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
OK,
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?
Thanks, Greg
--
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? Won’t 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 won’t 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?
Best regards
--
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.
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.
Corbomite................
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.