Skip to comments.Patent Office Forces E-Cat Self-Destruct Capability
Posted on 06/08/2011 11:00:52 PM PDT by Kevmo
PESN associate Hank Mills, composed this for PESN.
To preserve intellectual property and trade secrets, Andrea Rossi is being forced to design a self destruct mechanism to be built into every E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) used by the public. This could delay the public (non-industrial) launch of the technology.
Andrea Rossi's cold fusion E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) technology is based on hard science, but is nothing short of a miracle. It provides a technology that could completely solve the world's energy crisis. The E-Cat consumes tiny amounts of cheap fuel (nickel and hydrogen), and produce huge amounts of energy for long periods of time. It does so without generating any pollution, radioactivity, or nuclear waste. However, the critical patents covering the technology and the protections for the proprietary "catalysts" used have not yet been granted. This has pressured Andrea Rossi into deciding the technology cannot be launched for use by individuals for home use, until he has designed a self destruct mechanism to be built into every unit.
The reason for including this self destruct mechanism is that if someone opened the reaction vessel of an E-Cat, they could obtain all the "secrets" in a short period of time. Without patent protection in the form of granted patents, this could give away key information to competitors, and potentially even invalidate patents that are still pending.
Here are a few of the comments Rossi has made about this issue on his blog, "The Journal of Nuclear Physics."
www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=4 ... ment-43618
Lande June 4th, 2011 at 2:00 PM
I understand that you can not discuss the details surrounding the catalyst.
But will you later be able to discuss this, or will this part forever be a company secret?
And is not the catalyst function important for the theoretical physics explanation behind it all?
www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=4 ... ment-43729
Andrea Rossi June 5th, 2011 at 12:14 AM
Dear Mr Lande: All depends on the granting of the patent. Warm Regards, A.R.
www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=4 ... ment-44045
Greg June 6th, 2011 at 3:29 PM
Dear Dr. Rossi,
thank you for your reply. You write you are being conservative regarding the sales of single modules. But if Defkalion/AmpEnergo plans to produce 300 000 units per year do you think you will be able to prevent just one of them ending up in China? In my opinion you will be very wealthy from the royalties from Europe/US, but the Chinese will hack the security features and produce their own. Or am I wrong on this assumption?
Kind regards, Greg
www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=4 ... ment-44064
Andrea Rossi June 6th, 2011 at 4:50 PM
Dear Greg: Defkalion, I suppose, will not sell modules until the protection issue [is] resolved. Warm regards, A.R.
www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=4 ... ment-44021
Greg June 6th, 2011 at 1:07 PM
Dear Dr. Rossi,
in my opinion, within one month the Chinese buy the first E-Cat they will reproduce it. They showed no respect for patents/intellectual property in the past. How will you prevent this from happening?
www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=4 ... ment-44038
Andrea Rossi June 6th, 2011 at 2:42 PM
Dear Greg: Good point. This is why we are very conservative regarding the sale of single modules. We are engineering a system that will destroy automatically the confidential parts if the reactor is open. The reactors will be open only in our factory to replace the charge. This is why we want not to replace the charges on site.
Warm regards, A.R.
www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=3 ... ment-43087
Alan C June 2nd, 2011 at 10:55 AM
Dear Mr Rossi,
You have said We have to resolve the problem to make them self-destructive in case of opening the reactors . Is this necessary if you have a patent? Is it possible to achieve this against someone with sophisticated tools and equipment? Wont your secret necessarily be in the public domain once the technology is widely distributed?
All the best with the project. I am checking in regularly and looking forward to your success in October.
Best regards from the UK Alan
www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=3 ... ment-43089
Andrea Rossi June 2nd, 2011 at 11:02 AM
Dear Mr Alan C.: 1- I have not yet an international patent granted, I have a National patent granted, the international application is still pending 2- It is difficult to make this self destruction technology, this is why it will take time. We must find a way that is not dangerous for the persons, but that annihilates instantaneously all the sensible information if somebody tries to open the sealed parts 3- I have to defend the People that have invested in this. And I will. Warm regards, A.R.
www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=3 ... ment-43028
Riccardo June 2nd, 2011 at 7:32 AM
Dear Mr Rossi, I read that there wont be any implementations in Italy soon. Are you talking about the industrial aspect? What about the private use of the E-Cat? Will it be available in Italy too?
www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=3 ... ment-43033
Andrea Rossi June 2nd, 2011 at 8:01 AM
Dear Mr Riccardo: I think that the household targeted items will arrive later. We have to resolve the problem to make them self-destructive in case of opening the reactors. Otherwise, with few thousands of dollars anybody has access to the confidential aspects of the technology. In industrial plants this issue is more easy to afford and has been resolved. Warm Regards, A.R.
Life Saving Technology Denied
From reading Andrea Rossi's comments, it seems the technology will not be released for use by individuals (use in homes) any time soon, unless the patents involved are granted. It is an absolute tragedy that due to the delays of the U.S. Patent Office (and their policy of not granting patents to "cold fusion" processes), the E-Cat may only see use in industrial settings for some time to come.
The Cold Fusion Ping List
This news is spreading through the blogosphere.
Sounds like he’s doin’ it right. I’ll gladly wait if china is kept out and if big business doesn’t get to monopolize it.
Sounds like the old hydride swindle to me.
A fellow used to sell a ‘magic engine’ that ‘used water as fuel’ and did demonstrations. He would open up his ‘fuel tank’ add water and sure enough, the engine would run.
hydrides would give off hydrogen when exposed to water. Of course hydride as fuel was much more expensive per btu than petroleum.
Hope I am wrong.
“Andrea Rossi is being forced to design a self destruct mechanism to be built into every E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) used by the public. “
i freely admit, i don’t understand any of this. and, up till now, it sounded intriguing...
but that seriously activates my “BSoMeter”. maybe it’s legit, but it sure sound like a snake oil guy would sound.
...i know you wrote some good things on an unrelated post, so if you think it’s legit, i’ll try to keep an open mind.
Bullstuff. A 'master zeroize' device isn't going to change the elemental composition and relative ratios of 'catalysts'. Blow it up with C4 and a good mass spectrometrer guy can XOR out the C4 and tell you what, and how much.
This is the first time that I've been suspicious instead of curious. Disclosure, I'm just a cook.
Thanks for this information- although it sounds too good to be true!
I don’t buy that the patent office requires anything of the sort. Sounds like a BS excuse to explain the lack of an actual product/working model.
It’s possible he’s in the same position the Wright Brothers were. They knew they had a good first-generation solution, but they were surrounded by people who were trying to steal their knowledge and create their own airplanes. The Smithsonian institute teamed up with Curtiss Wright to do just that, in the ensuing patent battle.
Much of how the Wright Brothers acted before they had signed manufacturing contracts could have been seen as very suspicious. It would be even more suspicious today.
Filing of the application in every country I am familiar with secures your date of invention, and you are not barred from receiving patent protection by selling your product after the filing of your applications and before patent grant. Patent prosecution can be a very long process, and such a requirement would be hugely detrimental to the patent system and to the economy. I don’t know where this source is getting their legal information, but I can only hope that the physics behind the device are better than the legal advice driving its development.
Additionally, to get the patent he will have to disclose the information necessary to enable a person to practice his invention. So, he will have to disclose the sensitive features and functions. If he will not make this disclosure, he will not get the patent. The Chinese won’t need to buy one of his devices and reverse engineer it to figure out how it works, they will only have to get a copy of a granted patent, and these are easily found online. Once again, his legal advice seems to be very poor, and one can only hope that his knowledge of physics is better than his understanding of the patent system.
(read this in the voice of those bears that talk about “the bernank)...
It is a fact: commie rats copy off of other people rather than doing their own work.
I heard from an old computer hand that the soviet rats had completely reverse engineered IBM’s hardware in the early days of computing, then simply pirated the operating system by smuggling it out on tape. The remarkable thing was that the hardware was reverse engineered well enough to run the o/s.
They also like to steal things and make mischief.
The chinese are certainly trying to gain access to every server and piece of network equipment that is connected to the internet in the usa. Every time I start up a new server, within a few hours it is experiencing a brute force attack to break in which is originating from either a chinese or middle eastern or eastern european ip address. Brute force attacks only work on equipment where the administrator is stupid. Of couse, they are able to break into any such “stupidly” managaged server, so they have access to many servers in the usa.
Many Chinese also love to pirate software rather than write it themselves, no matter how cheap it is. The Chinese government seems to love this.
So it is wise to keep your technology or anything you own away from the Chinese, because they will try to steal it. Then you will have missed your opportunity to make money from the time you spend developing your idea. So why bother working on your idea; let the idiot thieves create their own technology. Only sell your work to someone who will pay you what you ask.
He uses two words and he means two things. Obviously he's not going to be able to destroy the hydrogen, nickel and lithium, but he can slag out the chip and the switches with a swish of acid contained in a packet that breaks when you pull the housing apart. His secret is the "operating temperature", not the materials this thing is made out of.
Yes, but it "can" destroy any critical geometrical relationship (as in what precisely is the "nanostructure" of the nickel, how arranged in the reactor, and the like).
His argument is that, since the patent office is refusing the patent on an important aspect, then he must handle it as a trade secret.
Good luck getting the building codes people and insurance agencies to allow residential use of something with a self-destruct module. He'll be much better off doing a power plant and selling the power.
Al-Qaeda should purchase a few and set them up along convoy routes with signs reading “Don’t open this you filthy American pig dogs”.
On another site I saw that he has pinned down the 1 MW startup date to the last week in October. So it sounds like they have a pretty solid schedule in place (wish I could be that confident about project schedules in my own line of manufacturing!)
Indeed. This really appears to effect nothing except "home generation" units.
"On another site I saw that he has pinned down the 1 MW startup date to the last week in October. So it sounds like they have a pretty solid schedule in place (wish I could be that confident about project schedules in my own line of manufacturing!)"
You 'n me both, friend. It is a RARE project that doesn't suffer some kind of schedule slippage.
I know nothing about the engineering of this sort of device, however, he is speaking about a commercial power plant, is that correct? How does one *send* something that must be large and heavy, not to mention complex, and likely fixed in place, “back to the factory” to be serviced or recharged? Is there some small, manageable module that can be removed and then replaced? Then, why not just provide replacement modules that are newly charged? Like batteries, the profit would be in the continuous need to replace the part. But it would be more convenient and affordable to just buy a recharged module and swap it out, with some method for disposing of the used one.
If the real secret is the operating temperature, can’t that be detected or deduced with modern sensing devices from outside the housing? If he is so worried about something being discovered, how will he protect the secret by limiting sales to large scale power production? Will each plant come with a mandatory security crew?
This simply sounds cumbersome and expensive, if not impossible and, frankly, suspicious. He could simply sell the entire process for a huge amount of money up front, allow it to be hacked and let the eventual buyer worry about the subsequent profit flow. Why maintain a repair chain that demands sending the thing back to a factory?
All inventions are eventually improved upon. The more difficult it is to maintain, the fewer will be sold and that will be an incentive, eventually, for someone to figure out the *secret* and find a way to produce the item cheaper with more utility to the end user. Wouldn’t there be more eventual profit in supplying billions of home units than in even tens of thousands of fixed power plants?
Alternatively, if the initial price of a home unit is very high or it is complicated to run, why not lease it and provide a maintenance crew on contract to service it?
Sounds baked, but large corporations, in the guise of benevolent venture capital angels, have been screwing over innovative startups for years. for those who don’t sell outright, there are the vast hordes of patent lawyers building patent fences, and the odd loaned scientist/corporate spy or two who will drain all the IP from the innovator.
BTW, FU Sony!!!!
You mean projects that complete on time actually exist? I thought that was a myth!
Servicing the unit is relatively easy since they’ve put an convenient opening on the side for fresh horse manure.
Having patents myself and also being a patent writer for my own patents, I a well familiar with the patent rules, procedures, and protections.
THE PATENT OFFICE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY DESIGN ADDITIONS TO ANY PATENT APPLIED FOR. The “poison pill” ruse erases any doubt in my mind at all that this “invention” will soon be sold on TV and if you order now, they will ship another free! You just pay outlandish shipping and handling fees for the other, which, by the way costs just as much as the one you paid for.
Furthermore, patents filed in the U.S. only are honored by NATO countries and some through explicit agreements with the United States. ALL other countries require the patent to be filed within that country too.
Another indicator that this may be a ruse is the fact that the Patent office will deem this invention as of military importance AND WILL NOT ALLOW EXPORT WITHOUT CLEARANCE FROM THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY.
This whole thing smells of fish oil.
If it works, and the technology of the device is so simple that it could be duplicated by simple disassembly and inspection in short order, then it will, and soon, just by virtue of the fact that it is known to exist.
If on the other hand, the fundamental principle behind the device is shenanigans, then this line certainly does fit the bill of a facile, but suitable cover that TRUE BELIEVERS will gladly seize on an carry with zeal.
Notice those two statements are predicated with "if". I want to believe in a free lunch, but there are so few examples in the history of the universe that the number is indistinguishable from zero.
In addition to my last post:
I noticed that the inventor said he HAD a NATIONAL PATENT on the device and then goes on to talk about getting an INTERNATIONAL PATENT.
Well, there is no such thing as a NATIONAL PATENT. We have U.S. Patents only. The INTERNATIONAL PATENT is a real mystery to me.
Now, the “proof in the pudding” is the fact that if he already has the NATIONAL PATENT (or whatever the heck he will call it next) it would be a valid U.S. patent on file for everyone to see. Simply to to the patent and trademark web page and search under his name and you will find it. If you cant.....HE IS A SCAM ARTIST AND LIAR.
Total BS. The US Patent and trademark Office has absolutely no power to do anything other than to reject to grant patent claims.
Anyone who has ever been part of the process knows that.
Also, the “Launch” button has to be moved away from the “Lunch” button.
Nah! But in forty years as a practicing scientist, the actual number I've worked on in which everything "clicked" and we met/beat estimated deadline is five or fewer.
Like I said...."rare".....in fact VERY rare.
From various hints, this appears to be the proposed approach to both home units and industrial units.
In my 30+ years of developing software I’ve seen maybe three projects complete on time...of course the only three that did were run by me!
Oh come on! "Surely" you understand that by "National Patent" he is referring to the granting of his Italian Patent Application (or his pending U.S. Application), i.e. a patent issued by and recognized in a single nation.
By International Patent he is most likely referring to a "Eurozone-wide" patent, which is still pending.
Oh, gimme a break! OF COURSE the various patent departments are NOT imposing any such thing "de jure". What the headline obviously means is that, in the absence of a patent protecting the technology, Rossi is forced to keep the "catalyst" as a trade secret, and devise some means of keeping that secret if he wants to protect his IP.
“Dear Mr Alan C.: 1- I have not yet an international patent granted, I have a National patent granted, the international application is still pending”
It does not say “I have a National patent pending.”
Furthermore, Italy is a member of NATO and has a reciprocal agreement with all NATO members to honor any NATO member’s patents granted. That means the U.S. will honor the patent granted in Italy.
If he already has a patent approved in any country, the information and design is of public record and can be seen by anyone.
The patents I have are open public records and the electronic design is for all to see. Furthermore, during the patent protection period ANYONE can build one from the patent design and use it for personal use without prevention. However, they can’t manufacture or sell the ones they make on the retail/distributor level until the patent expires.
I have one patent that expires this year that I’ve been manufacturing since 1993. Upon expiration, anyone can make and sell it.
This is true, but it is also true that the patent examiner may have sent back a rejection on one or more critical elements/claims of the "invention."
In that case, assuming this is NOT a carnival-barker sideshow, it would be fair for the guy to say that the patent office had effectively asked the guy to tweak that element to make the whole system novel.
Additionally, the trouble patenting the thing MIGHT make sense if Rossi and them really don't understand how the thing works themselves.
Hard to protect the magic sauce in a patent if you aren't able to fully understand and describe the mechanism.
He may be afraid that everyone else will figure out the real magic and either leave him in the dust if it works, or leave him in the dustbin if it doesn't.
In reality, the patent doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything.
It only gives you "A SINGLE TOOL" in your arsenal if you decide to GO TO COURT and try to ENJOIN the violator from "manufacture or sell..."
In the case of a small US inventor vs a Chinese conglomerate, c'mon. Fuggedaboutit.
You are doing the right thing by getting out there and building as many as you can as fast as you can. Patenting it will also help increase your value if you license it to someone reputable because it helps indemnify them from patent trolls who may claim prior art against you after you've built $100 million dollars worth of widget.
But realistically, a patent is eff-all worthless these days to a small American inventor.
I know a programmer who farmed & ranched on the side, lost his land etc. during the Carter years. Struggled along many years writing inventory/transport software for Cenex and a wholesale food company or two.
Someone he’d gone to school with passed along a Defense Dept fuel-tracking project, 90-day deadline, my buddy gets in done in a month. DoD doesn’t understand-—seems they really haven’t ever seen a project actually ‘finished’.
They send him another, then another-—after six months they fly him to Washington to give him a handshake and a plaque for outstanding performance.
Fast-forward ten years and the guy has a great big home in the country, three or four thousand acres of pasture and cropland and 500 head of Grade-A angus cattle.
A tip o’ the old Stetson to him and to you.
You are correct in the protection of a “small inventor’s” protection of their patent.
It is up to the inventor to use the courts to protect their patent...not the patent office. Furthermore, no action can be taken UNTIL the offender has been formally notified of patent infringement. That is the LEGAL start of infringement no matter how many they made and sold prior to that notice.
One the hardest things to do (from the insight of an inventor such as I) is to evaluate the future market for an item and then determine whether financially feasible to patent it or not.
Of items I’ve patented, that concept was used and the answer was to proceed with the patent. It has paid off beautifully over a very long period.
Many other electronic inventions I’ve made and still manufacture on a wholesale/retail level were never patented since the cost of the item plus the estimated legal costs to protect it could not be realized until about 3/4 through the life of the patent.
The only sales protection I have is my Company’s good reputation of reliability, function and supporting service for the goods manufactured. Through many years, it’s been a very good trade-off.
Several years ago I read an article about a Japanese man who had over 800 patents and now regrets having so many since ALL of his time and money is spent in courts protecting his patents.
More and more, in the face of chinese knockoffs, I think that's really the best way.
Price-only customers are just not worth the trouble.
BS technology alert
Yes, he has an ITALIAN patent granted, and a US Patent pending, both "national".
"Furthermore, Italy is a member of NATO and has a reciprocal agreement with all NATO members to honor any NATO members patents granted. That means the U.S. will honor the patent granted in Italy."
First I've ever heard of this. Certainly my patent agent and attorneys haven't ever mentioned any such coverage. I was always told that "foreign filing" was separate and expensive ($10K). And evidently Rossi's patent attorney is unaware of that, because there IS a US Patent application filed, and it has been stated multiple times in multiple places that Eurozone recognition has NOT yet been granted, nor was it "automatic".
"If he already has a patent approved in any country, the information and design is of public record and can be seen by anyone."
Certainly that is true, which is why he filed on the device/method WITHOUT the catalyst as a first step. It will work, and produce excess heat, but not nearly as much as would be the case "with" the catalyst. He has stated repeatedly that if he is obtains international coverage (by which, as I understand it, he means US and Eurozone..but there may be others) on the device/method, then he will file a separate patent on the catalyst system. If not, he will keep the catalyst as a trade secret...hence the "Patent office requires" misnomer (which is probably hyperbole originating with a journalist).
"The patents I have are open public records and the electronic design is for all to see. Furthermore, during the patent protection period ANYONE can build one from the patent design and use it for personal use without prevention. However, they cant manufacture or sell the ones they make on the retail/distributor level until the patent expires."
Yup. I've got 24+ patents myself, and others pending, so I'm well aware of that. But I don't do the applications or filing myself.
No time for detailed reply.....but great points (all true) from both of you. My company does pretty much the same as DH’s.....if the innovation is “big” and potentially “high impact”, we go patent.....otherwise, we just build it and sell it, and count on quality, service, and future innovations to stay ahead of the “duplicators”.
I like your optimism, it’s pleasant to be around. If this turns out to be the scam I think it is I hope you don’t get discouraged.