Tuesday, January 22, 2013


The European Patent Office has decided that the patent application WO 2010/058288 “METHOD FOR PRODUCING ENERGY AND APPARATUS THEREFOR” inventor Prof. Francesco Piantelli should become European Patent 2368252.
Filling date November 24, 2009, publication date January 16, 2013.

An event obviously positive for the field of LENR. Surprisingly, Professor Christos Stremmenos, known as an ally of the inventor Andrea Rossi (I will avoid with care to use “henchman”) is
surprised seemingly even shocked by this decision of the European Patent office and tries to demonstrate that this is unjust and a great error. His judgments are based on the limitations, errors, sins and misunderstandings of the author in a rather remote past. He forgets that the patent authority had used a text and its content and has not analyzed Piantelli’s supposedly dark scientific past. When he persevered to do bad things; these have happened some 10 years before the date of patent filing. This situation makes Stremmenos’s message completely useless, if he sends it to the European Patent Office which has committed a serious blunder according to Stremmenos, there will be zero impact on this organization.
To do useless things is much worse than make errors because you can learn much from errors while useless = waste.

It is an old slogan and a sad reality: “Oppressors of all countries unite- by using false correlations!” Inexistent correlations can be advantageously used for manipulating great (nations) and small (families) masses. See the history of fascism and of communism- you will be surprised how many people want these histories to continue correlating groups of people with the Evil.

The patent killer writing has some remarkable examples of such false correlations- let’s try to overcome the former rule and learn from it, the writer is well known diplomat.

First he suggests Piantelli has stubbornly rejected- for years- the wise ideas of Stremmenos regarding work with nickel nanopowder in correlation with his reactionary, perhaps even bigot thinking. How, for God’s sake, can give the Patent Office patent to such a regressive thinker, just because he later has changed his mind?
The truth is a bit more complicated- it is not about nanoparticles but about nanostructures, these are present on the surfaces of the rods used by Piantelli too- being formed by the effect of hydrogen on the metal.
Stremmenos says he, the owner of scientific technical truth was working very early with Ni powders, OK where the results, the patents, the many publications are? The other knight of Truth, Andrea Rossi is also said to have been working with Ni powder
from the 90’s however his success came much later.
Stremmenos opposes his unique (?) publication in the field
to those lead by Piantelli- see a list here:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/piantelli-taxonomy_15.html  here you can follow the evolution of a scientific problem, the continuous improvements in experiment and in understanding- and it is an undeniable truth that the conductor of this group of scientists was from the start up to now, Prof Francesco Piantelli. The majority of the experiments with the
Piantelli cells were made in his laboratory- at the University of Siena. The counterproductive, anti-meritocratic and defeatist tradition of the Italian universities to put the authors in alphabetical order is harmful for the history of science. Abrini will always be a more visible author than Zucchini.

The Stremmenos paper: cited “Cold Fusion, an Ongoing Debate” is indeed speaking about powders obtained by grinding under vacuum, however not about some good or promising results obtained by using these in a cell. A general discussion about metallurgy, granulometry, surface morphology- really fine wishful thinking.
That surface increase could be excellent for many technical things (or not), this is common sense.
Compare this with what Prof Piantelli says about nanostructures
 here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/how-does-apply-prof-piantelli-rules-of.html about his decisive discussion with Professor Giuseppe Franco Bassani much beyond nanopowders.

The unethical peak in this document of Christos Stremmenos is this statement:
“One may gather that he got the idea of using powders by copying the work of others: mine, and Dr. Andrea Rossi’s.”

The idea is not powders, Piantelli was and is a pioneer in this work, how could he use the works of Stremmenos? Dr. Rossi has surely used powders we all do but had no publications or communications- his discovery came much later, illo tempora he was probably busy regretting his insufficient knowledge regarding the thermolysis of polymers and trash. (The chances to obtain oil from these are equal to those of obtaining butter from you-know-what.)

Then comes a rhetorical question: “How is it possible to grant a 
patent for a process that doesn’t work?”

First- it is, second a failed reproduction test in 1996 can be considered a final verdict? See please issues 12 and 13 in:

Third, can Stremmenos’s friend and partner in the credo of “In Rossi we trust!” confirm that the Piantelli cells never worked? He is coauthor of so many papers that say the contrary.

This attack against the Piantelli patent is useless and chanceless and I have shown. However the best part comes last- it is also harmful for Rossi’s patent strategy.
Rossi- has stated boldly: “My process has nothing to do with the process of Piantelli.” 
answer to my question, published in New Energy Times, early 2011. It happens I believe him as I believe also what he has said- he respects Fleischmann and Pons who gave us a great dream but he has nothing to learn from LENR created up to his arrival on the battlefield (not his words but the sense).
Then two questions appear:
a)if his process is different why his patent application WO 2009/125444 is not dissimilar to Piantelli’s first patent?
b)if his process is different why does he care at all about Piantelli’s patent?
Stremmenos tells Rossi patent was granted in Italy, but unfortunately this is simply bureaucracy- a registered document for protecting an idea, but has no technical-commercial value. A key for an empty safe.

The document ends with:
“Andrea, go right on, don’t get discouraged — besides, I know that you are a veritable lion.”

Really emotional. It is fine to have so caring friends! But, why on the Earth should be Andrea be discouraged if a non-competitor gets a patent? Because he does not get one? His application is very badly written, and obviously does not say what he is doing.
You cannot have secrecy and secrets patented in the same time.

Beyond the words this opus of Stremmenos carries a subliminal
message: he, Focardi and Rossi are the real Fathers of Ni-H LENR
not Piantelli who just wants to take profit of their valuable work.

To not forget, in December last year Stremmenos has sent a letter in the spirit and style of the present one to the Greek magazine TO VIMA attacking Defkalion.



  1. Peter,
    Very well and accurately articulated.

    Sadly, I fear we will get yet another Prof Stremmenos outbust shortly when the EPO goes ahead with rejecting Andrea Rossi's original eCat patent as they have told Andrea Rossi they intend doing (The one where there was so much confusion and that originally included an un-patentable 'magic catalyst' as part of the patent).

    But, anyone who read Cr Stremmenos virulent outburst in 2011 aimed at the board of DGT (that he Cr Stremmenos founded with approval from Abdrea Rossi and the help of the Greek Govt), should be quite used to Cr Stremmenos's displays of emotion in times of stress.
    Doug Marker

  2. Dear Doug, It would be more interesting if Rossi would
    discuss himself bout his patenting strategy, now secret.
    Suppose his magic stuff is pinocchionic acid will he write a patent in which he will describe the use of this stuff? I bet that
    NO, therefore we will not see a realist Rossi patent or one good
    for the Patent Office for years. The essence of he problem is
    if Rossi will be able to show a working prototype of some

  3. I see all Rossi's (and his team) says from the point of view of they acting for credibility in the view of his investors, i dont see any real scientific progress or proof, all i see is actions that are coherent with keep some "image" of great investment opportunity.

    The only (real) names that have raised of investors in Rossi's e-cats have no tech or scientific background enough to confirm his words, this makes me think that way.

    1. Where, how and why could i find solid arguments
      to contradict you?
      If they are acting so for credibility, then f.....g is for virginity to use an ancient saying.

    2. eferreyra,
      I think you have a good line of reasoning. It could well be the core reason.

      For Prof Cr Stremmenos, from where I see things, has a strong emotional commitment to Andrea Rossi. This I believe is because he carries a great burden of guilt for the crash of the Rossi/DGT relationship.
      It was Poif Stremmenos who approached & sought Andrea Rossi's permission to go to the Greek Govt and to seek assistance for setting up DGT at end 2010. That all happened. Sadly DGT reached a point in mid 2011 where their business plan was a shambles due to their being no viable core reactor product to build it on. Rossi was to supply and demo a reproducible commercial ready core reactor. That didn't happen then and as best as anyone knows still hasn't happened today.

      In this context I am not sure Prof Cr Stremmenos is supporting (in his mind) any scam or deception of investors. I think he is more driven by the guilt I mentioned above. But I may be wrong.

      This is such a complex story.


      Doug Marker

    3. About DGT breaking with rossi, beside the sloppy test, and unstable reactors (They said it was interesting anyway, yet not working as said), the main reason to break is said to be Rossi giving Canada to Ampenergo ... (anyway Rossi break later with ampenergo)...