Christos Stremmenos on Piantelli Patent

I received the following today which is a human translation from Italian to English of Christos Stremmenos’ recent comment regarding the European patent approval on the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

I was very much surprised, upon reading the “Description of Prior Art” in the publication of European Patent EP 2368 252 B1 (Jan 16th 2013, priority 24/11/2008) granted to inventor Francesco Piantelli, to find out that the inventor was said to have been working with nickel nano-powders since 1998. This is completely inaccurate. At that time, the only one who, together with Prof. Focardi, was making use of Ni and Pd nano-powders (prepared at Prof. E. Bonetti’s laboratory at the Department of Physics of the University of Bologna) was the present writer. I also know that Andrea Rossi had been working with nickel powders since the mid nineteen-nineties.

I had repeatedly consulted with Piantelli, who insisted that powders could not work — he explained why it was so with his more or less abstruse theories.

In my publication “Fusione fredda, Un dibattito che prosegue” ) [“Cold Fusion, an Ongoing Debate”], which appeared in La chimica e l’industria. Organo Ufficiale della Società Chimica Italiana, RICHMAC Magazine, N. 81, Aprile 1999, pp. 361-363), I reported on the results and methods used in the previous three years.

In this publication [p. 363] attention is brought to the structure of the samples used:
«Now, as far as the metallographic structure is concerned, we know that a metallic sample is composed of mono-crystalline grains, having variable dimensions at different textures.

Eliminating at least the variability in grain dimension is possible if one uses mono-crystalline and granulometrically homogenous metal powders in order to prepare, by light compression, samples of the appropriate size.

This determines an enormous increase in the interacting surface, and a homogenous statistical distribution of the various textures, including the most absorbent one, as well as of the defective state of the sample; these thus become reproducible on a percentage basis, irregardless of the sample’s thermal and mechanical history.

The current technique for preparing powders by grinding under vacuum allows one to obtain granulometric dimensions varying from several micrometers for micro-phases, to a lower limit of 10-15 nanometers for nano-phases. It is therefore possible to prepare samples with an ample range of granulometry» [...].

At the time, Piantelli was not only working with nickel rods, he was also saying that it wasn’t possible to get the the process to work with powders. One may gather that he got the idea of using powders by copying the work of others: mine, and Dr. Andrea Rossi’s. One cannot really understand how he was able to get his patent recognized, considering that his apparatus doesn’t work, and never did: Piantelli acknowledged his own publication on Nuovo Cimento, but no mention was made of the fact that in the following number of Nuovo Cimento (Vol. 102, No. 12), Prof. Zichichi and his team at the University of Bologna, where I also was teaching at the time, tested Piantelli’s apparatus and discovered that it didn’t work at all, and that all of Piantelli’s statements were unfounded. If you want to check the veracity of my statement, just look up the above-mentioned number of Nuovo Cimento – the most established Physics journal in Italy. How is it possible to grant a patent for a process that doesn’t work? Moreover, what’s the point of saying that an inventor, in order get a patent granted, must be able to allow an expert reader to reproduce the process? If the inventor, in this case Piantelli, wasn’t able to do anything, how can he say that he is enabling others to successfully implement a process which he himself cannot get to work? I would love to know how he managed to get his patent granted. It is obviously useless, both because the process doesn’t produce anything, and because Rossi had already patented a similar process. Rossi’s patent was granted in Italy: whether or not he gets an international extension for it, it’s obvious that nobody can patent something which has already been patented in any other country in the world where patent laws are recognized.

Andrea, go right on, don’t get discouraged — besides, I know that you are veritable lion.

Christos Stremmenos, Prof. of Chemical Physics, University of Bologna (Ret.); former Ambassador for Greece in Rome.

  • http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com Peter Gluck

    Just FYI, I have answered to all the explicit and implicit questions
    of Stremmenos here:
    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/01/the-anomalous-overreaction-of-prof.html

    Peter

  • Joannes Van den Bogaert

    To people involved with the e-Cat,

    Please look at the e-Cat Site “cold fusion catalyst” and consider
    also the article “The Fusion Revlution” and have then a judgement
    concerning the differences in operation between Rossi, Piantelli and DEFKALION.

  • Michael

    Can anyone help me on this. Is it a patent regarding a process or a device/apparatus to use for that process? It is a big difference between these things.

  • captain

    Why not asking Focardi for puzzle solution?

    First Piantelli with Focardi, then Rossi with Focardi ?!?

    From Siena university (Piantelli) it’s said that Rossi’s E-Cat spectrography has leaked down to Defkalion … so Piantelli should know well what’s inside Rossi’s reactor.

    I’m not a technician, but it’s not so difficult to understand that the truth lives in Italy and that E-Cat CF-LENR nationality is italian.

    As I’ve said time ago, give Piantelli what belongs to Piantelli and give Rossi what belongs to Rossi.

    GIVE SOON THE WORLD THE CF-LENR POWER SOURCE THRU A WORKING DEVICE. GRANT SOON DUE PATENTS!

  • http://lenr-canr.org/ Jed Rothwell

    I cannot find a paper by Zichini about cold fusion. Nothing in Nuovo Cimento (Vol. 102, No. 12) at Springer.com.

    Does anyone know about this?

    Here is a well-known paper describing a replication of Piantelli that did not produce anomalous results:

    Cerron-Zeballos, E., et al., Investigation of anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1996. 109A: p. 1645.

    “Summary. — Anomalous heat production in a nickel rod loaded with hydrogen has been reported by Focardi et al. (Nuovo Cimento A, 107 (1994) 163). We have investigated this phenomenon by repeating the experiment. We found the results previously published to be consistent with our observations; namely we measured higher temperatures for the same input power when hydrogen is absorbed during a heating cycle. Nevertheless this temperature rise does not appear to correspond to an increase in heat production. . . .”

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CerronZebainvestigat.pdf

    • http://lenr-canr.org/ Jed Rothwell

      Okay, I found the problem. Stremmenos is referring to the Cerron-Zeballos paper. The co-author Zichichi was spelled wrong in my EndNote database, so I could not find the name.

  • http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com Peter Gluck

    An European authority has established: the patent
    application WO 2010/058288 has the necessary qualities to become
    EP 2368 252 B1. The complain of Stremmenos is against this authority
    and his arguments are on a kindergarten level- about stories
    and statements that happened up to 10 years before the application
    i.e are not relevant.
    Piantelli’s patent is well written has a perfect logical consistency
    defines the new elements nanostructures and deep degassing for
    removing any alien gases.
    The message is a product of envy. Rossi could not obtain a
    patent for the descrption of a process that has not much to do with
    reality- he does not say what additives and treatment he really uses.
    You cannot have secrecy and patent re the secret procedure in the same time.
    Peter

  • Redford

    I think it should make clear for everyone that patents aren’t a form a validation by any means.

    • Chris I

      Industrial applicability is one of the fundamental requisites in patent legislation of adhering countries. The EPO granting the patent means that their employees found this requisite to hold up. It means that it describes a way of doing something which has a significant utility either as an industrial product to be sold, or as a method in the industrial production of something.

  • http://www.drboblog.com DrBob

    I must be missing something… somebody please enlighten me

    Why fight over a patent that does not work?
    (If it does n´t)
    Peace / Dr Bob

    • lcd

      I agree DB pretty intriguing.

      All I know is the longer independent verification takes, the more people are going to think Rossi is Armstronging the world.

      • robyn wyrick

        Armstronging? Is that a thing now? Very funny.

    • Peter_Roe

      “Why fight…” Probably because some part of the Piantelli patent describes something Rossi is using (fire enough bullets and you must hit something). He (or his backers) may be preparing the ground for a challenge on ‘prior art’ grounds, in this case through his friend Stremmenos, in order to remove a potential obstacle.

  • captain

    A good sign anyway. CF-LENR is real and the E-Cat is working well, too much well.
    The most difficult thing now is only to have enough patience to have the first prototype of 1MW hot plant operational and producing electricity in a big US plant of the new american partner.
    I’d be happy if within next summer: for me summer ends in sept.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I don’t know any patent law but is there something in patent law about getting a patent if an invention possesses “unexpected advantageous properties”? Does the E-Cat possess these “unexpected advantageous properties” when compared to other hydrogen-nickel systems? [After all, the world was forced to take notice of LENR only after the E-Cat came on the scene (that’s when the oil companies started selling their oil fields)].

    For example, USP 4,535,077 was granted for the insecticide Cadusafos even though it was claimed generically but not specifically in an older patent (USA 3,268,393 to Mobil). I think its lifetime in soil was much longer than Mobil’s insecticide Ethoprop (therefore fewer applications to the crop were required). So I think it put it into this “unexpected advantageous properties” category and this is why it was granted a patent (This is my guess. I’m not a patent attorney. It may also be that Cadusafos could not be synthesized by the synthetic route used in the Mobil patent).

  • http://www.american-reporter.com Joe Shea

    Prof. Strememmos was the great ‘lion’ – to use his phrase about Rossi – of Defkalion Green Technologies, too, which doesn’t really speak well for him and his observations.

    • Warthog

      You might recall that when Defkalions shenanigans started, that he left the company. And told the world precisely why.

  • Linda

    And so it begins…

  • Thomas

    Not sure who is right, but I take the quarrels over IP rights as a sign that there is something worth fighting for – a good sign!

  • daniel maris

    Stremmenos is always nothing if not forthright!