eCatNews Direct to your MailBox

Enter your email address to follow the ecat story ahead of the crowd

I loathe spam. You can unsubscribe at any time. I will not pass your details to a third party


September 29, 2011

I almost completed a lengthy article analysing Steven Krivit’s latest post regarding NASA, Piantelli and Rossi. However, AR has just said in plain language what many suspected was the case all along. It is another ‘Rossi-Says’ but I would believe him on this issue before Krivit. That article is now in the bin and the floor is Rossi’s:

Andrea Rossi
September 29th, 2011 at 3:53 AM

It is a shame that Piantelli is caught in the middle of this spat but for all we know he is having a chuckle. Let’s hope so.

Things are brewing up. So far, Andrea Rossi has kept to the script he set for himself a long time ago. Despite his detractors, his credibility has not been destroyed. Only results or the the lack of them matter and the countdown is on.

Posted by on September 29, 2011. Filed under Drama,Krivit,Media & Blogs,Piantelli,Rossi,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

74 Responses to Rossi,NASA,Krivit

  1. CM Edwards

    September 29, 2011 at 11:43 am

    At this time, there are no statements on NASA websites.

    Once this moves beyond unofficial inquiries and becomes an ongoing research project, I expect that word would start getting out somewhere other than alternative energy e-zines.

    Is anyone aware of an internet accessible source with this information that is either a US agency site or the site of a researcher receiving NASA funding?

  2. Haldor

    September 29, 2011 at 11:48 am

    From NASA website (at the end of the page):

    Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently showed evidence of anomalous heat during loading and unloading deuterium into bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR.

    Relevant Presentation:
    + Download presentation given at a LENR Workshop at NASA GRC in 2011 [available soon].

    • CM Edwards

      September 29, 2011 at 3:37 pm

      Thanks, Haldor.

      Apparently, NASA has hosted a set of presentations on LENR by Dr. Joseph Zowodny, the most recent of which was August 30.

      • LCD

        September 29, 2011 at 5:35 pm

        I did find this document indicating that they are currently researching something involving EM and LENR.

        • CM Edwards

          September 29, 2011 at 6:03 pm


          I found the “Security Clearance: Secret” bit amusing. It’s probably just because of the required supercomputer access, but it lends a refreshing air of cloak and dagger.

          Hopefully their four year project is not in vain.

          • LCD

            September 29, 2011 at 6:12 pm

            who is the “contractor” that’s what I’d like to know. Supposedly there is a written report already delivered and now they are setting up some deliverables in the Advanced Concepts Research Lab. Contract completion is this December but it looks like they just keep pushing back the completion date every year.

        • Peter Roe

          October 1, 2011 at 9:48 am

          It looks as if they have already established the parameters required for their ‘LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) Project’ and that it has been accepted into their research schedule for some time. This doc appears to be in part a contract spec. for computer modelling to establish a base design for some kind of EM field generator.

          The various delivery dates suggest that this project is several years old and ongoing, with systematic delivery delays (normal for all government funded projects). I would quite like to see the referenced document: ‘Advanced Concepts Research Laboratory task order NNL07AM22T’ which presumably establishes the parameters for EM stimulation of LENR, or at least points back towards the relevant work.

  3. Ransompw

    September 29, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    Krivit is a disgrace to journalism. Anyone who writes half truths (thinking they are not being deceitful) should look up the definition of a half truth. Krivit is the master of these deceptive tools. Anyone bothering to read his drivel should wise up.

    • LCD

      September 29, 2011 at 4:27 pm

      Maybe you should represent Rossi in a libel/slander suit against Krivit?

      • maryyugo

        September 29, 2011 at 7:01 pm

        If Rossi, as is likely, has nothing, it would be interesting to prove damages.

        • Ransompw

          September 30, 2011 at 3:16 am

          I would say the odds of Rossi having something are better then the odds of A guy like Krivit having the net worth to pay any damages.

  4. AB

    September 29, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    After reading I’m convinced that Krivit is deliberately trying to damage Rossi.

    Simply because the news that NASA found the e-cat to not be working would be huge and deserving of its own article. That Krivit doesn’t go into detail to me means that there’s nothing behind those words.

    Instead the purpose of this sidejab appears to be polarizing the reader, painting Rossi in a bad and Piantelli in a good light.

    • popeye

      September 29, 2011 at 4:06 pm

      > “Simply because the news that NASA found the e-cat to not be working would be huge and deserving of its own article. That Krivit doesn’t go into detail to me means that there’s nothing behind those words.”

      Well, both Krivit and Rossi appear to under gag orders, so a detailed article may not be an option.

      > “Instead the purpose of this sidejab appears to be polarizing the reader, painting Rossi in a bad and Piantelli in a good light.”

      That seems pretty likely, but since Rossi often gets the benefit of the doubt because no one can imagine a plausible nefarious reason for his actions, likewise what possible reason could Krivit have to damage Rossi if he has reason to believe Rossi will be vindicated? And surely, if Rossi is legit, he will be vindicated; no amount of damage from Krivit will make any difference.

      • Tony

        September 29, 2011 at 4:15 pm

        If he’s invited a few scientists and scientific journalists to attend, some of them might be swayed NOT to attend because of Mr Krivit’s mud-slinging.

        • popeye

          September 29, 2011 at 4:22 pm

          Maybe, but I wouldn’t take scientists very seriously if they are influenced by mud-slinging from a small-time journalist with no science background. And even if they are credible scientists, such decisions would at most delay the inevitable, and not by very much, and Krivit surely knows it.

          • LCD

            September 29, 2011 at 4:30 pm

            Aaaah don’t know about that, Tony may have a point there. The scientific community can be unforgiving.

          • popeye

            September 29, 2011 at 4:44 pm

            In the face of hard data from NASA? Not very likely.

          • LCD

            September 29, 2011 at 5:19 pm

            Wow popeye I thought you said “the image of the once-great NASA is suffering” and Dennis Bushnell was “confused” and “embarrasing”.

            Your a piece of work.

          • popeye

            September 29, 2011 at 5:34 pm

            Dennis Bushnell *was* confused and embarrassing, and I gave chapter and verse, and the image of NASA in my perception is suffering. But the organization as a whole had a lot of integrity to start with, and still has more integrity than a few lone professors without the backing of their departments. Particularly to scientists who have ignored the LENR business anyway. If NASA shows hard evidence of ecat performance, it will be taken seriously, and mend their image. In fact, hard evidence from anyone would be hard for scientists to dismiss.

            If the ecat goes nowhere, which is likely, NASA’s image will suffer more.

          • LCD

            September 29, 2011 at 6:00 pm

            ok pops, whatever

          • Roger Barker

            September 29, 2011 at 10:27 pm

            LOL! Talk about sitting on the fence Pops!

      • LCD

        September 29, 2011 at 4:18 pm

        Indeed the motive is the question. Maybe we have an answer in the recent news. It is possible that the same group of “investors” are looking at both Piantelli and Rossi and this may be the source of a huge amount of money. If Krivit helps Piantelli by slowing down Rossi that may buy Piantelli enough time to finalize work on his own device. Then the investors will want to “choose” Piantelli. After all Piantelli is of impecable reputation whereas Rossi is a convicted criminal so they would be looking for a reason not to have to “choose” Rossi.
        Anyways Krivit would then benefit somehow from Piantelli.

        The investors could just bet on both horses and be done but betting on both would still benefit Piantelli who’s in danger of being forgotten if Rossi’s demo is a success.

        Admittedly just speculation of course.

        • Ben

          September 29, 2011 at 5:00 pm


          By George, I think you’ve got it! Excellent analysis, speculative as it may be.

          • LCD

            September 29, 2011 at 5:24 pm

            lol thanks Ben

            Like you I’ll just be happy if any of this amounts to anything meaningful sometime soon.

        • Roger Barker

          September 29, 2011 at 10:28 pm

          I’m personally not fussed on who comes to the fore as long as someone unveils practical LENR ASAP! After that the Chinese will reverse engineer the crap out of it and we’ll have eCat clones for a buck a pop! 😉

          • LCD

            September 29, 2011 at 11:30 pm

            Lol very true, unless thet have a civil war.

  5. ExPat

    September 29, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    Thing I can’t figure is: Why would Rossi care? Why is this affair looking like just a competition for public opinion, run on e-zines, facebook and email archives?

    Surely if Rossi is sitting on a billion-dollar discovery, has obtained NASA interest as well as a BIG customer…what difference does it make what anyone on the Internet says? He should be able to secure funding easily.

    Why waste so much time currying and worrying about public opinion? I notice Piantelli does not.

    • LCD

      September 29, 2011 at 6:05 pm

      No Piantelli apparently has gotten Krivit to do his propaganda, allegedly.

      Public opinion is a powerful tool ExPat, just ask Hitler.

      I will say this if by the end of October, Rossi’s “big US customer” hasn’t paid him then the jig is up,… for me anyways it is.

      • popeye

        September 29, 2011 at 7:29 pm

        First: Godwinned.

        Second: The idea that public opinion is powerful seems to be held by a lot of cold fusion advocates, but science is not like politics. Public opinion defines (or at least influences) political reality. It has no effect of scientific reality.

        • charles sistovaris

          September 29, 2011 at 8:34 pm

          mmmm true…. in the long term

        • John Dlouhy

          September 29, 2011 at 9:55 pm

          If public opinion influences political reality, and politicians allocate public money for scientific research, then indirectly public opinion is influencing what gets researched. This may not change WHAT science ultimately discovers, but surely it can influence WHEN.

          • popeye

            September 29, 2011 at 10:31 pm

            This is true, but public money only accounts for part of research (on the order of half in some countries), and in the case of the ecat, the “when” is claimed to be in the past. The claims of Rossi are not like global warming; if they are to have any impact on energy use, they can be demonstrated definitively on a bench top. If he already has a commercial product, there is no way science can ignore it.

            At least, I can’t think of comparable precedents in history.

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 2:48 am

            This is very true, just look at what graduate students are researching today. It’s based on what professors can get from research dollars…very dominated by politics. When those guys graduate they take their expertise to companies and usually continue on that road. John D makes a very good point.

        • Roger Barker

          September 29, 2011 at 10:30 pm

          Nonsense. Science is ALL about politics.

          • popeye

            September 29, 2011 at 10:37 pm

            Nonsense. “Science is all politics” is just an excuse for true believers whose belief is never vindicated.

          • Roger Barker

            September 29, 2011 at 11:29 pm

            Pops, everything is politics. Everything.

          • popeye

            September 30, 2011 at 3:59 am

            Rog, I’m not young enough to know everything, but I think you are wrong, because:

            Politics is winning,
            and winning isn’t everything,
            so everything isn’t politics.

          • Roger Barker

            September 30, 2011 at 4:13 am

            Ah Pops! But we live in a fundamentally capitalist society! That makes winning EVERYTHING!

            The only ones who say winning isn’t everything are the losers. 🙂 A personal favourite quote of mine from the film “The Rock”:

            “Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen”

          • Ben

            September 30, 2011 at 4:48 am

            Politics is simply how decisions are made in a group. It is that simple. Every group has politics in constant play, whether it be in a relationship, family, work, school, play, city, county, state, province, etc. etc. To think that politics is not a fundamental part of science is either naive or ignorant, take your pick. It is unavoidable and a natural part of human interaction. It may not always be pleasant but it is a part of life.

          • popeye

            September 30, 2011 at 7:59 am

            > “To think that politics is not a fundamental part of science is either naive or ignorant”

            No one said politics is not part of science, but it can’t change scientific reality, whereas it defines social reality.

            See, cold fusion believers act as if they can make cold fusion true just by convincing more people that it’s true. But some things really aren’t true, no matter how much people want them to be, or how many people want them to be. People who think otherwise are both naive and ignorant.

        • LCD

          September 30, 2011 at 2:45 am

          Wow there’s actually a law for that.
          Learn something new everyday.

        • georgehants

          September 30, 2011 at 8:49 am

          Do you mean Natures reality or sciences Dogma of reality.

  6. John Dlouhy

    September 29, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    This type of emotional outburst by Rossi seems inconsistent with his statements that he has no time for “chatters” and “taming snakes”. Apparently he has found a little taming time. With a definitive and important test looming just 7 days from now, it seems unnecessary and unprofessional to respond so emphatically to the writing of a relatively unknown and meager journalist, already suspect, who writes for an obscure alternative news site. I think it better if he limited himself to a reserved response to the contrary and simply let the grandeur of the greatest invention in the history of history wash away all doubt, in 7 days…

    Don’t get me wrong though, I love it when he goes off his nut like that. Its very entertaining on an otherwise slow news day!

    • LCD

      September 29, 2011 at 4:39 pm

      lol he has time for Krivit, his nemesis

      • Ransompw

        September 29, 2011 at 5:03 pm

        Someone on Vortex wrote, “All bets are off. The catalyst that ignites Rossi’s powerful hot reactions is now well known and proven: KrIvIt.”

        Really funny.

        • Ghost Dawg

          September 29, 2011 at 7:06 pm

          So true, that is funny.

    • Curious Guest

      September 29, 2011 at 6:20 pm

      Rossi is but only human, bound by the same emotions as us all. maybe just cracking a little from the stress of this looming october?

      krivit is relentless with his jabs…….if you poke a dog enough times with a stick, sooner or later he’ll show you his teeth

      • D2

        September 30, 2011 at 5:20 pm

        Yep – in other words he was pissed!

    • H. Visscher

      September 29, 2011 at 7:00 pm

      I do understand his outburst. He has let Krivit into his shop and gave him interviews. He has spend quite a long time with him, time which has been valuable the last months. Him then reading all this s…t about him… I would be pi….ed too if I were him!

      Also remember, he is Italian…Allora!!!

      • Ben

        September 29, 2011 at 8:56 pm

        Mr. Curious Guest and Mr. H. Visscher, I would give you both a thumbs up if that possible on this blog.

        Hey, Admin, what do you say about a thumbs up and thumbs down button. Is it possible? It would at least give the lurkers a chance to have some kind of say without getting directly in the line of fire. It is not exactly everyone’s cup of tea.

        • John Dlouhy

          September 29, 2011 at 9:43 pm

          Ben, I can think of one other hand gesture that would come in handy on this website. I don’t know if they have a button for it though!

          • Ben

            September 29, 2011 at 11:09 pm

            John D., be good now. Remember, this is a rational, civil discussion and tomfoolery will not be tolerated. However, if you would like to give said gesture to your computer screen in the middle of a FUD attack that would be both understandable and acceptable.

          • John Dlouhy

            September 30, 2011 at 1:25 am

            Of course I didn’t mean anything towards you Ben. I was referring to the sometimes unwanted and overzealous criticisms we see here. I will save my single digit “FUD missile” and use it the way you suggest!

          • Ben

            September 30, 2011 at 1:33 am

            No worries John D., I know what you meant.

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 2:41 am


  7. LCD

    September 29, 2011 at 6:31 pm


    Alessandro Casali
    September 29th, 2011 at 5:17 AM
    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    First of all let me congatulate you for your decision to set up the October 6th test with a closed loop, i’m really looking forward.

    I would also like to ask you a few questions:

    1) How is it going with the 1MW plant? is it completed?
    2) Did you invite people from NASA to the October 6th test?
    3) Is NASA the big customer of your first 1MW plant?

    Warm Regards,

    Andrea Rossi
    September 29th, 2011 at 7:53 AM
    Dear Alessandro Casali:
    1- It will be ready by the end of October for the test. We are making corrections.
    2- Yes, but they prefer to test our Cats in their Facilities in the USA
    3- No, they will buy the modular E-Cats to check if this technology is useful for their purposes.
    Warm Regards,

    • maryyugo

      September 29, 2011 at 7:06 pm

      It’s all “Rossi says”. Before this, it was “Defkalion says” if you read their forum. They said they had the technology and had developed all sorts of devices which they were actively testing and submitting to the Greek government for safety and efficacy examinations. Where are the results of that? Why is Defkalion not responding to simple direct questions on their forum? Is Defkalion lying? Is Rossi? How would we know, exactly?

      All this attention on Krivit is silly. Almost nobody of the general public and very few people in the scientific and engineering world reads his blog so it’s silly to care about it one way or another — especially since he’s hiding behind some sort of NDA instead of answering questions about it.

      The best answers at this point about Rossi and Defkalion are “we don’t know… but it doesn’t look very good.”

      • LCD

        September 30, 2011 at 2:50 am

        Mary I saw your post on Krivit’s blog, kinda proud of you for not taking no bull from him. Did he ever answer you with anything but the boiler plate?

    • Ben

      September 29, 2011 at 7:31 pm

      Time for some more spec. Perhaps NASA was involved in the testing and they were ambivalent (not positive) about the results for THEIR purposes, but saw enough to pursue if further. The investor, on the other hand, may have felt it was suitable for THEIR purposes. The customer may in fact be Google. I can see where in the current state of development things may be suitable for one customer and not another. A steam-powered rocket may not be what NASA had in mind but steam to run generators may be perfectly fine for Google or some other investor. NASA may want to evaluate Piantelli’s device to see if it is currently suitable for their needs and another group of investors for the same reason. Krivit was evasive when asked if the group of investors was the same or different for both Rossi and Piantelli, giving the same stock answer that he gave to 4-5 different questions. Both Rossi and Krivit gave similar stock answers that seemed to have been written by lawyers.

      • LCD

        September 30, 2011 at 2:42 am

        Beware of the lawyers
        eh Ransom

        • Ben

          September 30, 2011 at 3:20 am

          I wasn’t going to say it LCD… 😉 ….but in this case the arrival of the lawyers might be a good sign.

        • Ransompw

          September 30, 2011 at 3:30 am

          They do tend to muck everything up, but if they didn’t muck things up we wouldn’t need so many to wade through the muck. What a thought, young bright people having better more lucrative things to do then go into law. Only half kidding.

  8. LCD

    September 30, 2011 at 3:17 am

    I contacted a family member at a certain major news agency to see if they would do something on LENR now that Rossi and Piantelli are “associated” with NASA and there is a “demo” a few days from now. Will see what she says.

  9. Dale G. Basgall

    September 30, 2011 at 8:38 am

    Here is an amazingly detailed article done for condensed matter nuclear science and one of the scientists was from Rome Italy, done in 2007.

  10. georgehants

    September 30, 2011 at 9:01 am

    Lovely day, only that Rossi shows a working unit to their customer matters, what NASA or any of science or journals think is irreverent.
    They have already condemned themselves as fools by their attitude to Cold Fusion in general.
    If Rossi’s device works it will just highlight an already fatally flawed system of dogma and closed-mindedness.
    Hopefully lessons will be learned and not another whitewash job to protect the status-quo.

  11. Brad Arnold

    September 30, 2011 at 9:29 am

    Look, I’m not a fan of Krivit’s point of view, but after having talked to him on the telephone, my opinion is that Krivit is simply being true to his heart, and he has the feeling that Rossi is a fraud. Therefore, any data that Krivit is privy to is seen through the lens of Rossi being a fraud.

    On the other hand, in the book “Secrets of E-Cat,” page 21: “Even at shutdown Celani detects a signal, albet smaller. Therefore it can be concluded that the phenomena is genuine, i.e. it is not a hoax.”

    In other words, Krivit visited Rossi and had a Gestalt moment where he came to the (false in my opinion) realization that Rossi was a fraud. On the other hand, Celani, during the first public demonstration of the E-Cat on January 11, 2011 had a Gestalt moment too (true in my opinion), but that the phenomena was genuine.

    • Brad Arnold

      September 30, 2011 at 9:35 am

      By the way, MaryYugo appears to believe that incredible claims need incredible proof. I strongly disagree, but I understand her viewpoint. I am going to write a paper in the next couple of weeks outlining all the demonstrations that the Rossi E-Cat has undergone, and how a neutral evaluation of them leave little doubt that Rossi is legitimate. In my opinion, those who are doubtful or on the fence concerning the legitimacy of the Rossi and his E-Cat simply aren’t taking into proper consideration the public demonstrations.

      “Convoluted frauds involving lots of parties is the least likely. So are 3 groups of science observers too stupid to recognize an obvious fraud. Also, there are enough other NiH results which suggest a LENR reaction.”

      • georgehants

        September 30, 2011 at 9:42 am

        Would you agree that exactly the same sentiments should be used in research of other controversial subjects such as, the Placebo Effect, UFO’s, Telepathy, Remote Viewing, and many other phenomena stone walled by closed-minded science.
        These subjects are no different from Cold Fusion, already proven to any fair assessment and yet denied and ridiculed by a science obsessed with the belief that nothing can exist “beyond known science”

      • popeye

        September 30, 2011 at 3:35 pm

        arnold> “By the way, MaryYugo appears to believe that incredible claims need incredible proof.”

        Extraordinary, not incredible.

        > “I strongly disagree,”

        It’s a common sense sentiment that has permeated science for centuries. If you disagree, maybe it’s because you don’t have common sense.

        > “I am going to write a paper…”

        Right, that’s what we need. Yet another summary of the pitiful demonstrations to date. There are many available on-line already, and all the details can be found on-line (which is presumably where you will get them), and most people who have examined the details have judged that evidence for Rossi’s claims is sadly lacking. Good luck in finding the magic sequence to put the facts in that will change their minds.

        > “In my opinion, those who are doubtful or on the fence concerning the legitimacy of the Rossi and his E-Cat simply aren’t taking into proper consideration the public demonstrations.”

        That… or those who are convinced by them aren’t taking into proper consideration the many carefully voiced objections to the public demonstrations.

        > “Convoluted frauds involving lots of parties is the least likely. So are 3 groups of science observers too stupid to recognize an obvious fraud. Also, there are enough other NiH results which suggest a LENR reaction.”

        Except that there are plenty of precedents, now admitted by all, for convoluted frauds involving many parties, and stupid science observers. Enron, Madoff, Steorn, Bre-X, N-rays (ok, not fraud, but bad science), and so on. There are no precedents for successful NiH results (or any LENR results for that matter) about which all parties now agree. The Patterson cell came to nothing, Piantelli’s results were argued even among cold fusion advocates, and BLP’s promises are never met.

        Moreover, the scientists involved seem to think the fraction of water converted to steam can be determined using a relative humidity probe, so we know they’re stupid.

    • popeye

      September 30, 2011 at 3:25 pm

      “Therefore, any data that Krivit is privy to is seen through the lens of Rossi being a fraud.”

      But the feeling Krivit has that Rossi is not legit comes from looking at the data. That’s not bias. Bias is when he gets such a feeling from something other than the observations.

  12. georgehants

    September 30, 2011 at 11:10 am

    From Facebook, looks interesting, Google translate in action.

    Facts not words!
    In October, the moment of truth for the E-Cat
    Data-based EPO (European Patent Office) has been published ( here ) an invitation to attend the examiner Andrea Rossi, on October 6, to test a 1 MW module plant (!) in the presence several scientists around the world: the test will take place in Bologna and will last 24 hours. At this point they are no longer obliged to maintain secrecy on the location, that is usual, clearly stated in the document.

    • Renzo

      September 30, 2011 at 11:30 am

      Actually a better translation is
      “On the data-base of EPO (European Patent Office) has been published (here) an invitation by Andrea Rossi to the examiner to attend, on October 6, the test of a module from the 1 MW plant (!) in the presence of several scientists from around the world: the test will take place in Bologna and will last 24 hours. At this point I am no longer obliged to maintain secrecy on the location, that is the usual one, clearly stated in the document.

      Thank you Vettore for telling me first!

      I take this opportunity to confirm my participation to the test above and I wish to explain that this time I will not write live comments : I will publish my testimony about the test in the following days, in coordination with Ny Teknik and Focus*. I stress that a lot of documentation will be made ​​public, both written and video.

      As promised, the course of events accelerates.

      Warm regards :-)”

      *Focus is an italian popular science magazine

  13. Bosch Krupp

    September 30, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    Krivit is amazingly self-centered if the interview he did 5 years ago with Sean McCarthy is any indication.

    This was just after Steorn published the ad in the Economist, and McCarthy and Steorn actually had air-time on a national tv network in the US; so McCarthy was a desirable interview at that point, especially for an unknown ‘blogger’.

    Krivit did an audio interview, by telephone, with McCarthy, and I swear that the first 3 minutes or more of the interview were spent by Krivit telling McCarthy about he himself, Krivit! It was downright embarrassing to listen to.

    After that, Krivit has to go some way to make himself a trustworthy journalist, as far as I am concerned; and although Rossi is probably deluded, I would not trust anything Krivit says about him to persuade me one way or the other.

  14. Rich Murray

    October 12, 2011 at 1:41 am

    lame LENR H-Ni run report by Sergio Focardi and Francesco Piantelli, 9
    pages, Il Nuovo Cimento, November 1998 — recent news: Rich Murray

    [ summary of critique:
    science that purports to establish a notable percentage increase in
    excess heat as a reproducible anomaly, as reported herein, is very
    lacking re many critical details and shows lack of common sense
    consideration of reasonable complications — as usual in LENR
    research, an enthusiastic team created a “black” witch’s cauldron,
    full of impurities, sealed and invisible to detailed observation
    during months of cooking in H2 gas at high temperatures.

    Probably, corrosion opened up additional conducting paths, reducing
    the total electrical resistance fed by the constant voltage power
    supply, increasing the total input electric power via increased
    current flow, which increased ordinary electric heat effects in
    complex ways within the black box.

    So far, the surge of enticing, but vague, thin, and variable
    information follows the pattern of the Rossi debacle in 2010-2011… ]

    [ search Piantelli
    to get 5 pages of items that include many full text papers ] 10 pages

    IL NUOVO CIMENTO VO L. 111 A, N. 11 Novembre 1998 1233-1242
    Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems
    S. FOCARDI (1),
    V. GABBANI (2),
    V. MONTALBANO (2),
    F. PIANTELLI (2)
    and S. VERONESI (2)
    (1) Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit`a di Bologna e INFN Sezione di
    Bologna – Bologna, Italy
    (2) Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit`a di Siena e Centro IMO – Siena, Italy
    (ricevuto il 9 Marzo 1996; revisionato il 16 Settembre 1996; approvato
    il 30 Giugno 1998)

    In a previous paper [1] some of us reported on the existence of an
    anomalous heat production observed in hydrogen-loaded nickel rods.
    The phenomenon occurs when a cell containing a nickel rod is
    maintained at temperatures above a critical value and is filled with
    gaseous H2 at subatmospheric pressures.
    A constant input power was used to raise and keep the cell temperature
    constant at its working value (corresponding to about 700 K for the Ni
    It was possible to induce an increase of the sample temperature from
    its working value to about 820 K.
    This anomalous equilibrium condition will be referred in the following
    as excited state.
    The system was able to remain in the excited state for several months.
    The experimental cell described in ref. [1] was successively modified
    and also a new cell was built with an improvement which allows the
    measurement and the monitoring of the external surface temperature.
    With this new set-up, the external temperature increase, together with
    the internal one, have been utilized to characterize the excited state
    of the Ni sample.
    The existence of an exothermic effect, whose heat yield is well above
    that of any known chemical reaction, has been unambiguously confirmed
    by evaluating the thermal flux coming from the cells.
    An important feature of our systems is that they can remain in the
    excited state for a long time.
    This characteristic allowed us to search for ionizing radiation coming
    from the cells.
    Very clear evidence of neutrons and -rays has been reported by us [2-4].
    Systematic studies of such processes and their correlation with heat
    production are in progress.

    Cell B (see fig. 1b) is constructed in a similar way.
    The cell vessel is a stainless steel tube (d in = 22 mm, d ext = 28
    mm, [ tube wall thickness 3 mm ] length = 150 mm) ending with
    commercial vacuum fittings flanges CF35.
    [ inner surface area of tube? Any physical or chemical changes after
    months of use at high temperatures? ]
    A second stainless steel tube (d in = 34 mm) [ 3 mm space between the
    inner and outer tube ] is placed around this vessel to create an
    interspace and to allow a fast cooling of the cell, if necessary.
    The heater, supplied by means of a d.c. voltage stabilized power
    supply (Alpha Electronica mod. AL818), is a Ni-Cr wire fastened around
    a ceramic cylinder (external diameter 21 mm).
    [ 0.5 mm space between ceramic heater cylinder and inner surface of
    stainless steel tube ! even smaller space from electric heater wire
    to inner surface of stainless steel tube — does wire expand enough
    during initial high temperature “activation” heating to short out on
    inner surface of stainless steel tube? ]
    [ Stable against fluctuations of input AC utility power? Stability of
    output over months of operation? Actual voltages and their
    fluctuations during these many month long runs — any permanent,
    detailed records?
    [ resistance at all temperatures of the heater wire?
    diameter, length, mass, and surface area of the heater wire?
    Composition, insulation, sizes for one or two internal wires that
    connect to the heater wire — any changes after months of use?
    Any physical or chemical changes in the heater wire after many months
    at 700 K? Impurities in heater wire? ]

    A ceramic holder keeps four metal rods symmetrically set around the
    cell axis where the thermocouple Tc2 is placed.
    Due to the high cell working temperature (about 700 K) electrical
    insulation and gluing inside the cell are done with ceramic bonding.
    [ Composition, thickness, surface area, and mass of bonding ceramic —
    any physical or chemical changes after months of use at high
    temperatures, especially cracks, corrosion, or conducting compounds
    that could add various conducting pathways within the cell that could
    be heated by the input DC electric power, reducing the total
    resistance of the cell, and thus increasing the apparent heat output
    for a fixed input voltage? ]
    [ Size, mass, surface area of 4 rods? ]

    The sample loading in a natural hydrogen atmosphere was performed in
    successive steps.
    In each step, we started with an initial gas pressure in the range
    400–800 mbar and thereafter a little amount of hydrogen was introduced
    into the cell through a suitable valve ( change in p 400–600 mbar).
    When the pressure decreased down to its starting value, new hydrogen
    was added (see fig. 3).
    After several loading cycles, the sample was ready and it was possible
    to trigger the exothermic process.
    Such an operation can be performed by lowering the input power,
    waiting for the sample temperature to decrease down to about 300 K,
    then suddenly restoring the previous power level.
    After this operation an increased equilibrium temperature, as shown in
    fig. 4, is obtained:
    the cell is producing an excess heat.

    Another way to trigger the process is to provoke a pressure step-like
    variation, as shown in fig. 5.

    After the triggering procedure, the production of excess heat is
    maintained for months.

    It must be underlined that, once the heat producing process has been
    started, the cells are kept sealed for all the time, that is no H2 or
    anything else is introduced or extracted from the cell, except heat,
    of course, while the input power is maintained constant.

    The initial temperatures are newly obtained when the heat producing
    process is stopped by following a suitable procedure (see fig. 5 and
    relative caption).
    [ As an incompetent scientific layman, I was unable to decipher the
    “suitable procedure”… ]

    In order to compare samples having the same surface but different
    bulks, the metal rods used in the experiments described here
    (stainless steel for cell A and nickel for cell B) were coated with a
    thick ( 0.1 mm) [ 100 micrometer, easily penetrated by cracks,
    diffusion, corrosion ] nickel layer by the usual nickel-plating bath
    [7] containing the following components:
    Nickel Ammonium Sulphate,
    Citric Acid,
    Ammonium Hydroxide,
    Sodium Disulfite (purity RPE-ACS).
    After introduction in the cells, the rods were annealed under vacuum
    (p<10E4 mbar) at temperatures up to about 900 K in order to clean
    their surfaces [8, 9]. Successive thermal cycles were also performed
    in a hydrogen atmosphere below 1 bar.
    [ were S, C, N, O, Na, S diffused into or reacted with the Ni surfaces
    of the rods?
    any physical or chemical changes after "annealing"?
    any O compounds in the device could react with H2, especially with
    plentiful Ni catalyst, releasing heat, damaging materials, producing
    H2O, which as steam can ionize and corrode many materials in complex
    ways over months of exposure.
    Possibly, interior surfaces were being coated with insulating or
    reflective coatings, perhaps as dust, fibers, fluff, and crud,
    changing the heat transfer processes and temperatures within the cell
    in complex ways… ]

    The mean power excess of each cell multiplied by its activity period
    (278 days for cell A and 319 days for cell B)
    gives an energy excess of about 900 MJ for cell A
    and 600 MJ for cell B.
    [ What was the actual cumulative electric energy input? ]
    Such an energy amount cannot be accounted for any chemical reaction
    occurring inside the cells.
    In conclusion we can say that all data coherently support the evidence
    of an excess heat produced by the sample when it is in the physical
    conditions provoked by the annealing and storing in a H2 atmosphere at
    high temperature as we have described.
    [ Probably, they hoped that cell B, with a much greater area of Ni to
    react, would produce more mean power excess than cell A, so this
    actually hints that there is no understanding of what is going on… ]

    We wish to thank Prof. G. SALVETTI,
    Dr. E . TOMBARI,
    Prof. C . STREMMENOS,
    Drs. V. PALLESCHI,
    and C. FERRARI for helpful suggestions and discussions.
    Special thanks are also due to Prof. R. HABEL,
    Drs. E . MAJORANA and I. USAI
    and Ing. M. PIANIGIANI for their collaboration in the initial phase of
    the experiment.

    [ These three runs of cell B gave three different patterns of apparent
    excess heat and gamma radiation — not published in a peer-reviewed
    journal… ]

    Rich Murray

    Tue, 01 Feb 2011 20:50:19 -0800

    3 puzzling long runs with H-Ni on thin Ni strips at 350-750 K, some
    heat, gamma, S Focardi et al 2004 : Rich Murray 2011.02.01
    10 pages, color

    Focardi, S., et al. Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems.
    in Eleventh International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear
    Science. 2004. Marseille, France.

    Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems
    S. Focardi a,
    V. Gabbani b,
    V. Montalbano b,
    F. Piantelli b
    and S. Veronesi c, b
    a Phys. Department, University of Bologna – Centro I.M.O
    b Phys. Department, University of Siena – Centro I.M.O
    c I.N.F.M. –UdR Siena

    We report evidence of photon emission in three experiments with
    hydrogen loading of Ni slabs,
    during the degassing phase, when hydrogen was introduced into the
    cell, and during thermal cycling.
    In the first experiment we obtained excess power of about 20 W, while
    in the second experiment photon emission was observed instead of power
    In the third experiment, a Ni sample in hydrogen underwent thermal
    excitation and showed an increasing photon emission for a few hours.

    [ 3 Ni slabs, 200x12x1 mm, at once in stainless steel tube,
    interspersed with 3 same size NiCr heaters in a ceramic cylinder, all
    within a large box that held 3.5 cm boric acid as a neutron shield —
    gamma radiation from 500 to 2250 Kev… no neutron radiation ]


    1. S. Focardi, R. Habel, and F. Piantelli,
    Nuovc Cimento 107A (1994) 163.

    2. S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi,
    Nuovo Cimento A 111, 1233 (1998).

    3. S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, R. Habel, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, G.
    Salvetti, E. Tombari, S. Veronesi,
    Status of cold fusion in Italy, IV – Proceedings of Siena workshop,
    Siena, 24-25 March 1995,to be edited by B. Stella.

    4. S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, and S. Veronesi,
    Atti Accad. Fisiocritici, Serie XV, Tomo XV, (1996) 109-115.

    5. A. Battaglia, L. Daddi, S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F.
    Piantelli, P. G. Sona, S. Veronesi,
    Nuovo Cimento A 112, 921 (1999).

    6. A.B. Garg, R.K. Rout, M. Srinisavan, T.K. Sankarnarayanan, A.
    Shyam, and L.V. Kulkarni, Proceedings of the ICCF-5, Monte-Carlo,
    Monaco 9-13 April (1995) and references therein.

    7. A. Shyam, M. Srinisavan, T.C. Kaushik, and L.V. Kulkarni,
    Proceedings of the ICCF-5, Monte-Carlo, Monaco 9-13 April (1995) and
    references therein.

    8. S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi,
    Atti Accad. Fisioc., Serie XV, XVIII 109 (1999)

    9. O. Häusser, M.A. Lone, T.K. Alexander, S.A. Kushneriuk and J. Gascon,
    Nucl. Instr. and Meth., 14 (1961) 115.

    10. J.P. Hirvonen and R. Lappalainen, in Handbook of modern ion beam
    material analysis, p. 609, J.R. Tesmer and M. Nastasi editors,
    Material Research Society, Pennsylvania.

    11. E. G. Campari, S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F.
    Piantelli, E. Porcu, E. Tosti, S. Veronesi,
    ICCF8, Conference Proceedings 70, F. Scaramuzzi ed., (2000) 69

    12. E. G. Campari, S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F.
    Piantelli, S. Veronesi,
    Proceedings Workshop TESMI, A. Lorusso e V. Nassisi eds, Lecce 2002, 35 (2002)

    13. E. G. Campari, G. Fasano, S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, S. Lorusso, V.
    Montalbano, F. Piantelli, C. Stanghini, S. Veronesi,
    ICCF11, to appear on Conference Proceedings, J. Biberian editor (2004)

    [ Recent news does not indicate that actual complete details, suitable
    of serving as evidence for reproducible anomalies, will be available
    for some time — "The April patent will be published on October 27,
    2012." — but patents are not evidence… ]

    A LENR and Cold Fusion Update
    July 29, 2011 9 Comments

    Roy Virgilio releases more details on Piantelli’s research
    JULY 25, 2011
    tags: francesco piantelli, nichenergy
    by Ivy Matt

    In the wake of Saturday’s cold fusion conference in Viareggio, Italy,
    Roy Virgilio has released more details on the Piantelli group’s
    research on the Italian renewable energy forum EnergeticAmbiente.
    Virgilio is an administrator on the forum with the username eroyka.
    Akira Shirakawa has provided an English translation on the Vortex
    mailing list here and here. To summarize:

    Experiments are being performed in a lab near Siena, Italy.

    Older units worked continuously for months and produced 2× to 4×
    energy gain, but the actual energy balance was higher, as the cells
    reached self-sustaining mode.

    Several unnamed third parties have confirmed that the older units
    worked in self-sustaining mode for long periods of time.

    Several of these older units were recently reactivated.
    After some maintenance they turned on easily and produced 2× to 3×
    energy gain, but they haven’t yet been pushed to high excess energy

    New units with new fuel should be completed in about two months, and
    are expected to produce 200× energy gain.
    The new units will be tested gradually in several steps of increasing
    power, beginning from a few hundred watts up to high levels of power
    on the order of kilowatts.
    The scale-up will take as long as is necessary.
    Smaller devices will be ready for sale first.
    No catalyst is necessary.
    The trick is in the preparation of the nickel.

    Piantelli has a theory that doesn’t require exotic reactions, but can
    be explained using known physics and mathematics.
    A semi-complete theory has been provided to the University of Siena
    and will be published shortly.
    The complete theory will probably be disclosed after the first
    commercial units have been sold.

    No Italian public institutions are involved in the current research,
    but a US government agency that has had the opportunity to review the
    research will probably validate and certify the reactor, as well as
    contribute to its development.

    Piantelli’s group is also in talks with several large industrial
    corporations to develop generators operating at certain power levels.

    The research is protected by three pending patents, the latest of
    which was filed last week.

    Piantelli’s group will create a supporters’ trust.
    In two to four months the public will be able to buy shares in the
    trust to support the research, to prevent the technology from suddenly
    disappearing, and to share in any future revenues.
    Piantelli’s group doesn’t need money:
    the aim is protect the technology by putting it under the control of a
    multitude of stakeholders and enthusiasts, but there is no guarantee
    the shares will make a profit. [Emphasis added. —Ivy Matt]

    Thanks, Akira!

    The three patents mentioned above probably do not include Piantelli’s
    1995 patent application.
    The Piantelli group filed an Italian patent application, “Method for
    Producing Energy and Apparatus Therefor”, on November 24, 2008, which
    was published on May 25, 2010.
    More recently, on April 26, 2011 they filed an Italian patent
    application, “Method and Apparatus for Generating Energy through
    Nuclear Reactions of Hydrogen Adsorbed by Orbital Capture to a Metal
    Crystalline Nanostructure”, which is due to be published on October
    27, 2012.
    And then last week they filed a third patent application, the title of
    which is not yet known, and which should be published in January of

    It looks like 2011 will be the year cold fusion attempts to make it on
    the commercial stage, and with at least two competitors.
    Piantelli’s group appears to be starting off at a disadvantage to
    Rossi and Defkalion, as Defkalion claims to have already achieved a 6×
    to 30× energy gain. (See Section 3: “Product Status” in the white
    However, Piantelli professes to have a comprehensive theory of the
    hydrogen-nickel reaction, which may speed up his group’s research.
    Cold fusion is not exactly suffering from a lack of explanatory
    hypotheses, but if Piantelli’s hypothesis fits well with the available
    evidence and, more importantly, if it makes predictions that can be
    tested experimentally, it will be worthy of the notice even of
    detractors of cold fusion research.

    [ linked 2011.08.20
    sito in costruzione
    hosting su piattaforma Apache/2.2 ]

    Cold Fusion Patent Fight Could Be Developing in Italy
    August 4, 2011

    A legal battle over patents on cold fusion technology could be
    developing in Italy.
    One patent for cold fusion technology has already been granted for
    Andrea Rossi’s energy catalyzer or e-cat device in May.

    This blog reports that three more patents for a similar
    nickel-hydrogen Cold Fusion device have been filed by Francesco
    Piantelli who did cold fusion research with Rossi’s partner Sergio
    Focardi has formed his own company NichEnergy to develop a similar low
    energy nuclear reactor.

    Rossi and other scientists with e-cat [ photo ]

    It is not known if these patents will affect Rossi’s efforts to patent
    the energy catalyzer in other countries.
    Rossi has licensed e-cat technology to Defkalion in Greece and
    AmpEnergo in the United States.
    No patents for the device have been granted outside Italy.

    Francesco Piantelli [photo ]

    It also unclear if Piantelli plans to challenge Rossi’s patent or if
    Rossi will contest Piantelli’s filings.
    Patent infringement lawsuits are common in some countries including
    the United States.
    If a legal battle did develop it is hard to say who would win. Rossi
    was the first to build, test and patent device.

    Piantelli reportedly does not have a working reactor, Rossi does.

    Yet Piantelli apparently made the discovery that led to the process in 1989.
    He also reportedly has devised a comprehensive theory to back up his
    research, which Rossi may not have….

    New (?) Piantelli group patent
    AUGUST 16, 2011
    tags: nichenergy, piantelli
    by Ivy Matt

    The title of a patent application recently filed by the Piantelli
    group has been revealed on the Italian Patent and Trademark Office

    metodo e apparato per generare energia mediante reazioni nucleari di
    idrogeno adsorbito per cattura orbitale da una nanostruttura
    cristallina di un metallo

    That is, “Method and Apparatus for Generating Energy through Nuclear
    Reactions of Hydrogen Adsorbed by Orbital Capture to a Metal
    Crystalline Nanostructure*”.

    If you’re feeling a sense of déjà vu, it’s because the Piantelli group
    filed a patent application on April 26 of this year with the exact
    same title.
    This newer patent application was filed on July 14.
    Presumably it covers a different aspect of the Piantelli group’s work
    than the April patent.
    Or perhaps it’s an amendment to the April patent.
    Because the contents of either patent are unknown, it’s difficult to say.
    The April patent will be published on October 27, 2012.
    The newer patent will be published on January 15, 2013.
    In most countries patent applications must be published 18 months
    after they are filed.

    Also, as mentioned in an update to my last post, Peter Gluck is
    reporting that Francesco Piantelli and Roy Virgilio are collaborating
    on a book titled Galileo e il metodo scientifico attraverso i secoli,
    or Galileo and the scientific method during the ages.

    *My translation, made for this post. After taking the time to read
    through the hypothesis proposed in Piantelli’s 2008 patent
    application, however, I feel that the phrase “hydrogen adsorbed by
    orbital capture” is incorrect, because the adsorption is a process
    that happens before the orbital capture. Any corrections by those who
    speak Italian are welcome.


    Review of Cold Fusion patents
    AUGUST 18, 2011
    by David J. French
    The following is the first in a series of articles by David French, a
    patent attorney with 35 years experience, which will review patents of
    interest touching on the field of Cold Fusion.

    This first review will address two patent applications filed based on
    inventions by Francesco PIANTELLI of Italy.
    Ivy Matt on August 16, 2011 in two posting on Cold Fusion addressed
    the recent initiatives of Piantelli, making extensive reference to
    Piantelli’s most recent published patent application filed in 2008, as
    well as further unpublished applications of April 16 and July 14, 2011
    (link here).
    This present posting will go to the beginning, comparing Piantelli’s
    earlier work with his more recent patent initiatives.

    Piantelli was one of the earlier researchers who, in 1995, pioneered
    combining hydrogen with nickel to produce anomalous excess energy.
    The two published patent references identifying him as an inventor are
    as follows:

    STIMULATED FUSION filed initially 27.01.1994 in Italy (link here)

    World applicant (except US): UNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI DI SIENA, Italy

    initially 24.11.2008 in Italy

    World Applicants (except US): Silvia and Francesco PIANTELLI, Luigi
    BERGOMI, and Tiziano GHIDINI, all of Italy (link here)

    Both of these applications are PCT filings.
    That is they are world filings made under the Patent Cooperation
    Treaty and do not represent patents.
    Rather, they are applications that have been filed through a central
    patent application processing mechanism, the PCT.

    These applications started with an initial filing in each case in Italy.
    Within 12 months corresponding upgraded applications were filed within
    the PCT system.
    Both applications were published as of 18 months from their Italian
    filing dates.
    As of 30 months from the original filing date, it’s required to exit
    the PCT and make national entry filings in individual countries.
    Today some 130+ countries can be accessed in this manner.
    Once a patent application has been prepared (which can cost
    $5000-$25,000 plus) an application can be filed in the PCT for around
    One benefit of a PCT application is that it will delay the deadline
    for making national filings until the 30th month from the earliest
    world filing date.

    The first Piantelli filing

    The first of the above applications eventually did produce national
    filings in Canada, Czechoslovakia, the European Patent Office,
    Finland, Mexico, New Zealand, Romania and Sweden.
    Patents were actually granted in New Zealand and by the European
    Patent Office but the corresponding application was refused in
    In other countries the applications may have been granted, refused or
    may have been abandoned during their pendency.
    The disclosure in all of these filings was identical to the PCT
    published disclosure.

    This list of countries is certainly different from what you would
    normally expect.
    Significantly absent is a filing in the United States.
    The Canadian filing was abandoned in 2003.

    Significance of filing and/or grant of a patent

    Not a lot of credit should be given to the fact that a patent
    application is filed or that a patent has been granted in terms of the
    legitimacy of the disclosure.
    Patent offices evaluate patent applications on whether they claim
    something which is new.
    Normally, they do not evaluate whether the inventions are good or even
    whether they work.
    The only exception is when the inventor proposes to patent something
    that a national patent office suspects will not function at all, e.g.
    a perpetual motion machine.
    Presently, the US Patent Office requires proof that Cold Fusion has
    actually been obtained if a patent application states that it has
    achieved Cold Fusion.
    If the requisite evidence is filed, then this objection to patenting
    can be overcome.

    The first Piantelli filing, continued

    The first application was filed in the name of an Italian university.
    Presumably, the sole inventor, Francesco Piantelli was a faculty
    member at the University at the time.
    Accordingly, he had probably agreed to transfer his rights to the University.
    The decision to file is likely to have been made by the University.
    Similarly, the decision to abandon filings or applications was also
    likely made by the University.

    This first filing is not relevant today for what it claimed as being a
    new invention in 1994.
    But it is relevant for what it discloses.
    Anything disclosed in an application once it has been published can no
    longer be patented by anybody, anywhere in the world.
    That is a fundamental requirement for the granting of patents everywhere:
    that they be focused on a feature which is new in the sense that the
    claimed feature has never previously been made “available to the

    This standard bars patenting for anything to which the public has
    already had access, whether it was available in writing, posted in an
    electronic database, or accessible through public use or sales.
    This is called the “prior art”.
    A patent applicant is also barred from claiming any obvious variants
    on the prior art.

    To limit the length of this posting, we will review the second
    Piantelli filing in the next posting.
    Meanwhile, readers will find it interesting to examine both patent
    documents by clicking on the links provided above.
    Explore the screens that these links will take you to.
    The PCT authority provides links to the description of the patent
    document and to the status of the application as it proceeds through
    the system.
    Of particular interest are the “claims” which the applicant wishes to
    eventually have approved for inclusion as part of a final patent.
    Claims define the scope of the exclusive rights granted under the patent.

    The claims as sought on filing rarely correspond to the claims as
    finally granted.
    An examiner in each national patent office will do a search and
    criticize the application, requiring corrections and changes.
    No changes can be made to the “story”.
    But the claims can be re-worded so that they are in proper form.
    To be in proper form, a claim must not describe anything that was
    previously available to the public.

    Patents often appear overwhelmingly complex to someone who is
    examining a patent for the first time.
    But once you get used to the experience, there is a vast world of
    valuable information available for those who are not intimidated.

    To help people understand the “story” in these Piantelli patents,
    reference can also be made to the second August 16, 2011 Cold Fusion
    Now posting of Ivy Matt concerning Roy Virgilio (link here).

    The next posting will address the second patent application and the
    further unpublished filings made by Piantelli in April and July of
    this year.

    David French is a retired patent attorney and the principal and CEO of
    Second Counsel Services.
    Second Counsel provides guidance for companies that wish to improve
    their management of Intellectual Property.
    For more information visit: .

    David French is prepared to address questions included as commentaries
    to any of his postings.
    In particular, he would like to learn what people need to know in
    order to better understand patents.

    Peter Gluck and others are talking up Francesco Pianelli:

    [ Posted by Peter Gluck at 6:52 AM ]


    WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2011

    How does apply Prof. Piantelli the Rules of Galileo in practice

    Applications of Galileo’s Rules in TM-LENR (from Piantelli’s messages)

    His experimental facts gathered in 20+ years of work in the most
    orthodox mode possible and following the 4 rules of Galileo — still
    not completed…have shown him a way (he has arrived to the 4th rule

    Note: When our intensive and, for me, very instructive and enjoyable
    correspondence has started — March 2010, he wrote about the state of
    facts in his own LENR research- in his laboratory from Colle di Val

    We are in the preindustrial phase.
    The reproducibility is 100%
    There are possible modulations of power of 50%
    We have already determined the primary reactions
    We have determined some of the secondary reactions
    We have made tests with other transition metals (besides Ni) and the
    results are excellent, in special for one of the metals used.
    The theory is in course of publication and I have sent you the abstracts.
    One of our cells has now worked in our lab at Colle di Val d’Elsa with
    good stability (fluctuations less than 5%)
    We have evidenced emissions of photons of high energy, continuously
    It is put in evidence a non-electrostatic potential difference between
    the extremities of the rod on which the metal clusters are deposited.

    In meantime, he made great advances and is working, in the spirit and
    the practice of the scientific method — on scale-up. (in 2010 he was
    on the intensity level of tens of Watts energy gain) [ more… ]

    Colle di Val d'Elsa or Colle Val d'Elsa is a town and comune in
    Tuscany, Italy, in the province of Siena.
    It has a population of c. 20,000 (2005).
    Its name means "Hill of Elsa Valley", where "Elsa" is the name of the
    river which crosses it.
    Today, Colle di Val d'Elsa is internationally renowned for the
    production of crystal glassware and art (15% of world production),
    largely produced in the industrial lower town. ]
    very colorful, also 2011 posts linked

    thermal electrochemical corrosion of the electric input power heating
    resistor in the Rossi device: Rich Murray 2011.07.19
    Tuesday, July 19, 2011
    [ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ]
    [ you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser ]

    Rich Murray, MA
    Boston University Graduate School 1967 psychology,
    BS MIT 1964, history and physics,
    1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 505-819-7388
    Skype audio, video rich.murray11 new primary archive
    group with 118 members, 1,625 posts in a public archive