobel Prize.

  • You must be alive to be rewarded the Nobel Prize.
    http://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-nobel-prizes

  • Shiv Singh

    For the records.
    Nobody is doing anything with this paper.
    Literally, thousands of papers are published like this every year by scientific community, as part of the academic lifecycle, and paper publishing process.
    This paper was published last year.
    They did not produce or aim to produce a watt of energy.
    The process mentioned in the abstract involves radioactivity, therefore, dangerous and not recommended for hobbyists.

  • Zephir

    Before some time Prof. Holmlid admitted himself, that the conditions of his fusion are rather more close to hot fusion (laser induced fusion in particular), because of high portion of
    energetic particles (muons in particular) were generated. After all, the pulses of infrared lasers are the most powerful source of antimatter, far exceeding the luminosity of giant colliders, so that relatively high energy densities may be involved here. The apparent similarity with laser induced fusion at NIF is also probably the factor, for which the above presentation has been allowed to publish at the APS session.

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/01/leif-holmlid-comments-on-his-fusion-process/

    On the other hand, his reactions reportedly lead to high energy yield, which was not observed yet at the case of hot fusion, so that various multiparticle effects, extremely low-dimensional collisions and even new phases of matter (i.e. Rydberg matter). Note that existence of Rydberg matter is still highly speculative and it may not differ from dense plasma with both electrons both protons mixed, as most of Wikipedia references originate from Holmlid himself.

    Experimental reactor scheme http://i.imgur.com/C7RDQ3j.gif

    It has been proposed that a large number of deuterons form a “linear-atom” supermolecule. By the Madelung transformation of the Schrödinger equation, the linear deuterium supermolecule can be described by a quantized line vortex. A vortex lattice made up of many such supermolecules is possible only with deuterium, because deuterons are bosons, and the same is true for the electrons, which by the electron–phonon interaction in a vortex lattice form Cooper pairs. It is conjectured that the latent heat released by the collapse into the ultra-dense state has been misinterpreted as cold fusion. Hot fusion though, is here possible through the fast ignition of a thermonuclear detonation wave from a hot spot made with a 1 kJ 10 petawatt laser pulse in a thin slice of the ultra-dense deuterium.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/ultra-dense-deuterium.313656/page-3

    So what the Holmlid fusion and cold fusion have in common? IMO it’s extremely low-dimensional character of particle collisions, which work as a Gauss gun or Astroblaster toy and which enable to overcome the Coulomb barrier. Just at the case of cold fusion the character of linear chain collisions gets provided by regular structure of atom lattice, at the case of Holmlid fusion the source of linear wave is the coherent laser ray.

    • Ecco

      Keep in mind that he, with Sveinn Ólafsson, also observed the reaction to take place spontaneously (i.e. without using laser activation. It’s implied that it occurs at a much lower rate this way) just by making deuterium gas flow at a low pressure and elevated temperature through the nanostructured catalysts he uses. This would be more similar to the operating conditions of typical LENR experiments.

      This is also mentioned in the Google-translated Aftenposten article linked in this blogpost.

      […] Another article by Holmlid and Olafsson found that even with no laser pulse arises a weak radiation similar to that detected in the second cold fusion experiments.[…]

      • Zephir

        But the study linked just talks about laser: bellow is the sample of deuterated tantal foil shotted by infrared laser pulse

        http://i.imgur.com/Kc1eyMI.jpg

        • Axil Axil

          holmlid uses green laser light at 33 milliwatts.

          • Ecco

            He uses a Nd:YAG nanosecond-pulse laser which can be used either at 532nm (green light) or 1064nm (infrared). This kind of laser is very expensive. From the paper I linked in the reply to Zephir above:

            A Nd:YAG laser with pulse energy of <0.4 J could be used to initiate the spontaneous signal, with 7 ns long pulses at 1064 nm and 10 Hz repetition rate. The laser beam was focused with an f = 40 mm lens at the D(0) layer.

          • Zephir

            Not in the study linked, where he uses a Nd:YAG nanosecond-pulse laser which can be used either at 532nm (green light) or 1064nm (infrared) with pulse energy of <0.4 J could be used to initiate the spontaneous signal, with 7 ns long pulses at 1064 nm and 10 Hz repetition rate. This kind of laser is very expensive, you cannot buy it at the web shop. The mixing conditions and conclusions of different experiments is typical aspect of your posts here.

        • Ecco

          It’s not super-clear from the abstract but the actual paper is indeed reporting the observation of the reaction spontaneously taking place as in LENR experiments in addition to that with laser induction as Holmlid usually does.

          Also see Sveinn Ólafsson’s reply here on LENR-Forum:
          https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1853-Ask-questions-to-Dr-Sveinn-%C3%93lafsson-Science-Institute-University-of-Iceland/?postID=6358#post6358

          […] The laser can start the process but just waiting after admitting the D2 gas does the same.

          • Zephir

            /* ..another article by Holmlid and Olafsson found that even with no laser
            pulse arises a weak radiation similar to that detected in the second
            cold fusion experiments…*/

            Which article(link)? After hitting by nanosecond laser pulse many things would run “spontaneously”, because such a pulse has a gigawatt energy density..

          • Ecco
          • Zephir

            The picture attached to study above linked is tiny but it clearly shows the laser

            http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/thumbimage/1-s2.0-S0360319915016018-gr1.sml

          • Ecco

            They did have a laser in their apparatus but they didn’t always use it in this study.

            EDIT: if you’re not convinced, I encourage you writing an email to Ólafsson or Holmlid for clarifications on this matter.

          • Zephir

            It’s not so interesting for me anyway, as this fusion cannot get important from practical perspective from many reasons. But it seems natural for me, that once we initiate the fusion by laser at some place, then this place will remain radioactive for many hours – but it proves nothing much about existence of some “dense phase of deuterium” there.

      • Axil Axil

        The LENR activation process is a two step affair. First, the dense hydrogen nanoparticle must be formed, This is done in the fuel preperation stage where high pressures are produced in various ways.

        The second step is the activation process where the surface of the hydrogen nanoparticle is charged with photonic energy…surface plasmon polaritons… that produce a monopole field. A laser can produce SPPs or heat can or visible light as Rossi does in his quark unit.

        • passerby

          Can you summarize the mechanism of action that the SPPs have on the fuel? Like a dumbed down version?

          I was looking at this video and they are showing it is making like waves on the metal. Is this meant to be another form of shock to the metal lattice like the other methods of temperature, electromagnetic fields and so on?

          Or does it serve a different purpose?

          https://youtu.be/yJ8enHiq0H4

          • Axil Axil
          • passerby

            See I’ve read all that but I don’t get it. I am not a physicist and was therefore hoping for a cliffnotes version. Or even better, explain like I am five.

            I also watched the latest MFMP video and accompanying documents and the relevance seems obvious, I just don’t get how it fits into the overall theory.

            Like LENR is all about weak interactions right? And the weak force is all about decay, and catalysis is the acceleration of decay. Hopefully I get all that but I don’t get why a particular type of laser accelerates that decay.

          • Axil Axil

            Think klingon disruptor beam. Light has a part of it that is magnetic in character. When that part is bent correctly and focused in a tight line, it will cause the stuff inside the atom to fall apart. When that stuff becomes subatomic particles, it produces muons. These are heavy electrons that cause fusion to occur. Muons bring atoms together like a sheep dog rounds up sheep, When atoms get real close to each other, they come together.

            The force that holds atoms together is called the strong force and that is what is disrupted.

            A laser is not required to produce the light that disrupts the strong force. Any type of light will do. Heat, visible light, UV, x-rays all can be made to break apart the nucleus,

            For example, the heat produced inside Pluto is not produced by a laser. Heat from compression produces the LENR heat that causes the core of Pluto to melt.

            see

            https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2908-The-Road-to-LENR-goes-through-High-Pressure-Physics/?postID=15521#post15521

          • passerby

            So if I understand you correctly, this particular type of lenr is analogous to previous muon catalyzed fusion experiments, except with the laser being used as an efficient muon source?

          • Axil Axil

            There is only one type of LENR. But sub-atomic particles produce various nuclear effects. Through weak force decay of kaons, pions are produced and then muons which finally decay into electrons.

            Rossi says that half his reaction output are electrons.

            The nuclear reaction that occur are chaotic and unpredictable. Fission can occur and clusters of fusions can occur. Nuclear reactions can happen over and over again affecting the same atoms as nuclei build up to heavier elements and then fission to lighter ones again and again. The only rule in the reaction is that it must produce positive energy.

          • bachcole

            Just a passing question from a techno-retard. Can muons be focused? Do they always travel parallel?

          • Obvious

            Muons can only be packed together to a limited amount because they repel each other due to their electric charge, which is the same as an electron. They can be focused more or less like an electron beam. Because they are much heavier than an electron, they take much more energy to get moving and require more energy to steer with a magnetic field once they get going compared to an electron.

          • Josh G

            All of this endless speculation about muon catalysis and decay is all barking up the wrong tree. All the various LENR processes have basically one thing in common: a channeling and intensification of the charge field (which is a field of low-energy photons penetrating space and is essentially what physicists now refer to as dark energy or dark matter).

            Larger particles like electrons, protons and neutrons, work like a pump channeling and emitting these charge particles. If you increase the power of that pump, you increase the density of the local charge field, creating heat. Thus, most of the excess energy from LENR systems does not come from decay, it comes from “tapping” the charge field.

            http://milesmathis.com/heat.html

            http://milesmathis.com/led.pdf

            If the flow of these pumps is increased enough, it can also lead to isotopic changes and transmutation of elements. Lasers are good for LENR, because they intensify and directionalize the movement of the charge field.

            For more, see my post on Mathisian Physics and LENR:

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/13/mathisian-physics-and-lenr-a-preliminary-and-tentative-guide-josh-guetzkow/

            My thinking has evolved since I wrote that, but the fundamentals are basically right.

            SPP’s are based on the theory of evanescent waves. Here is Miles’s explanation of evanescent waves and another paper on solid-state physics that addresses the issue of polaritons (and related theories):

            http://milesmathis.com/evane.pdf

            http://milesmathis.com/solidlight.pdf

            Also see these papers for more leads on LENR:

            http://milesmathis.com/led.pdf

            http://milesmathis.com/water2.pdf

            http://milesmathis.com/poll.pdf

            http://milesmathis.com/deut.pdf

    • Andreas Moraitis

      In case that the fusion part works via muonic hydrogen, the term “cold fusion” would be historically correct, since it has originally been coined to denote muon-catalyzed fusion, many years before F&P.

      • hunfgerh

        Requires CF muons

        Free Neutrons formed in CF from hydrogen atoms.

        The formation procees is described several times via the E-capture by the
        proton.

        (P+ + e-) –> n + v

        the question discussed is a muon necessary?

        To this, the following mass information: Neutron (n) = 1.6747 10exp-27 kg

        Proton(p) = 1.6724 10exp-27 kg

        Electron(e-) = 9.1081 10exp-31 kg

        Myon(u-) = 1.884 10exp-28 kg

        P+ + e- = 1.6733 10exp-27kg Neutron

        This simple analysis shows, the addition of a simple electron meets the mass requirement of Neutron Formation not, however, the addition of a muon goes beyond the mass of a neutron request. The real value is between them and is met by the relativistic mass increase of an accelerated electron. For this purpose,to the hydrogen atom (p + + e-) a directed acceleration energy has to be supplied,
        The correct formulation of the equation is therefore:

        (P+ + e-) + E –> n + v

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Muon-catalyzed fusion works in a different way, see

          https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalte_Fusion#Myonen-katalysierte_Fusion

          As you know, there are many theories on the market, and nobody could say whether one of them is correct. But in contrast to other hypothesized mechanisms muon-catalyzed fusion is recognized by mainstream physics. Maybe that’s a reason why APS accepted Holmlid’s paper.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The luck portion are also valid, they simply lack control of all the variables. If you turn up your nose at the outlier results, you never get to do the original yet worthy research.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The luck portion are also valid, they simply lack control of all the variables. If you turn up your nose at the outlier results, you never get to do the original yet worthy research.

    There are just so much worthy research which never contributes because of this lack of originality, and fear of walking on any “unproven” path harboring those dreadful uncontrolled variables.

    Such researchers should not be allowed to do anything but reproductions. It’s all they really do anyway, the rest is smoke and mirrors.

    • WayneM

      Ophelia,

      Good point about replications.

      It’s an interesting twist that Dr. Rossi’s patents have been in the public domain for a sufficient amount of time and no one can replicate his work. For example, MFMP, who scrounge for every nit of info about the E-Cat.

      Dr Rossi states he is going to beat back the competition by a combination of hitting the production ground running and with his patents. I have doubts about his patent argument.

      Dr. Rossi is probably going to fail on the patent point as his patent(s) are deliberately missing key ingredients or design. Probably to prevent the competition from getting a leg up on engineering around his patents. In the U.S it is first to patent and not first to invent who gets the legal support (I believe). As a result, no one can fully replicate his LENR magic.

      So Dr Rossi is compelled against his self-crippling, secretive nature (see history of Wright brothers) to put a patent stake in the ground that was incomplete. However, it does not instruct a person, familiar with those ‘arts’, on how to replicate it.

      What’s very likely to happen is a competitor will discover the missing ingredients, get a replicated E-Cat patented with the whole recipe, and claim the E-Cat for themselves.

      A deep pockets competitor (PetroChina, Exxon Mobil) could bury IH in law suits for patent infringements. Ironically, they could likely win.

      Dr Rossi could lose full rights to his invention. His paranoia, when transparency and full disclosure is required, may be his Nero.

      If Dr Rossi can’t get it to market, others will.

      • Brent Buckner

        Perhaps the setup of the 1MW test was in part designed to fulfill “commercially using a process” respective of having a prior use defense available in case someone else scores a patent. Rossi has always referred to a “customer” being involved in that test and so the test would satisfy one year of commercial use.

        “The defense provides a safe harbor for an accused infringer who had been commercially using a
        process for more than a year prior to another’s application for a patent covering that process – thereby doing away with the significant risk that might otherwise exist for an inventor who maintains as a trade secret his invention, and who could otherwise later be sued and enjoined from practicing that invention.”
        [From http://files.bakerbotts.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Maier_DEC11.pdf ]

        • Frank Acland

          Interesting point, but if that was the case I wonder why they would have stopped the test just short of a year (It ran for 352 days according to AR)

          • Brent Buckner

            I don’t know. Perhaps the test was designed to satisfy the requirement, but once (and this is purely speculative) IH had a commercial agreement with the customer to recharge the device and continue selling heat then it could allow the test to end. Perhaps the period of “commercial use” could include some days before the selling of heat began, such as days pre-processing fuel.

          • Josh G

            The test finished but the E-cat is still running in the plant, no?

          • Brent Buckner

            There’s another angle here too. To my limited understanding, Rossi’s patent covers a precursor pathway
            to LENR – a chemical reaction and device. Anyone else trying to build upon that chemical reaction and device to produce LENR could be enjoined by Rossi – they’d have to find another path. They would be unable to enjoin Rossi from continuing to use that chemical reaction and device (along with other elements) to produce LENR as he has been doing because he would have the one year commercial use defense. Rossi’s patent discloses only what is necessary to serve as a blocking patent ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blocking_patent ) and the rest stays as trade secret.

      • Rene

        In the U.S. it is the first inventor to file (FITF), similar to FTF in most other countries. Pre 2013 the U.S. used first to patent.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent

        • Zephir

          Maybe this change has been initiated by Congress just for to achieve the priority of US patents on the field of cold fusion. I don’t believe very much in accidents here.

      • Omega Z

        ->”his patent(s) are deliberately missing key ingredients or design.”

        Are you sure about that. Many overlook minor details as being insignificant. Only to find out latter they were a key element.

        As to MFMP replication efforts. Initially they saw the Rossi effect as simple and due to impatience, didn’t farewell. They have been steadily improving.

      • Ted-X

        A lot of inventors are making serious mistakes by patenting an invention without the full disclosure. In essence, they are wasting their time and energy, as the protection that they can achieve this way is marginal and easy to go around. I think that this is a deeper psychological problem of many inventors. It is also very unfortunate, that actually a significant number of inventors are delusional about their inventions. The delusion aspect does not apply to Rossi, but the self-harming secretiveness is something that he clearly demonstrated.

  • Axil Axil

    Rossi might be going with the razor blade strategy where he sells the E-Cat at cost and makes his money on the fuel recharge.

    http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/razor-blade-model.asp

    The only secret that must be protected is how to make the fuel.

    • nietsnie

      It doesn’t seem to me that the fuel would be a secret for very long. I think he has mentioned in the past that their strategy is to be too cheap to bother to be worthwhile trying to catch up to – due to their mass production, partnerships, and low margin. Unlike a strategy in which the inventor plans to make windfall profits until others can catch up, Rossi, et. al., plan to prevent competition from catching up by making their money on numbers and then name recognition.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      At least that wouldn’t work for a car application. If the charge lasts for 1 year (8700 hours) and if a car’s average speed is 60 km/s, the mileage is 530.000 km. In other words, factory fuelling typically lasts for the lifetime of the car.

      • Gerard McEk

        AR has also said that there is a limited off time of the E-cat (before restart). That may make that scenario less feasible perhaps. Further he has always dismissed car usage, although that would be one of the most interesting applications. Maybe Big Oil has warned him?

        • DrD

          That could explain why he says it will co-exist with Fossil fuel.

          • Omega Z

            it will co-exist with Fossil fuel for a long time because it will take a long time to transition. Some for understandable reasons. Some Not.

            Electric cars can replace IC engines today, but present projections are electric cars will make up only about 3 percent of cars sales by 2025. High efficiency heating systems have been around for over 25 years, They presently make up about 38% of sales. Logic or what we think should happen seldom match reality.

          • EEStorFanFibb

            My prediction: EVs with be around 80 to 100% of new car sales by around 2025. EVs will perform significantly “better” and be as cheap or cheaper before 2025 than comparably optioned ICE vehicles.

            ICE vehicles are like film cameras. The world will go digital really fast once economies of scale kick in around 2018-19.

            EVs as a compelling value proposition are going to gain great strength over the next 10 years. ICEs have no chance and no consumer will want one after the mid 2020s.

          • Brent Buckner

            Also, I’m not sure that the patent is meaningless even if it doesn’t disclose enough to produce LENR. To my limited understanding, the patent would cover a precursor pathway to LENR – a chemical reaction and device. Anyone else trying to build upon that chemical reaction and device to produce LENR could be enjoined by Rossi – they’d have to find another path. They would be unable to enjoin Rossi from continuing to use that chemical reaction and device (along with other elements) to produce LENR as he has been doing because he would have the one year commercial use defense.

        • Omega Z

          Rossi had conversations with the CEO of Volvo during 1 of the tests. The CEO who was interested in the technology explained to Rossi that a certification for cars or trucks could demand more than 10 years. In another post that I can no longer locate, It was thought it would take about 20 years before actual production would start.

    • LCD

      There is a limited time he has to make money on the first generation because there will be lots of copy cats

  • Axil Axil

    Rossi might be going with the razor blade strategy where he sells the E-Cat at cost and makes his money on the fuel recharge.

    http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/razor-blade-model.asp

    Then, the only secret that must be protected is how to make the fuel.

    • nietsnie

      It doesn’t seem to me that the fuel would be a secret for very long. I think he has mentioned in the past that their strategy is to be too cheap to bother to be worthwhile trying to catch up to – due to their mass production, partnerships, and low margin. Unlike a strategy in which the inventor plans to make windfall profits until others can catch up, Rossi, et. al., plan to prevent competition from catching up by making their money on numbers and then name recognition.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      At least that wouldn’t work for a car application. If the charge lasts for 1 year (8700 hours) and if a car’s average speed is 60 km/s, the mileage is 530.000 km. In other words, factory fuelling typically lasts for the lifetime of the car.

      • Gerard McEk

        AR has also said that there is a limited off time of the E-cat (before restart). That may make that scenario less feasible perhaps. Further he has always dismissed car usage, although that would be one of the most interesting applications. Maybe Big Oil has warned him?

        • DrD

          That could explain why he says it will co-exist with Fossil fuel.

          • Omega Z

            it will co-exist with Fossil fuel for a long time because it will take a long time to transition. Some for understandable reasons. Some Not.

            Electric cars can replace IC engines today, but present projections are electric cars will make up only about 3 percent of cars sales by 2025. High efficiency heating systems have been around for over 25 years, They presently make up about 38% of sales. Logic or what we think should happen seldom match reality.

          • My prediction: EVs with be around 80 to 100% of new car sales by around 2025. EVs will perform significantly “better” and be as cheap or cheaper before 2025 than comparably optioned ICE vehicles.

            ICE vehicles are like film cameras. The world will go digital really fast once economies of scale kick in around 2018-19.

            EVs as a compelling value proposition are going to gain great strength over the next 10 years. ICEs have no chance and no consumer will want one after the mid 2020s.

        • Omega Z

          Rossi had conversations with the CEO of Volvo during 1 of the tests. The CEO who was interested in the technology explained to Rossi that a certification for cars or trucks could demand more than 10 years. In another post that I can no longer locate, It was thought it would take about 20 years before actual production would start.

    • Bruce__H

      Hasn’t he already disclosed how to make the fuel in the patent he obtained last July? If there is a secret to the fuel production then it is not covered by the patent.

      I am trying to understand why Rossi says his strategy is to aggressively protect his IP. You can only protect IP through patent protection if it has been disclosed publicly.

      • Brent Buckner

        One can also protect intellectual property by maintaining it as a trade secret. (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret )

        • Bruce__H

          I don’t see how.

          First, if Rossi has not divulged a necessary step in fuel production then his July patent is invalid and he can’t protect any IP on that basis.

          Second, one maintains a trade secret by keeping it a secret. If the fuel can be reverse-engineered then anyone who did that would be welcome to manufacture and sell the fuel themselves. They could even go ahead and patent the process.

          • Brent Buckner

            You wrote: “I don’t see how.”

            Here’s the first hit from googling
            “intellectual property protection for trade secrets and know-how”:
            http://www.ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/IP_Protection_for_Trade_Secrets_and_Know-how1076598753.pdf

          • Bruce__H

            Yes. The document you linked to says the same thing I am saying.

            “Trade secret laws, however, do not grant the holder the exclusive right to exploit the secret information. Others may develop the information independently. They may even derive it by reverse engineering the trade secret owner’s product.”

          • Brent Buckner

            The document says other things too. It makes it clear that they and others refer to things such as having people sign NDAs regarding trade secrets as protecting IP.

          • Bruce__H

            Sure, but fuel packs will actually end up in peoples’s hands. I imaging if there is a secret catalyst then they can examine the fuel pack and figure out what it is. Once that secret is out then anyone can use it or even patent it.

            It is difficult to keep a physical configuration as a trade secret because it is relatively easy to reverse engineer.

          • Brent Buckner

            Perhaps there are trade secrets involved in fuel preparation. Dart Container Corporation maintains as a trade secret its method for molding expandable polystyrene, although the physical composition of the polystyrene is presumably relatively easy to determine.

          • Bruce__H

            Yes. Processing procedures are exactly the sorts of things that can be treated effectively as trade secrets.

            But then why did Rossi take out a patent? If he hasn’t divulged this secret in the patent then it (the patent) is meaningless.

          • Brent Buckner

            Perhaps Rossi believes there’s enough in the patent to get [edit – the specified effect], but results will not be as good as with additional fuel processing. For example, Bob Greenyer posits that with fuel processing there may not be a radiation burst (per point 5 of https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/03/07/finally-this-is-possibly-how-the-e-cat-works/ ).

          • Brent Buckner

            Also, I’m not sure that the patent is meaningless even if it doesn’t disclose enough to produce LENR. To my limited understanding, the patent would cover a precursor pathway to LENR – a chemical reaction and device. Anyone else trying to build upon that chemical reaction and device to produce LENR could be enjoined by Rossi – they’d have to find another path. They would be unable to enjoin Rossi from continuing to use that chemical reaction and device (along with other elements) to produce LENR as he has been doing because he would have the one year commercial use defense.

          • Bruce__H

            The July 2015 patent does read this way so you might be right. But in this case I don’t understand what Rossi intends with another US patent application he made that was rejected in January. In this patent application he proposes a fuel system that treats Ni as a fuel (instead of a catalyst) and apparently transmutes it into copper. Why try and patent this process if it isn’t his E-cat? He is still defending this patent application as far as I can see.

          • Brent Buckner

            I don’t know. For the most part I’m working from my expectation that IH will work to maximize the value of rights it holds and will be very unlikely to make obvious mistakes (in light of the track records and resources of IH’s principals).
            Edit: I see that the rejected patent goes back to a 2009 filing, before IH had any influence ( http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2016/01/jan-19-2016-lenr-learning-about-patents.html ). I don’t think I’ll devote much thought to Rossi’s intentions on this one.

      • Zephir

        /* Hasn’t he already disclosed how to make the fuel in the patent he obtained last July? */

        Nope, as nobody has been able to replicate the E-catalyst in its full quality/reproducibility.

        • Bruce__H

          This is what confuses me about the patent. In a patent the inventor trades secrecy for protection. The inventor must disclose his secrets or the patent if voided. If the description that Rossi supplied with his patent is incomplete then he can’t “aggressively protect” his IP using the patent. So what was the purpose of the patent? Why does he say he is proud of it?

          • Roland

            MFMP used the information released in the patent to, according to Bob Greenyer, construct an apparatus that gives off measurable indications of an atomic, rather than chemical, reaction and has, at least for brief periods, produced over unity energy output.

            The correct question to pose is, ‘Does the existing public patent allow a practitioner skilled in the art to reproduce all of the current E-cat designs?’ The answer to that question is no it doesn’t; which doesn’t invalidate the patent or undermine it as the establishment of ‘prior art’ as a foundation for future patents.

            The optimal course is to have both protection and secrecy rather than one at the expense of the other; which I expect in hindsight will turn out to be the case.

          • Bruce__H

            I am very interested in the MFMP results although I think these results could easily disappear when the MFMP crew try to replicate them. This sort of thing happens more times than anyone cares to mention in all parts of science. you get all excited by early findings and then as you gain more and more control over your system they fade away. I’m not saying that the findings are definitely going to be wrong but I’m pretty sure that all the fuss being made about them is premature. It all reminds me of Pons and Fleischman circa 1989.

            Also, it isn’t clear to me that the MFMP device is a replication of the device that Rossi has patented.

          • Zephir

            The problem with contemporary patents is rather opposite than incompleteness: they contain number of variants, most of them which aren’t actually working.

          • Bruce__H

            Interesting!

    • LCD

      There is a limited time he has to make money on the first generation because there will be lots of copy cats

  • Brent Buckner

    Perhaps the setup of the 1MW test was in part designed to fulfill “commercially using a process” respective of having a prior use defense available in case someone else scores a patent. Rossi has always referred to a “customer” being involved in that test and so the test would satisfy one year of commercial use.

    “The defense provides a safe harbor for an accused infringer who had been commercially using a
    process for more than a year prior to another’s application for a patent covering that process – thereby doing away with the significant risk that might otherwise exist for an inventor who maintains as a trade secret his invention, and who could otherwise later be sued and enjoined from practicing that invention.”
    [From http://files.bakerbotts.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Maier_DEC11.pdf ]

    • Frank Acland

      Interesting point, but if that was the case I wonder why they would have stopped the test just short of a year (It ran for 352 days according to AR)

      • Brent Buckner

        I don’t know. Perhaps the test was designed to satisfy the requirement, but once (and this is purely speculative) IH had a commercial agreement with the customer to recharge the device and continue selling heat then it could allow the test to end. Perhaps the period of “commercial use” could include some days before the selling of heat began, such as days pre-processing fuel.

      • Frechette

        Just as Obama was a glaring example for the Peace Prize.

      • Josh G

        The test finished but the E-cat is still running in the plant, no?

      • Brent Buckner

        There’s another angle here too. To my limited understanding, Rossi’s patent covers a precursor pathway
        to LENR – a chemical reaction and device. Anyone else trying to build upon that chemical reaction and device to produce LENR could be enjoined by Rossi – they’d have to find another path. They would be unable to enjoin Rossi from continuing to use that chemical reaction and device (along with other elements) to produce LENR as he has been doing because he would have the one year commercial use defense. Rossi’s patent discloses only what is necessary to serve as a blocking patent ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blocking_patent ) and the rest stays as trade secret.

  • Frechette

    Just as Obama was a glaring example for the Peace Prize.

  • Gerard McEk

    I hope that Holmlid et al are right and progressed so much as suggested. The small reactor as mentioned, usable for cars must contain a much smaller and cheaper laser.

  • Gerard McEk

    I hope that Holmlid et al are right and progressed so much as suggested. The small reactor as mentioned, usable for cars must contain a much smaller and cheaper laser.

  • Zephir

    Today the Nobel prize is given to people, who are helping the physical community (by bringing it more opportunity to experimentation and posting of theories), not the helping the rest of human civilization.

  • Zephir

    Today the Nobel prize is given to people, who are helping the physical community (by bringing it more opportunity for experimentation and posting of theories), not for helping the rest of human civilization. The LENR indeed brings lotta opportunity for FUTURE research, but it also threats the perspective of CURRENT research in many other areas at the same moment (I mean research of various methods of energy production/conversion/transport or storage from renewables to nuclear physics), so that its contribution for community of physicists is merely negative in THIS moment. And the physicists are smart people and they’re not doing mistakes in the matter of perspective of their own research….;-)

  • Brent Buckner

    One can also protect intellectual property by maintaining it as a trade secret. (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret )

    • Bruce__H

      I don’t see how.

      First, if Rossi has not divulged a necessary step in fuel production then his July patent is invalid and he can’t protect any IP on that basis.

      Second, one maintains a trade secret by keeping it a secret. If the fuel can be reverse-engineered then anyone who did that would be welcome to manufacture and sell the fuel themselves. They could even go ahead and patent the process.

      • Brent Buckner

        You wrote: “I don’t see how.”

        Here’s the first hit from googling
        “intellectual property protection for trade secrets and know-how”:
        http://www.ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/IP_Protection_for_Trade_Secrets_and_Know-how1076598753.pdf

        • Bruce__H

          Yes. The document you linked to says the same thing I am saying.

          “Trade secret laws, however, do not grant the holder the exclusive right to exploit the secret information. Others may develop the information independently. They may even derive it by reverse engineering the trade secret owner’s product.”

          • Brent Buckner

            The document says other things too. It makes it clear that they and others refer to things such as having people sign NDAs regarding trade secrets as protecting IP.

  • Omega Z

    ->”his patent(s) are deliberately missing key ingredients or design.”

    Are you sure about that. Many overlook minor details as being insignificant. Only to find out latter they were a key element.

    As to MFMP replication efforts. Initially they saw the Rossi effect as simple and due to impatience, didn’t farewell. They have been steadily improving.

  • Veblin
    • Mats002

      I would like to add/remind that a synopsis for a working LENR device from an ERV already have been published 4 months ago. It is one of the competitors of Leonardo and is partly founded by IH/Darden:

      http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Brillouin-Press-Release-Technical-Validation-Report-12-1-15.pdf

      I think this validation together with Holmlids work outperforms ‘Rossi says’ and is a solid foundation for mainstream media to start write about LENR.

      I can’t see why IH/Darden would deny something similar for the E-Cat.

      • Zephir

        I don’t think that the Holmlid fusion could compete the E-Cat economically, primarily because it’s the hot fusion approach. It works merely like the “classical” hot laser fusion at NIF: we need power pulsed laser, deuterium and its carrier and the method produces lotta radioactive particles, like the muons and neutrons which would make the whole reactor radioactive and which would decrease the
        energy yield. The true cold fusion ala E-Cat doesn’t suffer with any of these
        problems of hot fusion.

        • Mats002

          Holmlid is not a physcisist, he works chemistry so I don’t see this as a hot fusion promotion. It is possible that the high pressure needed is induced locally in the lattice / Rydberg matter.

          • Zephir

            Holmlid is not so silly, and before some time he admitted himself, that the conditions of his fusion are rather more close to hot fusion (laser induced fusion in particular), because of high portion of energetic particles (muons in particular) were generated.

            “No, I research not about cold fusion, I research on laser-induced hot
            fusion. It enables us to reach a temperature of between 50 and MK 500 MK
            in the plasma. This one can measure both the neutron energy
            distributions (published) and from electron energy distributions (to be
            adopted soon). It is the temperature that needs to be reached to get the core processes that move with sufficient speed. It might seem strange that this is higher than the established temperature in the solar interior, but it depends on the core processes inside the sun goes very slowly.”

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/01/leif-holmlid-comments-on-his-fusion-process/

          • Mats002

            Yes I remember he had that approach but I think he was afraid of the CF/LENR departement. His collegue from Iceland have not been afraid of sharing his thoughts at LENR-Forums.

  • Veblin
    • Mats002

      I would like to add/remind that a synopsis for a working LENR device from an ERV already have been published 4 months ago. It is one of the competitors of Leonardo and is partly founded by IH/Darden:

      http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Brillouin-Press-Release-Technical-Validation-Report-12-1-15.pdf

      I think this validation together with Holmlids work outperforms ‘Rossi says’ and is a solid foundation for mainstream media to start write about LENR.

      I can’t see why IH/Darden would deny something similar for the E-Cat.

      • Zephir

        I don’t think that the Holmlid fusion could compete the E-Cat economically, primarily because it’s the hot fusion approach. It works merely like the “classical” hot laser fusion at NIF: we need power pulsed laser, deuterium and its holder, it will run in semi-continuous way and it produces lotta radioactive particles, like the muons and neutrons which would make the whole reactor radioactive after while and which would decrease the energy yield. The true cold fusion ala E-Cat doesn’t suffer with any of these problems of hot fusion.

        But what the contemporary establishment actually needs by now is the way of fusion, which cannot be decentralized easily, as it would require expensive device and investments into research. This is also the main reason, why the hot fusion gets promoted into account of cold fusion today. So that the Holmlid fusion could still meet the expectations of establishment physics better, because it already utilizes many principles and devices developed by established physics: traveling wave accelerators, pulse laser and the deuterium used is difficult to manufacture.

        • Mats002

          Holmlid is not a physcisist, he works chemistry so I don’t see this as a hot fusion promotion. It is possible that the high pressure needed is induced locally in the lattice / Rydberg matter.

          • Zephir

            Holmlid is not so silly, and before some time he admitted himself, that the conditions of his fusion are rather more close to hot fusion (laser induced fusion in particular), because of high portion of energetic particles (muons in particular) were generated.

            “No, I research not about cold fusion, I research on laser-induced hot
            fusion. It enables us to reach a temperature of between 50 and MK 500 MK
            in the plasma. This one can measure both the neutron energy
            distributions (published) and from electron energy distributions (to be
            adopted soon). It is the temperature that needs to be reached to get the core processes that move with sufficient speed. It might seem strange that this is higher than the established temperature in the solar interior, but it depends on the core processes inside the sun goes very slowly.”

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/01/leif-holmlid-comments-on-his-fusion-process/

          • Mats002

            Yes I remember he had that approach but I think he was afraid of the CF/LENR departement. His collegue from Iceland have not been afraid of sharing his thoughts at LENR-Forums.

  • Zephir

    /* Holmild counters by saying in his opinion 95 per cent of LENR findings have been luck or experimental error, but 5 per cent are scientifically valid. */

    IMO the fusion tends to be the more reproducible, the higher-dimensional the collisions are, but it also requires more drastic conditions to run – and the products of fusion are more difficult to thermalize (i.e. utilize energetically). From this perspective the Holmids experiments are somewhere BETWEEN hot and cold fusion in both reproducibility, both practical feasibility.

    The main point of Holmlid finding is IMO in this insight: “why we should lose the unidirectional low-dimensional character of laser beam, if we want to use the laser for initiation of fusion”? The so-called inertial fusion utilizes the shock-wave coming from many directions at the same moment, but the coherent character of laser wave enables much more effective utilization of energy, which is similar to so-called table-top accelerators, developed in recent years.

    Why? Because when we heat the deuterons by compression of plasma (no matter if we use tokamak, steralator or laser), then the deuterons gain the speed required for overcoming of Coulomb barrier. But because they move against each other, the time during which they remain in contact also decreases. And by Lawson criterions we need the both: both the temperature, both the time of inertial confinement. Therefore we should not only compress the deuterons each other, but we also shouldn’t heat them very much – and this is just what the travelling EM wave during Holmlid experiments does. The high density of deuteron plasma is the key here – not the high temperature.

    • Zephir

      IMO it could be a mistake to believe, that the Holmlid/Olafsson fusion runs at milder conditions than the laser hot fusion at NIF just because it can be demonstrated at tiny table top device. The tokamak/laser fusion enable to achieve the energies in the range of 10 MeV, whereas the traveling EM wave accelerators enable to achieve energies over 10 GeV easily.

      http://www.gizmag.com/berkely-world-record-compact-particle-accelerator/35118/

      The presence of high amount of muons also indicates, that the Holmlid/Olafsson fusion runs at more energetic conditions, because the muons are second generation of matter and their formation requires energies over 100 MeV in general. So that the Holmlid/Olafsson fusion may not be cold fusion at all, but actually hot fusion hotter than the tokamak or NIF with all consequences of it.

  • Zephir

    >*Holmild counters by saying in his opinion 95 per cent of LENR findings have been luck or experimental error, but 5 per cent are scientifically valid.*

    IMO the fusion tends to be the more reproducible, the higher-dimensional the collisions are, but it also requires more drastic conditions to run – and the products of fusion are more difficult to thermalize (i.e. utilize energetically). From this perspective the Holmids experiments are somewhere BETWEEN hot and cold fusion in both reproducibility, both practical feasibility.

    The main point of Holmlid finding is IMO in this insight: “*why we should lose the unidirectional, i.e. low-dimensional character of laser beam, if we want to use the laser for initiation of fusion*”? The so-called inertial fusion utilizes the shock-wave coming from many directions at the same moment, but the coherent character of laser wave enables much more effective transfer and utilization of energy to charged particles, which is similar to so-called table-top accelerators, developed in recent years.

    Why? Because when we heat the deuterons by compression of plasma (no matter if we use tokamak, steralator or laser), then the deuterons gain the speed required for overcoming of Coulomb barrier. But because they move against each other, the time during which they remain in contact also decreases. And by [Lawson criterions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion) we need the both: both the temperature, both the time of inertial confinement. Therefore we should not only compress the deuterons each other, but we also shouldn’t heat them very much – and this is just what the traveling EM wave during Holmlid experiments does. The high density of deuteron plasma achieved is the key here – not the high temperature.

    • Zephir

      IMO it could be a mistake to believe, that the Holmlid/Olafsson fusion runs at milder conditions than the laser hot fusion at NIF just because it can be demonstrated at tiny table top device. The tokamak/laser fusion enable to achieve the energies in the range of 100 MeV, whereas the traveling EM wave accelerators enable to achieve energies over 10 GeV easily.

      http://www.gizmag.com/berkely-world-record-compact-particle-accelerator/35118/

      The presence of high amount of muons also indicates, that the Holmlid/Olafsson fusion runs at more energetic conditions, because the muons are second generation of matter and their formation requires energies over 100 MeV in general. So that the Holmlid/Olafsson fusion may not be cold fusion at all, but actually hot fusion hotter than the tokamak or NIF with all consequences of it.

  • Zephir

    /* Hasn’t he already disclosed how to make the fuel in the patent he obtained last July? */

    Nope, as nobody has been able to replicate the E-catalyst in its full quality/reproducibility.

    • Bruce__H

      This is what confuses me about the patent. In a patent the inventor trades secrecy for protection. The inventor must disclose his secrets or the patent if voided. If the description that Rossi supplied with his patent is incomplete then he can’t “aggressively protect” his IP using the patent. So what was the purpose of the patent? Why does he say he is proud of it?

      • Roland

        MFMP used the information released in the patent to, according to Bob Greenyer, construct an apparatus that gives off measurable indications of an atomic, rather than chemical, reaction and has, at least for brief periods, produced over unity energy output.

        The correct question to pose is, ‘Does the existing public patent allow a practitioner skilled in the art to reproduce all of the current E-cat designs?’ The answer to that question is no it doesn’t; which doesn’t invalidate the patent or undermine it as the establishment of ‘prior art’ as a foundation for future patents.

        The optimal course is to have both protection and secrecy rather than one at the expense of the other; which I expect in hindsight will turn out to be the case.

        • Bruce__H

          I am very interested in the MFMP results although I think these results could easily disappear when the MFMP crew try to replicate them. This sort of thing happens more times than anyone cares to mention in all parts of science. you get all excited by early findings and then as you gain more and more control over your system they fade away. I’m not saying that the findings are definitely going to be wrong but I’m pretty sure that all the fuss being made about them is premature. It all reminds me of Pons and Fleischman circa 1989.

          Also, it isn’t clear to me that the MFMP device is a replication of the device that Rossi has patented.

      • Zephir

        The problem with contemporary patents is rather opposite than incompleteness: they contain number of variants, most of them which aren’t actually working.

        • Bruce__H

          Interesting!

          • Ted-X

            A lot of inventors are making serious mistakes by patenting an invention without the full disclosure. In essence, they are wasting their time and energy, as the protection that they can achieve this way is marginal and easy to go around. I think that this is a deeper psychological problem of many inventors. It is also very unfortunate, that actually a significant number of inventors are delusional about their inventions. The delusion aspect does not apply to Rossi, but the self-harming secretiveness is something that he clearly demonstrated.

  • Zephir

    Maybe this change has been initiated by Congress just for to achieve the priority of US patents on the field of cold fusion. I don’t believe very much in accidents here.

  • Brent Buckner

    Perhaps there are trade secrets involved in fuel preparation. Dart Container Corporation maintains as a trade secret its method for molding expandable polystyrene, although the physical composition of the polystyrene is presumably relatively easy to determine.

  • sam

    I think that Pons and Fleischmann if he
    where alive would say give it to A.R.
    He is the one who accomplished the
    impossible.

  • sam

    I think that Pons and Fleischmann if he
    where alive would say give it to A.R.
    He is the one who accomplished the
    impossible.

  • sam

    I think that Pons and Fleischmann if he
    where alive would say give it to A.R.
    He is the one who accomplished the
    impossible.

  • Brent Buckner

    Perhaps Rossi believes there’s enough in the patent to get excess heat, but results will not be as good as with additional fuel processing. For example, Bob Greenyer posits that with fuel processing there may not be a radiation burst (per point 5 of https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/03/07/finally-this-is-possibly-how-the-e-cat-works/ ).

  • Brent Buckner

    I don’t know. For the most part I’m working from my expectation that IH will work to maximize the value of rights it holds and will be very unlikely to make obvious mistakes (in light of the track records and resources of IH’s principals).