Thursday, January 24, 2013


This is a new negative writing, unfortunately continuing what I wrote about Prof Stremmenos’s anti-Europatent diatribe, now the maestro himself, Andrea Rossi tries to annihilate the Piantelli Patent
The story is too simple this time, to not say primitive, so I want to tell you first a life lesson story from my most personal experience.
You will decide if it has to do with the new turn of the story or not at all..

A life lesson

In 1946 when I was in the third grade at the school, we had a teacher Mme Cristea who was, mildly speaking a sadist monster- she has incessantly punished us, calling us idiots and mentally retarded imbeciles and beating us or giving slaps. The times were confusing the communists were still building their dictatorship, killings peaked in 50-ies, and the bad things from the former fascist regime still living so Mme Cristea could do what she wanted. An old Romanian saying is “Beating is torn from the Heaven”; Google says the equivalent in English is:  “Spare the rod and spoil the child.” Children’s rights were not invented and 9 years old boys raised during the terror of war were very vulnerable and defenseless. I was scared and hated school. I wept and complained a lot; one morning when in way to school I have vomited on the street due to fear, my father told that he will speak with the teacher. And he really did. After this discussion the things have improved and even if I still was called with ugly names, however the teacher had not beaten me more, I was contented
One evening I told my Mom: “Dad is speaking so fine, so persuasive, he has convinced Mme Cristea to not beat me more and she ceased to torment me.”
Mom has smiled put down the Thomas Mann book she was just reading and then told me:

“Peter, listen to me very carefully! I know well you will be selfish,
arrogant, rude, you will waste your time, you are an inborn dictator, lazy and unable to deep feelings, you will lie shamelessly and will make many compromises, you will be a womanizer and you will eat and drink too much, you are a collection of coming sins. However please abstain from the greatest the most dangerous flaw, the worst DO NOT BE STUPID! Try as hard as you can, desperately, learn all the time how to avoid that personal disaster, you are my dear son and the First Commandment for you should be: DO NOT BE STUPID! I can forgive you everything else, but stupidity not! Stupidity is useless and harmful and converts you in a joke.
And now a first lesson, Dad has not convinced Mme Cristea to spare you, he gave money to her. That is called corruption and learn this word because you will meet corruption all time and everywhere and you are very stupid if you don’t realize this!”

Dear Mom, I have remembered this lesson, tried to do my best and now when is number of my future opportunities to do/not do something stupid is low, my not very smart guess is that I have “Pareto-ed” it see please:
It is a more important and useful writing than the present one.

A Rossi lesson.

The Piantelli Europatent fight has continued. Andrea Rossi himself has stated clearly, the patent does not work:
Rossi dixit:
I receive many requests of opinion about the last patents granted in matter of LENR: this comment answers to all. None of those patents explains how the E-Cat can work. I read very shaky theories in them that never produced anything really working. The described apparatuses, that we replicated with high fidelity after the publication of such patents to check their validity, actually do not work. Everybody can try… Every further comment is useless.”

He and his team has skillfully and with high fidelity reproduced the described apparatuses and found they are not working.
Very direct and claiming to be decisive. But stop! Something seems to be rotten in Rossilanda here! The patent is called “method for producing energy and apparatus therefore” The method is the difficult and decisive part, and it comprises, grosso
modo, building of nanostructures, very thorough deep degassing- really time consuming plus triggering methods.
Rossi surely had no time to reproduce with fidelity
EP2368252B1, it was published this month, he had to kill WO 2010/058266 “in utero” before becoming a full patent. The application became public on 27 May 2010 – the problem is when, exactly had make Rossi this difficult study? Again has h respected perfectly the method described by Piantelli? After how many professional good tests was he able to declare that the apparatus plus method do not work and basta? Ready, kaput, finito, addio!?
Why has he not made public the results? Has he announced the European Patent Office, officially?

OK- to the essentials, there are two possibilities;

Rossi has made this study thus ignoring his own work- very intense and important in the year before the Bologna presentation of Jan 14, 2011? Has he worked then more than 24 hours per day? Has this caused a serious delay to the launch of the potentially savior E-cat? Is this reasonable, being given, that as Rossi says Piantelli has a different process? Is this reasonable, rational and effective?

Rossi has not made the tests of the Piantelli patent and this statement is a lie, hopefully his first. This is cruelty to launch a lie without a minimum of credibility. Lies are good, they help, they solve problems, make life better, and it is our obligation to take care of our lies, to make them as credible as possible. Even a thinking specialist, even somebody who has read the Piantelli patent should have a minimal impulse to believe that the tests were done.
What would be the salary of a Reputation Manager at Rossi's company? His job will be similar to Heracles’s 5-th Labor.

But isn’t this attack a waste of time? Dear Andrea Rossi, you are an Inventor, a great one- so many people still believe in you. Please DO NOT DO SUCH THINGS!



  1. I have to say I can only partially agree with your analysis, and that is that Rossi couldn't possibly have tested all the variations in piantelli's patent, but I have to gree with another observer on JONP, who likens Piantelli's patent to a 'cluster bomb' and should be banned in the interests of progress.

    1. Have you studied with care the patent- the method part in specially? I have seen the cells and have discussed the method. One thing is that the surface of the nanoclusters
      should be clean without traces of alien gases (i.e other
      than hydrogen)

      Sorry I did not get clearly the "banned in the interest of progress" idea

  2. Peter,

    If Andrea Rossi was a well established plus a well known and respected scientist (which he simply is not and never was - he is an entrepreneur with a vested interest), I might take some note of his claims that Piantelli's patent doesn't work and I might delve deeper into the objections for a better understanding.

    If Prof Mike McKubre or Prof Celani or some other 'respected' research scientist states Piantelli's patented Ni+H devices don't work, then I would really sit up and take note.

    It is worth noting that in the history of Ni+H research since 1995, Prof Piantell has had 2 of 3 patents approved & the most recent patent (filed in early 2012 and published in Nov 2012) looks like it too should be accepted. You have highlighted before how well Prof Piantelli writes his patents whereas Andrea Rossi struggles greatly. However, Andrea Rossi did succeed in getting an Italian patent on his eCat through in 2008 and that was only passed because that month (prior to july 2008) the law in Italy requiring investigation for prior art was not ready else Andrea Rossi would not even have his Italian patent through the system any more succesfully that he will with the EPO.

    On the Piantelli patent, the reality we have is that Andrea Rossi through his wife Magdelena, tried to oppose it but the objection was rejected. Now he is playing to public opinion when we all know he has a vested interest and has other agendas. What compounds his problem re Piantelli is that the EPO had told Andrea Rossi 3 months or so ago that they planned to reject his only serious patent application outside Italy and this would happen in 4 months (by my reckoning that is 1 month to go).

    I for myself, believe that the EPO will not be influence by emotional claims from any people who lack scientific status and who have already been advised, have no case.

    Doug Marker

    1. Thank you, very clearly stated, except that we have to discusss and define SERIOUS patent application. It looks much more a "pseudo-application" to me, just for attracting attention while perfect secrecy is the goal.

  3. The rossi patent by itself is useless without the catalyst. at least we are all thinking that's the case.

  4. Peter,
    I can't quite see why he would file one he 'knows' would fail vs going to great lengths to file one prior to the July 2008 law change in Italy, that he knew he could get accepted.

    This is a probable scenario as I view it.

    Andrea Rossi wishes to get in to LENR and as per his own admission (Italian TV interview) approached Prof Focardi in mid 2007 (I have read your comment that Rossi approached Piantelli 1st, who turned him down).

    Andrea Rossi's approached Prof Focardi with a 'paper' design for a Ni+H LENR reactor *and* wanted Focardi to make sure the radiation would not kill them. It is well established by both Andrea Rossi and Prof Focardi that they had no eCats prior to mid 2007, only Andrea Rossi's paper design.

    Prof Focardi accepted the job with Andrea Rossi in Jul/Aug 2007 and they began experimenting with formulas for the eCat. The highly controversial aspect of Prof Focardi working with Andrea Rossi is that he had retired but maintained a close friendship with Prof Piantelli. The information I have is that between approx July 2007 & later, Prof Focardi was constantly seeking advice & direction from Prof Piantell on LENR and Ni+H without telling Prof Piantelli he was passing this information back to Andrea Rossi. Prof Piantelli wrote bitterly of this in 2010 of this betrayal by his former very good friend Prof Focardi.

    By October 2007. Andrea Rossi claims they had a working eCat (a remarkably 3 short months). The eCat produced in Oct 2007 is said by Andrea Rossi to be the one that heated his family factory in Bondeno Italy for over 12 months with an average heat output of 23KW (mentioned in his patent). There were claims of COP ranging from 200-400 which were quite stunning if they coulds ever have been validated independently.

    The next obvious phase was to seek endorsement from eminent scientists and then file a patent with the EPO and one with USPTO using as backing, that he already had a patent for the device and had these European scientist praising his work even if they never actually publish any institutional validation.

    My theory is that Rossi did want those patents granted as they then open the doors to substantial corporate investment. I believe that throughout 2011 this is what he was seeking but things didn't go as hoped.

    It is hard not to take a cynical view the DGT partnership exercise in early 2011 as being a stalling period where Andrea Rossi was hoping he could get the EPO and USPTO patent applications accepted based on all he was doing even though in this period he never actually validated his devices as independently accepted by science and the DGT relationship collapsed badly.

    Peter, you say the Rossi patent was badly written. I have also read Prof Piantelli's scathing critique of Andrea Rossi's patent, so I bow to both your collective wisdom on this as it is beyond me to say so based on any experience I have. I would still not know if 511 KeV gamma would fry people.

    In summary, I suspect that Andrea Rossi used the Italian patent as an under-the-door entry into the wider world, then attempted to bolster his LENR credentials with his 2011 'demos' and 'flirting' with NASA. But he was not able to succeed and has seen Prof Piantelli got granted another LENR patent while he Andrea Rossi is being told his one lame attempt at an EPO patent will never walk & only has weeks to go before final rejection.

    Andrea Rossi IMHO wanted a patent that was either an EPO or USPTO patent as that was what he was IMHO after but is thus far failing. Piantelli's success only makes it much harder for Andrea Rossi to patent anything else.

    Doug Marker

  5. Dear Doug,

    When I have received this fine comment of yours this Sunday morning, I have suddenly remembered (and found on the wonderful
    Web the Motto of one of my Family's favorite romance novels 60 and something years ago.
    It is The Way of an Eagle, by E.M. Dell, 1911:
    and it sounds as:

    There be three things which are too wonderful
    for me, yea, four which I know not:

    The way of an eagle in the air;
    the way of a serpent upon a rock;
    the way of a ship in the midst of the sea;
    and the way of a man with a maid."
    Proverbs xxx, 18-19.

    In common sense language the Biblical text can be translated as " 3 things are very difficult to follow, and a 4th is quite impossible"
    We can surely add a 5th: Andrea Rossi's way to a working E-cat.
    I like your scenario it is rational and quite plausble but Rossi's Way is not cognoscible. For example I suppose that he has
    made discovery while working with some usual Ni catalyst in unusual circumstances and with some anticipated technical expectations. You observe soemthing much better if you expect thta it will happen. He has improved the effect which was quite good but with problems of reproducibility and control. Then he
    has turned to the Italian Ni+H LENR colleagues and made an alliance with some of them.
    Regarding patents you can be right, I can be right, Rossi knows
    probably what he really wishes. Think please about a scenario
    starting with "Rossi gets an EP Patent, what then?"

    I think that there are more important things:
    a) Rossi manufactures and sells 1MW E-Cat plants- a customer speasks- he is enchanted or wants all his money back fast
    b) The HotCat 3rd party report will be published, the authors
    are really reputed professors or the report is worst than inconclusive and the authors are real no-name nobodies.

    History is a mess, the future of the E-cats can be important

  6. Peter,

    I realize I actually left off the end of my story what I am hypothesizing is the more cynical reason I think Andrea Rossi *does* want a patent (EPO and/or USPTO).

    At this point in time Andrea Rossi has not obtained what can be fairly called a valid 3rd party validation of his LENR reactor (i.e. validation that it does all he claims incl the COP & max power). The 'hot cat' when considered from a cynical perspective, looks to me like an attempt to plant in people's minds that he can scale up but without the 3rd party validation it is just another claim. Andrea Rossi has shown he is masterful at whipping up intense loyalty and support but to what end ?.

    My theory (coincident with yours) is that Andrea Rossi has a partially working LENR reactor but cannot control it nor scale it for commercial use. I remain convinced that DGT found this out the hard way in mid 2011.

    The benefit of a patent to Andrea Rossi is that with ip protection he can be quite confident he would get all the money he wants to play with his 'cats'. And he would be under a lot less pressure (in his mind) to deliver as long as the money keeps pouring in. One can live a very luxurious lifestyle for a very long time while continuing to play with 'cats', especially if they don't really work well enough for commercialization.

    Today the only real cat we have is 'Enigma-Cat' and there is not a lot the world can do with one of them.

    Again, I am not grasping a good reason why Andrea Rossi might *not* want a patent for his cat.

    Doug Marker

  7. Dear Doug,
    short answer late here:
    he wants a patent, but NOT for what the E-cat really doee/is.
    Let's call it a vanity patent.

  8. Peter

    That I can understand :)

    Thanks - Doug

  9. Mr Peter,
    my father was saying the more you think you are clever (=not stupid) the more the likelhood to be cheated (=become stupid).
    Do not be so sure for your ideas on LERN.

    1. Thank you (and your father) for the advice.
      Actually my ideas re LENR are in evolution,
      this can be seen in this blog too. Unfortunatelly
      for that you ave to read my writings about
      LENR and they are much too many.