Rossi on Open Source, Again

Andrea Rossi again addresses the issue of open source in response to a comment from Remi Andre who appeals to him to release his IP to the world as a means to avert armed over energy — specifically in Syria. Rossi’s response:

I answered many times to this issue. To give away the IP will kill all the serious investments, for obvious reasons. We are making a rigorous work of test and validation and when it will have been finished our technology will reach a wide diffusion made by the concerns that now are investing because they have an IP.

My responsibility is to make this technology have the strongest possible backing to be really useful, not to go to the Nirvana. Honestly, I think we have to serve God not to go to the Nirvana, but to merit the life and give a sense to it. If you want to really diffuse a technology you need real backing, and no backing has ever been given to open source stuff. You have a paradigmatic example if you make a comparative analisys between Linus [Linux] and Microsoft. Should we give away the IP we would lose all the serious backers and should have a Brancaleon’s Armada of clowns
playing with it.

About the situation in Siria, I do not agree with you. The situation in Siria is enormously more complex than you say, even if today they always say that whatever happens of bad is born by the bad guys dealing with energy. As a matter of fact the sociological evolution ( revolution?) in Africa and Middle East has much more complex origins: it is the difficult awakening of a people that disrupts equilibria made by leadind classes that have not understood the line of evolution of History. Energy plays a marginal role in this situation.
Thank you for your kind and persistent attention, for which I conserve gratitude.

This is all consistent with what Rossi has said in the past. His position that no one would put substantial financial resources behind his technology if they did not think that they would have exclusive rights to it, and without that backing the E-Cat could not be developed to the level it needs in order to make a positive difference in the world.

I had to look up the reference to Brancaleon’s Armada, and it refers to an Italian comedy movie (L’armata Brancaleone) about an inept army led by a knight, and the term has come to mean in Italian “a group of badly assembled and useless people.”

I am sure there are many who will disagree with Rossi’s comparison to Linux and Microsoft. Linux seems to have been a great success in terms of open source development, with Linux serving as the kernel for such widespread programs as Ubuntu and Android which are used all over the world. Software, however, is a very different medium than building hardware like LENR reactors, and it would be much harder to organize an open source manufacturing network than a purely digital one.

I know there are plenty of people who disagree with Rossi’s approach but it doesn’t look like Rossi has had any change of mind of the strategy he intends to take. If the mechanism that powers the E-Cat becomes common knowledge we may see how successful an open source LENR project would be.

  • Ken

    Point is ….Rossi just wants his cookies and milk.

    • Roger Bird

      But they are HIS cookies and milk, HE invented them, and HE works 16 hours a day to bring them to market. I suggest that we substitute our envy with gratitude and patience.

      • Robert Ellefson

        Gratitude? Seriously? Rossi has earned my scorn, but not my gratitude. I’m glad that he seems to have accomplished something significant with his research, which was only made possible by people freely sharing their knowledge in exactly the manner that Rossi declares to be foolish. I am also disgusted by his greed and sneering disregard for the massive amounts of human suffering that could be stopped if he would just stop being so greedy and find a way to share the knowledge, mush like Fleischmann, Piantelli, and Focardi did in order for Rossi to have accomplished what he did.

        What, exactly, causes you to believe that patience for more of this harmful greed is warranted?

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          Robert, if Rossi had been a typical inventor, you would have never heard about him at this point. This forum would not exist and hundreds of amateur researchers would not be working to replicate P&F. Some of these recently inspired researchers are close to surpassing Rossi as a result of his willingness to talk about his invention.

          If Rossi had not gone public, where would you be directing your scorn and indignation?

          • Robert Ellefson

            Thanks to Prof. Focardi, I am in fact aware of the potential of LENR now. Prior to Focardi pushing Rossi hard to make an announcement, we were (mostly) in the dark while this technology progressed. I have Focardi to thank for this disclosure, from what I can tell, not Rossi.

            Your implicit suggestion that I would have scorn and indignation in need of directing even without knowing about LENR’s state is a false one. I was happily tending my own business when I first learned of this mess, and am in fact keen to return to minding my own business, sans scorn and indignation, thanks very much.

            In the meantime, the unpleasant reality of Rossi’s decisions have created what I sincerely regard as a moral imperative to action, one which I cannot in good conscience allow to remain unaddressed, so long as I can help it.

            • Iggy Dalrymple

              There are 10,000 other inventors out there toiling away, but not sharing their secrets. Imagine all that greed and disregard for human misery…..but since you’re unaware of them, your scorn and indignation would be deprived of a worthy target, except for your fortunate discovery of Andrea Rossi.

              Hell hath no fury….

              • Robert Ellefson

                I suppose now that you have reduced to ad-hominem attacks, (a woman scorned? seriously?) it would seem that this conversation has ended.

                If you seek considered replies, I suggest you forgo the cowardice of using a false identity, and then speak of matters of substance.

                • Iggy Dalrymple

                  You’re the scorn merchant. I don’t recall anyone using the word before you did.

                • Iggy Dalrymple

                  Mr. Ellefson, are you a “hot fusioneer”?

  • Allan Shura

    IP is intangible not a material tangible quality. It is expensive
    and one could have quality donations as the private trusts donate
    to the universities. The concept of free seems to evaporate when
    physical goods are needed such as the material place to develop
    and the physical goods to manufacture. Fewer donate to that end
    so freely even though there is some cost to both sides.

    • AlainCo

      I agree.
      I have participated the free software in the 90s (when discovering CF/LENR).

      Free software is easier than free LENR, because software can be replicated at no cost.
      The reason free software worked in the 80-90s is that IT department in corp and universities have big problem, and more time than budget.

      they solved their selfish problems, and shared the solution with a community of peer, who did the same without expecting anything sure.
      Norbert Alter talk of a “society of gift” , the concept of “gift and counter-gift”. It is not a transaction, but a cooperation state based on “best effort”, shared values, and some freedom to share (ie: management not controlling the IT department).

      today the IT department are more and more controlled, and the management refuse that IT iengineers give presnet to the rest of the population. they love free software when they benefit from it on the bottom line. it is a transaction, not a “gift/counter-gift economy”.

      A similar sharing culture was developed in Science, but as long as funding and glory is scarce, sharing is difficult.

      anyway I love the concept of patent as the transition of “publication” (a gift) against a transient monopoly… there are some parasites, but you should not dump all because of parasites.

      To develop a “gift society” in LENR one solution could be an initiative like LENR-Cities, where a network of small actors, scientists, startup, SMB, organize a cooperation zone , where they can get some federated protection from patent trolls and IP bandits, some shared funding from reinsured investors, some scientific advises …
      the secret of that kind of “gift society” is to let each actor own it’s ow IP, it’s own targets, but just allow some oil in the machine by sharing a little, and sharing protections (lawyers, finance, communication).

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    When a Chinese commune’s members bravely but secretly abandoned collectivism and embraced free enterprise.

    The approach greatly increased productivity. From 1978 to 1988 per capita agricultural output increased 65.1 percent through an average annual growth of 5.1 percent. Grain production rose 16.3 percent, some 1.5 percent annually. Improvement in rural labor productivity in that decade surpassed the total of the previous 29 years from 1949 to 1978.

    After villagers earned the right for individual agricultural production, great numbers of rural workers, no longer tied to communes, went to township factories, greatly improving the development of rural industries. By 1987 production value at township enterprises reached 450 billion yuan, more than 20 percent of the nation’s gross social production value.

    In 1978, grain production made up 67.8 percent of agricultural output, forestry contributed 3 percent, animal husbandry comprised 13.2 percent, subsidiary production was 14.6 percent and fisheries yielded 1.4 percent.

    By 1991, grain production comprised 57.2 percent of total farm products, forestry was 4.5 percent, animal husbandry was 26.4 percent, subsidiary production was 6 percent and fisheries were 5.9 percent.

    The rural responsibility system not only prompted a change in the means of agricultural production, but also lifestyle. No longer only producers for self sufficiency, farmers became commodity producers and managers. By the end of 1980s, China had established more than 1,800 agricultural trade markets and 7,600 free markets, helping facilitate the development of a market-oriented economy in the countryside.

    In the decade to 1988, rural per capita income reached 544.9 yuan, up 441 yuan from 1978 – and 3.6 times more than the total increase from 1949 to 1978.

    • Chris I

      What’s this got to do with Norwegian kangaroos?

      Again this is politics and it has nothing to do with how motivation works for creativity, invention and progress.

  • Pachu

    DARPA keeps budget on cold fusion project:


  • Christopher Dennis

    One thing that Rossi spoke of before that hasn’t yet been mentioned here is the PROTECTION he will receive from private partnership. Although Rossi in the past had been dismissive of conspiracies, lately he has spoken of real threats and ‘snakes’/forces that would be hostile to his efforts. The existence of these forces would likely not be a great surprise to many that have followed the E-cat, and one could imagine the many ways they could attempt to bring an end to the venture as we all know it, relegating Rossi to the obscurity of Pons/Fleischmann. I don’t think Rossi is protecting his intellectual property out of concern for his own profits, but to protect his idea from being squashed by more powerful forces/not making it to the mainstream. Private partnership, regardless of one’s views on socialism or capitalism/the right to intellectual property, affords a higher protection than ‘going it alone’. Although not perfectly analogous, the example of the artist in the music industry that decides to sign on with a label instead of going independent usually receives better promotion and dissemination of their music/brand than they could provide themselves. Rossi’s idea would likely be secure from being extinguished if it were broadcast for everyone on the internet, but I believe he feels that it wouldn’t be realized as quickly or effectively if he did so. Having his product reach mass production and mainstream consciousness would be a superior kind of protection from those threats that he now says are real. I believe Rossi is using friendly ‘monied interests’ to fight threatening ‘monied interests’ in a playing field where it is all about money. He is effectively saying that it is important that he leverage the profit motive as an important tool to get this idea manifested in the mainstream as products/technology. He could simply divulge what he has so far, but this would reduce substantially his ability to use the profit motive as leverage to push his idea as fast as possible to the marketplace.

    • fortyniner

      Yes that’s pretty much how I read Rossi’s motivation and consequential actions, too. However there is always the possibility that his chosen partner’s negotiators may have somewhat exaggerated their humanitarian intentions in order to close the deal, and acquire the technology.

      Time will tell, but personally I won’t feel comfortable until there are at least three players openly in the field, or an open source project has been able to replicate the ‘hot cat’.

      • Christopher Dennis

        The point is that their humanitarian intentions are irrelevant. I believe Rossi feels that his partners’ intention to profit massively from his idea is a greater safeguard to its full realisation in the marketplace, where he is up against the forces of Big Energy, than is their humanitarian aspirations.

        • fortyniner

          Rossi has made the point that his ‘partner’ was chosen on the basis that they appreared to share his philanthropic ideals of bringing CF to the masses as quickly as is feasible. If that factor is irrelevant then it becomes unlikely that the technology will reach the marketplace in the near/medium term future, or even at all.

          Massive profits can easily be achieved simply by licensing the IP to big players within the energy cartel for use in centralised powergen, without even considering the production of local/domestic power units. Tight control of IP would assure maximum profits.

          • Mirco Romanato

            There is no something like “Tight control of IP”.
            As Soon As the LENR technology is out in the wild and used by any industry, anyone cut out by IP will try to move seas and mountains to have the knowledge to implement LENR.

            It is the way of the free market.

            It could be 10 years, but they will develop it.
            It is a completely different approach to seek something you are not sure exist and to seek something you are sure exist.

            • fortyniner

              Actually I’m suggesting that LENR devices will not be on general sale for some time, for exactly that reason. I think the technology will stay within the existing energy cartel for as long as the IP can be monopolised by deploying it only under secure conditions within power stations.

              Of course the know how will eventually escape, but the first adopters (those who can acquire the necessary technology as it emerges) will have a massive head start.

    • Chris I

      You are totally shifting the point from one dichotomy to a distinct one, up until near the end of your post where, still, you confuse the one actually under discussion with your one and then neglecting the resonance which the matter already has and which would never get stamped out once his 11 herbs and spices become common knowledge. He is not an exordient artist, by any means at all.

      The matter of protection becomes nonexistent as soon as his secret hits the fan. The open source option is totally distinct from the one you shift it to. His partner is less safe from threats and obstructionism than a general public that has seen it plainly with their own eyes and can see it in their own garage, unless the purchase of both nickel and hydrogen become illegal, or some key ingredient of his recipe. But how much success have governments around the planet had in eliminating the market for heroin, cocaine, LSD and so on? Try stamping out the e-cat now, and try stamping it out after Col. Sanders has posted his secret across the web.

  • georgehants

    Wave goodbye to global warming, GM and pesticides
    Radio wave-treated water could change agriculture as we know it. Its Irish pioneers meet Tom Prendeville
    A GROUNDBREAKING new Irish technology which could be the greatest breakthrough in agriculture since the plough is set to change the face of modern farming forever.
    The technology – radio wave energised water – massively increases the output of vegetables and fruits by up to 30 per cent.
    Not only are the plants much bigger but they are largely disease-resistant, meaning huge savings in expensive fertilisers and harmful pesticides.
    Extensively tested in Ireland and several other countries, the inexpensive water treatment technology is now being rolled out across the world. The technology makes GM obsolete and also addresses the whole global warming fear that there is too much carbon dioxide in the air, by simply converting excess CO2 into edible plant mass.

    • fortyniner

      A stunning discovery – not only for the massive increase in agricultural productivity, but also for the new science that must be involved (I have to admit that I checked the article for 1/4 publication date, but it seems genuine).

      I wonder what would happen if you drank the stuff every day?

      • fortyniner

        OT: For those who want to look into this, the company websites are at and

      • fortyniner

        OT: Also there is another interesting article at and a blog thread discussing the topic (mostly back in March – generally incredulous) at

        • georgehants

          Thanks Peter, another interesting connection, maybe.
          New Research Supports The Theory That Water Has Memory

        • GreenWin

          Dear Warrenstown Horticultural College
          and the Chemical & Environmental
          Science Dept., University of Limerick, Ireland,

          Having recently read a scientific “paper” based on nonsense experiments by your friends; I have a word for you all – “Poppycock.” There is no more truth to water energizing with radio waves than there is to life on Mars. If your claims were true, why is it that a glass of water sitting next to a Citizens Band radio (operating at 27mHz) is not “vitalized” to certain sweetness and volatility?? It is not.

          You and your clan of bogus “scientists” are clearly a fraud attempting to bilk the public with dreams of sumptuous tomatoes fertilized by no less than unicorn poop! Breakthrough science is the exclusive domain of those of us equipped and educated in the reality of Oxford or Cambridge. To suggest that such a water treatment works and has been invented by scientific pedestrians at Limerick college is… a salacious poem. You will not get away with it!!


          Hugh Grant
          CEO Monsanto, Europe

      • Pedro

        for what’s worth… here’s a report:

    • Jimr

      If it sounds too good to be true,it most likely is. Good by, fertilizer, excess CO2, pesticides, no way. It may assist but is most likely way overrated.

  • georgehants

    Wave goodbye to global warming, GM and pesticides
    Radio wave-treated water could change agriculture as we know it. Its Irish pioneers meet Tom Prendeville
    A GROUNDBREAKING new Irish technology which could be the greatest breakthrough in agriculture since the plough is set to change the face of modern farming forever.
    Also in this section
    Datalex revenues up in first half
    Healthcare firm United Drug buys Canadian market unit in €11.2m deal
    INM reports significant progress on restructuring, operating profit up 8.6pc
    The End Of Britain
    The technology – radio wave energised water – massively increases the output of vegetables and fruits by up to 30 per cent.
    Not only are the plants much bigger but they are largely disease-resistant, meaning huge savings in expensive fertilisers and harmful pesticides.
    Extensively tested in Ireland and several other countries, the inexpensive water treatment technology is now being rolled out across the world. The technology makes GM obsolete and also addresses the whole global warming fear that there is too much carbon dioxide in the air, by simply converting excess CO2 into edible plant mass.

    • Roger Bird

      I have not yet read the article about radio waving water for increased crop production, but it sounds like how homeopathy is “potentized”. This discovery could either be ignored because it is difficult to explain or will blow the academic and scientific PTB out of their ivory towers.

      This also has importance for those who are complaining about electromagnetic pollution.

      I look forward to reading this article with extremely keen anticipation. Thank you, George. This is going to be huge.

  • georgehants

    If one turns the problem around and asks —-
    Are there people in the World suffering through the current economic system? then I think most people would answer in the affirmative.
    Therefore rather than pointless circular debunking of all present systems from all sides, it may be more intelligent to say, we live in a different time and should have learnt much from the successes and failures of the past, let us change the system to improve life for the most amount of people and not allow those “with” to take unfairly from those “without.”
    Every person who denies (from any political position) that the current situation could not be improved is clearly unable to observe the World with Empathy.

  • Omega Z

    I find it Ironic that Rossi brings up Linux. Future versions will be commercialized. No more free. But likely cheap.

    Computers BIOS is being replaced by a new System. It will forbid the user from downloading or installing software that hasn’t been vetted & provided an Embedded Validation code. It’s automatic at start-up.

    Present discussions are to allow the user to disable this in the intermediate period, But the future is still uncertain. Some Major Linux developers have already agreed to some of the terms to keep from getting locked out of the discussions.

    Microsoft is big on it & somehow gets a lot of say over what gets a validation key. But I think it also has a lot of push coming from Homeland security &or NSA. Tougher to hack when a machine wont except your code. And supposedly that is the story behind it. Hacking, viruses Etc..

    Whether Future systems can be disabled of course is of no significance considering the other possibility.

    Once critical mass reaches a certain point, Web sites could deny you access if your new systems been disabled. Thus forcing it on you or give up your access to the net.

    I’m aware of this because I just built a new system. I do selective install & seeing the new system in the files did some checking into the details.

    Apparently I have a transitional system. I can run with BIOS or the New system. If like some i just clicked & let it do it’s own complete Install, I’d be scratching my head wonder why certain software wouldn’t work.

    Actually I haven’t read all the details yet. I don’t know if it defaults to lock out or not or gives an option during install. Or maybe/likely has an interface window to toggle it. It is after all an intermediate system.

    Personally, I think this sucks. Government Reasoning is never what they claim it is. Likely these new system will openly allow Government software to browse you system at will. They will have the Key…

    • TimB

      Actually, after reading that, I think free speech sucks.

    • Ted-X

      Monitoring (already in place) supplemented with total control: IT EXCEEDS Orwell’s vision.

    • Omega Z

      This is the system destined to replace BIOS- “UEFI”

      Make no mistake- This is a Full Operating System in itself with internet accessibility. Not a simple Basic Input/Output System.

      It’s Origin started with Intel as “EFI” turned over to further outside development.

      It is being accepted by most of the Industry (Including Intel, AMD, ARM Chip manufactures) And is/will be the Standard. Some standards have already been set. Others as to how far this goes are still in discussion. Not all see (I to I)

      One of the questions on a UEFI Forum.

      Q: Can all systems disable UEFI Secure Boot?

      While it is designed to protect the system by only allowing (authenticated) binaries in the boot process, UEFI Secure Boot is an optional feature for most general-purpose systems. By default, UEFI Secure Boot can be disabled on the majority of general-purpose machines.
      “can be disabled on the majority” Only for now…
      My System still contains a BIOS & will function with either system (Transitional). Future systems will have UEFI only & the option to disable this scheme hasn’t yet been determined.

      One of the debates is whether disabling will be allowed in future releases. MS wants it locked enabled. I Don’t know why MS has so much say in it other then their the Big Dog. Note MSoft has been trying to kill duel boot systems with their new releases, but due to pressure may bend on this.

      Also read It not only wont load a Non validated file in the boot process, But will actually remove it as in (delete-Not confirmed). UEFI will work from an internal data base to determine validity of a system file. I assume updated regularly from the net.

      Also said to have a Virtual Mode. (Apparently has some AI built into it, Or maybe enabled by it’s Net Access.) If it suspects a compromised System File, it can actually run it in the virtual mode & trace it’s actions without actually acting on you machine. These actions could cause it to be quarantined, likely reported, maybe deleted.

      The Rollout is already in process.
      Although the Security aspect is good, This is an Operating System that no doubt (Someone other then you) has Total access to on your computer. A Note here. Microsoft rolled Hotmail into outlook express. Yet had Given the NSA the keys to the vault 2 months prior to officially doing this. Cart blanch.

      Regardless of what system a person uses Msoft or 1 of many flavors of Linux, Many of us probably use some open source free or share ware. This should be of concern to all. These sources may disappear.

  • Omega Z

    Rossi can’t make this open source now even if he wanted to. It’s no longer his to give. It Belongs to Leonardo corp & the partner. And maybe just the Partner.

    Those who’ve followed closely are aware that Rossi & His wife transferred the technology to Leonardo & it’s investors. & According to Rossi are now engaged in a partnership.

    And that doesn’t matter because, If open sourced, it wouldn’t take many incidences where physical & financial harm came to people, It would be banned to the Realm of the Corporate World.

    The benefit of IP & Corporate manufactured products is that it will be standardized, Which means, Other companies will invest in the development of Heat Absorption chillers, Generator systems & such.
    Providing you with something other then just a supplemental heating system.

    Another thing to consider is if it were open sourced, 4 to 6 years of research would be involved before big corporations started cranking these things out. They would have to find a unique way to make it function that could be patented before they would put any serious investment in it. All investments are risky. When investing hundreds of millions or billions, Certain levels of risk become unacceptable. No IP falls into this category of spending.
    All this aside, The foreseeable future for E-cat technology is Industrial use, supplemental residential heating in the winter and Local distributed Electrical power. A Cheaper Utility bill.

    Seriously. I think many people grossly over estimate the E-cat when thinking of home use. The Average sized home being built in the U.S. will need at least 2 10Kw E-cats & a Large Heat tank reservoir or a 3rd 10Kw E-cat to provide heating.

    If you have a 10Kw E-cat running a generator, Best have a Large battery pack. Otherwise, if you have an electric range for cooking, Best if you like your food raw & cold. It just wont cut it. Not a single burner. Or have a Gas range or enjoy all your food microwaved.
    Dry laundry, Get a cloths line.

    It is possible to incorporate the E-cat in a fashion to relieve some of these issues, but if you have that much spare cash, you probably don’t worry about Utilities anyway.

    Another thing to consider. The small unit Rossi proposes for supplemental winter heat that sets in your basement. Probably not a problem. But when engaged for power generating at other times, Probably will require a separate building from your home & a heat-sink of some type for heat dissipation.

    The E-cat itself. For safety & proper function, It is a hermetically heat sealed core. The Charge is toxic & if the hydrogen leaks out, it no longer functions. When Rossi talks of a recharge, He actually means exchanging the entire core. The Old one returned where proper equipment & personnel can safely dismantle, clean, inspect & refill the core for reuse.

    I assume when they hermetically heat seal the core, it creates somewhat of a vacuum. Not perfect, but works. Something many here probably have overlooked. Rossi like MFMP purges the system in this way.

    Bottom line about this story- Regardless how it’s done, it’s going to take a couple decades. Fossil fuel aren’t the only thing in high demand with soaring prices. Most all the materials for the E-cat & Power generating technology are also. Going to need a lot more iron ore for starters & the copper saved on Long power lines will be dwarfed by the demand for the extras the E-cat technology will need.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi
    August 29th, 2013 at 1:27 PM

    To the Readers:
    We of the JoNP decided to publish in September in the Journal of Nuclear Physics the lessons of Mathematics that I got from Prof. Sergio Focardi four years ago, when I asked him mathematical help for theoretical calculations. He gave me few very intense and useful pages that have been extremely useful to my work, so I hope these pages will be useful to all our Readers studying LENR.
    My mentor and friend Sergio Focardi will continue to teach also from where he is now to our community.
    Warm Regards,

  • Al S

    Rossi’s right!

  • iggy dalrymple

    Socialism at Jamestown resulted in cannibalism.

    • iggy dalrymple

      Jamestown never thrived until the socialists ate each other.

      • Roger Bird

        I agree with Iggy.

      • Roger Bird

        Iggy, I think that colonist in Massechusetts had to rethink socialism that first year. In Jamestown, I don’t that that was the problem. The Jamestown folks were surrounded by extremely hostile natives and very ill swamps. Although, I could be wrong. I have seen a multi-episode documentary about Jamestown, and I don’t recall them saying anything about socialism. Starvation, a serious lack of hospitality from the natives, and the swamps was the problem.

        • Cliff

          I’ve been around long enough to know that most of the docomentaries, particularly about the early American experience conveniently leave off things that don’t abide with the world view of the writers.

          My understanding of Jamestown was what you said. Hostiles, bad land, whatnot. What I know now is that they made the land common and that the people generally did not work it and tried to get something for nothing. When they divided the land up so each family had responsibility for their part and REAPED THE REWARDS of their labor, things turned around that year.

          It wasn’t called Socialism then. But it was still a bad idea. People nearly always do best when they make decisions in their own best interest and it is nearly always best for society at large as well.

        • Iggy Dalrymple
      • Shane D.

        Agree Iggy. Reminds me of that famous Thatcher quote:

        “Socialism is great until you run out of other people to eat”

        • Cliff

          Different spin on Thatcher, but I like it!

    • Linda

      Are you trolling, or are you sincerely ignorant?

      Crop failures and lack of preparedness caused the failure of Jamestown.

      “Socialism” did not exist as a political philosophy at that time.

      • Roger Bird

        Socialism as a practice was initially practiced in Plymouth colony for the first year or so, almost certainly as the result of religious thought. But it was abandoned because it did not work. So they switched the next year and the rest is history, the history of the United States. Socialism as a theory is irrelevant to the fact that the practice does not work.

      • clovis


    • Jim

      The good news is that now the plutocrats only eat people’s life force, not their bodies.

      • Roger Bird

        Jim, that was most excellent. Does this make the rich a bunch of vampires?

        Other things that eat our life force is harboring victimhood thoughts, resentments, envy, greed, lust, low self-esteem, etc. etc. etc. Usually we are our own worst enemy.

        • Buck


          you are being willfully naive about what some of the very wealthy or business people are very willing to do for the purpose of profits.

          Have you forgotten the 2005 energy bill marshaled through the house and senate which exempted the Oil/Gas Fraking industry from many of our Health and Safety Regulatory laws.

          As a consequence, the industry does not have to report what is contained in their Fraking fluids for business reasons. So when citizens become ill due to the presence of chemicals not native to their normal environment but present in Fraking efluvia . . . the Oil/Gas companies in question after some word-smithing in effect say . . . prove it was us; we followed the standards set out by the government.

          In this instance, business profits were placed above public health. Who is serving whom in this capitalistic republican democracy?

          What would you suggest to be the term for that sort of behavior?

          Or would you rather say that I’m incorrect?

          For me, the reality is that people are a mixed bag. To paint all as equally good is as incorrect as painting all as equally bad.

          • GreenWin

            How much cleaner, more equitable, healthier we will all be when Ing Rossi and partner(s) deliver an electric generator operating over-unity.

            • Buck

              I don’t think it prudent to confuse the benefits provided by a tool of humanity (LENR) towards energy production with a change in human nature or human culture and a consequent impact on equity or equity distribution.

              Will humanity benefit from LENR? Yes. Will the global ecosystem benefit by the potential reduction of humanity’s CO2 emissions by nearly 100%? Certainly.

              But, it is an unappealing fact that humanity ‘controls’ equity through its political processes and cultural institutions. This is why the idea of treating some level of baseline LENR engineering as a ‘public good’ holds so much power in my estimation. If done well, this ‘public good’ acts as a counter veiling force to those who currently control Energy and to those who look to gain control of Energy as humanity transitions to LENR.

              But, it has to be done well because you are playing in the sandbox with some who are like the executives of the tobacco industry who so famously lied directly to Congress when saying that they KNOW tobacco is not addictive. I do not believe MFMP executives fully understand this fact. And, that is not good.

              • GreenWin

                Mostly agree Buck. The “nuclear village” cartel in Japan/US essentially does what tobacco did.

                Were this world not set up as a game with silly little challenges and pedantic motivational ploys, your public good idea might work. Until such time as the simulation is modified to limit competition as its criterion for success – such ideas are doomed to good will of philanthropists.

                • Buck

                  I believe a limited understanding of ‘Open Source’ has diminished our ability to understand and recognize existing concrete examples in the modern capitalistic societies.

                  Let me use the example of Farmer Cooperatives (FC). Before their existence, the buyer of farm goods held far more bargaining power than individual small family farms and the buyers worked that power. This of course pissed off the hard working farmers and they came together to form FC as a means to balance the negotiating power.

                  For LENR, we have the individual buyers of energy and Big Energy controlling a $5T global industry.

                  ‘Open Source’ (OS) is the construct of the individual buyers looking to balance the obvious economic power of Big Energy. The development and protection of a baseline LENR engineered product by an LENR OS organization aids in balancing the divergent economic interests.

                  It does not remove competition. If anything, it expands competition because the individual is now represented by an 800 pound gorilla that refuses to be ignored or stopped by Big Energy.

                  To repeat, OS Expands Competition and that really pisses off Big Energy.

              • GreenWin

                Good points Buck. I see Big Energy suffering a series of harsh wake-up calls recently. Especially in the USA. In January Edison Electric Inst. warned that Distributed Energy Resources was going to disrupt century old grid structure.

                Germany demonstrates DERs (PV & wind) have taken so much fossil market share they are quitting and moving to Turkey. NATURE just published an article predicting the massive failure of US grid. Big electric like NRG is dumping fossils and building microgrids to accommodate DERs.

                Opens Source AND collectives will appear once the technology is commercially demonstrated. Until that time, Rossi and partners are planning a roll out at low cost of entry. In the end all forms of Open and proprietary LENR will rapidly dismantle old grid and replace it with DER-driven microgrids.

                • Iggy Dalrymple

                  The Open Sourcers here are for opening your stuff, not their stuff.

          • Roger Bird

            Buck, you are incorrect in thinking that I said what you think that I said. Nothing in my comment could be construed to imply that I did not think that big business isn’t scummy way too often. My point was that if we want to fight the life force vampires we don’t have to take on big corporations. Said vampires are rampant in our own minds in the form of victimhood thoughts, resentments, envy, greed, lust, low self-esteem, etc. etc. etc.

            • Buck

              Roger, I still think you meant what I perceived from your comment. However, life is change.

              Regarding your thoughts about what is rampant in the unenlightened mind, I certainly agree. How we arrived at that understanding, as well as the many in history before us, is a great conversation.

              But, I disagree about the implications of whether to respond to some big corporations’ anti-social behavior after we’ve recognized our own psychological/spiritual limitations which you outlined.

              Objective examples of human predation upon human kind still calls for an appropriate response both individually and socially. The source of moral/ethical judgment is not impacted or changed by our removal of the failings you outline.

              • Roger Bird

                My thought on how to deal with Monsanto involves highly illegal activities and two 22 caliber machine pistols.

                • Buck

                  You joke with me . . . you are not responding from that Mindful place you described earlier.

                • Roger Bird

                  Buck, no, I am responding from righteous rage. (:->) I am surprised that Frank left that post in.

                • Buck

                  Fair enough. I can certainly appreciate where you are coming from.

                  Cheers. 😉

    • Barry

      Iggy you should get a job with Rush Limbaugh in the Republican dogma department, Roger too.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer


      • clovis

        please guys there is other fourms for this kind of conversations so take this crap elsewhere,

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        BTW, I’ve donated to 4 energy groups, 2 on a regular monthly basis. 2 are open source, the other 2 not. I’ve offered to donate a substantial amount to a struggling inventor whose idea, IMO, is more promising than Rossi’s. He politely declined my offer. This inventor plans to go partially open source….open free source to DIYers for personal use, but requiring licensing and royalties for commercial production. He figures the DIYers will keep the commercial partners honest.

        • Barry

          Those are great contributions Iggy, thanks, but when you compare Hiroshima to Detroit and blame it on a Liberal government and when you state a couple of boat loads of people in Jamestown failed under a socialist system (They didn’t by the way. They abandoned Jamestown but turned the boats around when they ran into a supply boat that was on the way and went back to thrive as a colony.) these slanted examples are so twisted they become dogma. Lets seek the truth regarding society and Cold Fusion. Otherwise it becomes a big waste of energy.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            You have your worldview and I think you’re wrong. We agree on LENR and other new improved energy systems.

            My ancestors were at Plymouth, but it was about 20 years after the socialists ate each other.

            • Barry

              “My ancestors were at Plymouth, but it was about 20 years after the socialists ate each other.” Iggy, you got to be kidding.

              • Iggy Dalrymple

                They set up an iron works in Plymouth before they moved to Lynne.

                “Beside their nominal connection with the church, Henry Leonard and his sons also possessed skills which were of considerable value to the community. Almost from the beginning of English colonization, plans were made for establishing an iron industry in North America. In the early 1600s, men such as Captain John Smith and Sir Francis Bacon pointed out the advantages that North American iron production would enjoy, chiefly abundant iron ore and streams to provide water power.(8) Dwindling resources in England, particularly the timber that was required to make charcoal, led to a willingness among established iron producers to invest in building ironworks in the colonies. Once facilities were built, however, it was necessary to staff them with laborers already skilled in the iron making process. According to Innes, this was “difficult and dangerous labor that tended to attract–and produce–semi-brutalized workers.”(9) Skilled workers were needed in mines, in the furnaces and forges, and in the charcoal pits. Workers who made charcoal, known as colliers, were perhaps the most skilled in the iron trade. Their craft involved the careful arranging of as many as thirty cords of wood into piles which were then burned, creating the charcoal. The smoldering piles had to be tended constantly for as long as a week, with the collier making adjustments to prevent the pile from caving in or burning unevenly.(10) Colliers and the other skilled workers needed to man the colonial Ironworks were generally recruited in England, as were the Leonard family who, according to Innes, “may have been recruited from kinsman Richard Lennard’s furnace in Brede, Sussex (in the Weald).”(11) Innes places the arrival of the first of the “extended clan” at the Hammersmith Ironworks at Lynn in the mid-1640s.(12) Court records dealing with the branch of the Leonard family that settled in Essex County span the years 1649 to 1679 and provide some insight into the integration of iron workers into Puritan society.”
                from “The Leonards of Lynne”

  • Abundance


    Its a very interesting quote you got there because I heard another quote going something similar to: “the only time this technology will be accepted by the public is when there is working products lowering energy bills”

    I dont know who Rossi is refering to, mfmp, defkalion or some wild card but Rossi must accept the rules of the game he himself is playing.
    Did he not also say that competition is good?

    A statement that open source would damage investments in this area, YES … MAYBE… however, is there substancial proof that these money is changing hands anyway?

    The way Im thinking about this highly hypothetical situation, what if Rossi himself was the underdog… would he then worry about the potential investments of his competition if he though he had a chance to become the first person in the world who publicly could be considered to have commercialized this technology or any technology very similar to it?

    If Rossi is worried about open source he could do whatever everyone else do in the corporate world, buy up the competition to avoid the risk being run over by someone moving faster up the food chain.
    (and hope they would accept)

    I think the world is open source and our economy should be as well.

    I wonder if this is really keeping Rossi awake at night?

    Also its fun how he make an analogy where he pictures himself as Microsoft… if so, he had to worry more about Apple than Linux… or maybe even worse, a hybrid between Apple and Linux

    • Bob

      Actually, his analogy to Microsoft is relevant in the way that microsoft began by pilfering the CPM operating system, doing a few small changes to it, and then changing the names of the intruction set before releasing it as their own new invention. It was not.

      This has remarkable similarities to Rossi’s aquisition of the basic ideas from Piantelli, who, I might add, actually holds the valid patent for it.

      • Abundance

        My Irony and Sarkasm dectector just went of

  • Jim

    “We can share what we got of yours, cuz we done shared all of mine.”
    Jack Straw, Grateful Dead

    Since Rossi himself is the key, maybe it’s good that he’s concerned about his funding sources. Do we really want him out fund raising, or becoming an employee of GE?

  • Roger Bird

    I type this to you from my Linux Mint OS. Windows is a piece of wet sloppy poo compared to Linux. My system boots in less time than I can get my ear-buds in my ears to listen to my music. I have to put the ear-buds in first before I turn on the machine so that when I turn on my machine I can hear the beginning of the music. I have exactly zero concern about viruses. Is it possible that some significant percentage of viruses are written by people who are frustrated by Microsoft Windows creating such crap? I have not paid for software in years thanks to open-source software.

    And I thought that Nirvana and God were the same thing.

    But I still love Andrea Rossi and I respect his right to keep the secret to himself and make a whole bunch of money. Who else can most wisely distribute and spend the billions that he is going to make? By making his billions (hopefully), he has proven that he is the best person to spend and distribute it.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Competition is the mother of invention. Without the competition to build something no one else has built for the profit and power, there is very little incentive to create.

    • Chris I

      Indeed it will be better when he’s got plenty of competitors.

      Ooops, better for all except him, of course.

      • Cliff

        Actually, it’s better for him too. Competition drives new ideas and enriches everyone. Rossi without competition will be less motivated and will produce less.

    • Pratyeka

      Need is the mother of invention.
      Greed is the motivation behind IP and commercializing that invention.

      • Cliff

        What kind of bumper sticker economics is that? You must be a socialist. Socialism never, ever works. Read some books on economics.

        • Roger Bird

          Even though Barry has consigned me to the Rush Limbaugh Show, it is not true that socialism never, ever works. In families it almost always works. Even today I volunteered to water the flowers even though it wasn’t in my interest to do so, because I wanted to make my wife happy. The library works. The street department works.

          It is really about how much we care about each other as individual human beings, NOT as “the people”, some faceless mass of people that socialists and communists always talk about. My neighbor mowed our tiny lawn recently which is adjacent to her yard, because she cared enough and knew that I was semi-lame. When we understand in our hearts that we are all One, then we will WANT to work together and still respect and appreciate each others individualities, the perfect blending of individualism and collectivism. Until then, we thrash about fighting each other trying to make sense of our political instincts.

          The short version of this is: Love is the answer. And it can’t be manufactured through ideology or will. We have to believe it and feel it.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            Roger wrote, “Even today I volunteered to water the flowers even though it wasn’t in my interest to do so, because I wanted to make my wife happy.”

            Yeah, but Ayn Rand said there is no such thing as altruism. We all do what pleases us or causes us the least pain.

            • Roger Bird

              Ayn Rand and people of her ilk had no altruism, so they project their malady on to everyone else and say that there is no altruism in anyone.

              It all depends upon one’s definition or vision the ultimate nature of the Self.

          • Barry

            As sappy as it sounds, your right Roger Love is the answer above all answers. Regarding the rest, in the US we have free roads, education, bail outs, oil subsidizing, etc. We are far from being a totally capitalististic country. Would you want to live anywhere else under another system? We are a great experiment of socialism and capitalism mixed together. Our arguments are where the lines should be.
            I also agree with your opinion of Ayn Rand. She was much to egotistical and self centered to form a system around.

            • Roger Bird

              I like roads. I know that they are socialistic.

              But I fear the majority. This is why cold fusion gets no attention or funding. The majority opinion is that cold fusion is bunk, and the majority thinks that very strongly. The majority enforces its opinion mostly via government. So a smaller government with more respect for the Constitution and individual rights is what I want. We are having the exact same problem with alternative health, naturopathy, homeopathy, chiropractic, and etc. The MDs don’t like the competition and so the majority doesn’t believe in it, and the majority uses the government to enforce its will and suppresses the only healing modalities that I like and believe in.

              • Cliff

                Roads are not socialist. They are in everyone’s self interest. Socialism is redistribution of wealth. Roads, unless they are just crony political things to get elected, like Amtrak, are in everyone’s self interest.

                And, you are wise to fear the majority. That’s why the US government was set up as a Constitutional Republic (not a Democracy) to protect minorities. It was set up with a separation of powers to protect everyone from the Government itself. Direct Democracy in which the simple majority rules, always ends up with tyrrany.

                And I agree with you about healing modalities. I hate the fact that politicians can be affected by big business, big medicine, big anything. That’s crony capitalism and it NEVER works.

          • Cliff

            Interesting contradiction. You say that you volunteered to water the flowers even though it wasn’t in my interest to do so, but immediately contradicted yourself when you said you wanted to make your wife happy. I’m not saying that your own interest is always narrowly confined to making money or is exclusive of other people’s interest. Win/win is what capitalism is all about. Win/lose is always a loser for both. When I go after my own self-interest, that doesn’t mean that I don’t pay taxes to have roads or clean water. Those are in my interest too.

            Love is indeed the answer, but what do you mean by that? Most people mean affection. I mean having someone else’s best interest in mind. That could mean helping someone that truly needs it and it could mean denying help to someone who doesn’t.

            I’m always doing things for people in one way or another, but it is in my self-interest to do that. Don’t you know that tax records show that capitalists are the most generous people and socialists are the most stingy? Conservatives are not generous because they get a tax break, although that might help, they’re just generous.

            And finally, ROADS and INFRASTRUCTURE ARE NOT SOCIALIST. Socialism is taking from producers and giving to non-producers BY FORCE. You guys always forget the part where it is not voluntary and it is always by force.

            • Roger Bird

              Cliff, there are many people driving on the roads who are not producers. They have not paid for the roads. My family uses the library often and we did not pay for it. What we have in the modern world is a mixture of socialism and capitalism. I just think that we are moving too much in the direction of socialism.

              My dogs are extremely affectionate. But when I howl in pain from a pinched nerve, they couldn’t care less. OTOH, when I typed about my pain on this forum, one of you dudes offered me $100 without strings to help pay for my medical care. From someone I never met. That is love.

              I think that the trouble you are having about win/win and love and blah blah and all that is that you define the self and you take the self to be finite. I do not think that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my brother.

              I feel that. I celebrate that. And this little self that I usually am must be careful to care about others if I am to have the honor of experiencing the big Self.

        • Chris I

          You see political propaganda everywhere, don’t you?

          • Cliff

            No, I don’t, but I know it when I see it.

      • Chris I

        Need vs. Greed. Cute. But it ain’t that simple.

        There is such a thing as retribution. Many folks that have come up with things could afford to spend the time and resources on it and didn’t do it so much for their own need, sometimes not even for the need of others. Typically, the motivation is some combination of achievement and ROI but it varies a lot with each case.

        In some cases, the person had their own resources and could afford the time (e, g. Edison after having been given a small fortune by some tycoons). In many, many other cases the person/people are salaried by an employer; achievement is their main motivation but this is the way they can afford the time as well as have the resources available, but most such employers are just plain investing.

  • clovis

    HI, GUYS.
    I’m as impatient as anyone,have been following this for years, but I can tell you that if I had spent all of a great inheritance, on my invention, I would protect it as well,and you must remember, that all is well, and it will only take some time to tie up loose ends, and when he releases his product, there will be no dismissing it as real, but you go ahead against Dr. Rossi’s wishes and try to get the msm or others to bring this discovery out to the public (YOU) will be the one that gets this great discovery, suppressed, (he does not need or want it to come out right now for a reason) now if you think you know better than Dr. Rossi, go make your on discovery, if not shut up and set down, everything is going to plan. as hard as it is to wait I will, with hopes that with our great heavenly father guiding his hand, this will come true for all of us. this time.

    • Jimr

      Do you have any idea what the plan is when you say everything is going as planned?

      • clovis

        yes i do, and if you had been paying attention so would you.
        maybe you would like to explain why it is you think it is not on track.

        • Boris Ivanoff

          Well, I don’t know Rossi’s plan and whether it is on track or not. It is disappointing, however, that there is no megawatt plant for anyone to see, working at a customer’s location. And there are no ecats for sale for home use and nobody has said who the mysterious “certificators” are.

          Considering that Rossi’s original patent application said that an E-Cat device was installed on Oct. 16, 2007, and is “at present perfectly operating 24 hours per day, and provides an amount of heat sufficient to heat the factory of the Company EON of via Carlo Ragazzi 18, at Bondeno in the province of Ferrara.” I think it should be possible for the public to view an operating ecat somewhere!

          At best, Rossi is a lot behind schedule!

          • clovis

            that’s just wrong the ecat is on seclude and when it starts production I’m guessing sometime next year. it will be the fastest anything of it’s comparable complexity has ever came to market, period.
            be glad that Dr Rossi is doing thing as fast as can be possible, we want a good product, not some half _ss prototype.

            • Boris Ivanoff

              I hope you’re right, Clovis. It’s just that 2013 – 2007 = 6+ years seems a very long time to go from a “perfectly operating” factory heater to a … well … a commercially available factory heater!

              • Christina

                Perhaps the problem isn’t the E-Cat, but the motor it runs. Isn’t Mr. Rossi having trouble finding a suitable motor? Isn’t that what he’s been looking for?

                • Boris Ivanoff

                  Rossi is looking for a suitable means to make electricity. That’s fine. But an ecat that makes only heat at steam temperature is still very useful. If you doubt it, ask the Scandinavians, the Russians, and anyone else who lives in a cold climate.

              • Tom59

                Rossi’s optimistic comments aside, if you compare this with fuel cells, solar cells, hot fusion – its still a very fast development…

  • LCD

    Rossi is obviously wrong or wrongly convinced himself about this. The technology will get billions in backing, thats not the issue. Several people have pointed out the real issue is that Rossi would lose control of development.

    But I’ve said before, the ire that Rossi will face if he sits on this too long will be monumental.

    I’ve said this before too, the moment he releases the very first public ecat anything, he will also lose control. Therefor his only play is release at the point of mass production or license the know-how like defkalion for a stake in some company.

    I think Defkalion has the better long term plan, but Rossi may have the better short term play.

    Either way if he has an effect that he can’t yet control he could take decades to get a product out. You may need the worlds scientists all looking at this to get to a viable solution quickly if thats the case.

    • GreenWin

      “…the ire that Rossi will face if he sits on this too long will be monumental.”

      Indeed. Imagine the ire and fury when the public learns this 3-4 year development cycle could’ve started in 1989.

  • iggy dalrymple

    Socialists, GimmeCrats, and libs in general always seem to covet the property of others.

    They’re very much in favor of equality, so long as they’re more equal than you & I.

    • M.Fisher

      You mean like the conservative banker types who ripped off nearly all of the countries of the world in 2008? Keep your narrow minded politics to yourself. This is science.

      • Roger Bird

        It is NOT science, unless you mean scientific materialism. It is politics. Discussing whether Rossi should give away his secret is politics. It is not science. It is based upon opinions of how society should be run. And I’d say that scientific materialism has had it’s play, and 100 million souls can testify (in the afterlife) that it did not work out so well.

        • GreenWin

          Imagine if the Fed published the detailed plans, formula, parts list, and procedure for printing one hundred dollar bills! Now that would be FUN!

          • Tappanjack

            Yeah Let’s open source that also. Then socialism can flourish world wide. All you have to do is create money out of thin air. It worked great in Germany. Like it will work in the US. I have wheelbarrows’s for sale!

            • Chris I

              Hungary, Zimbabwe…

              Money has become even less than paper. Digital signals. Hack into your national interbank system, or even better the international system. Far better than forging notes, that’s much more expensive.

              But in any case, tell nobody else how you do it, you need to be the only one. I once read that, up till the 16 hundreds, the Indios were plucking gold nuggets out of the river because they are great to forge small object with, including fishhooks, which they would cast away after they had caught all the fish they meant to catch. That’s exactly what money is, if everyone can just make it or take it.

        • Chris I

          It isn’t a science vs. politics dichotomy, it’s a complicated socioeconomic matter with a lot of links to psychology. The most core nutshell of it is in one word: motivation.

          Now that is a fundamental thing in politics as you define it, how society should be run, and in economic policy, but it doesn’t mean that the matter under debate here is these things. It isn’t up to society to decide the question. No referendum, nor via elected politicians. It’s up to Rossi, who will not change his mind according to what we think. But the debate is on whether it hypothetically would benefit or thwart the progress. This depends on the things I said above, but it isn’t a political choice for “the people” to make, it isn’t a civic matter.

          Although the debate about it shares a lot of the underlying topics with politics and economic policy, they are very independent things. They way things including creativity, science and technology advance are totally unlike the way to best manage all work, down to the most unskilled. Even highly skilled work isn’t necessarily inventive nor creative; in most cases it hardly is. In essence, this ain’t about how the whole of society should be run, not even remotely.

          And, folks, at least stop and think that a (strongly) Socialist regime (such as the USSR) might oblige Rossi to make it knowledge of the people but no doubt it would guarantee him status for it as well as keeping him well salaried, even more than he was salaried in the first place while working on it. Just like an employer… except for one detail: far less chance of him getting laid off in the future as being no longer necessary. So long as he doesn’t become a dissident, mind.

    • Chris I

      It’s got little to do with politics, at least in this kind of sense, It has absolutely nothing to do with Socialists and GimmeCrats, it’s all a matter of opposite interests.

      Rossi talks about serving humanity and even about serving God. What kind of names do you call him for that? The thing is that in wanting returns for his service to both of these, he is not making the benefits come as fast as possible. He claims the contrary but his arguments are lame. He should therefore avoid such kind of rhetoric and stick to ROI which is his only real purpose and justification for secrecy.

    • clovis

      This is not a political fourm, please keep your political views to yourself, you will not be told this repeatly.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Right Iggy, the only way to go is for everyone to build their own roads, airports, water supply, create their own money, and build high walls around their communities.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        ‘m chopper pilot. Don’t need roads or airports. Live on high hill with yardage markers & tripwires in all directions. Grow my own victuals.

    • Barry

      Iggy, tell me you are not that ignorant to classify people into narrow minded boxes. Truth be told I know of a lot of generous Republicans and Democrats as well. My wife is a Democrat who on average volunteers one week a month. I resent people like yourself politically classifying people like her and myself. Perhaps you should consider another site where you will find people with narrow viewpoints like your own and you’ll be free to carry out your agenda of polarization.

      • Roger Bird

        That was way too harsh for me. I like Iggy and I find his wit and frankness to be refreshing. I also like the balance that he gives to us. I hope that he does not leave and that Frank does not ban him.

  • Robert Ellefson

    Rossi has been consistent in his steadfast disregard for the needs of humanity, I’ll grant him that. Here is an exchange I had with him back in 2011:

    • Robert Ellefson

      BTW, if any other “pigs” or “dogs” would like to try out the feel of our synthetic pearl prototypes underfoot, you can check out the brand-new website at and make your suggestions known.

    • fortyniner

      One possibly ill-considered response doesn’t necessarily represent Rossi’s true attitude. However in general terms, monopolies are rarely healthy, so 2nd, 3rd etc. torchbearers are urgently required.

      The simple knowledge that it is possible should ensure that others replicate the ‘hot cat’ in due course, possibly through endeavours such as ‘New Fire Generation’, but IMHO most likely through R&D driven by capitalistic motives.

  • Jack

    If I were Rossi, I would answer the question like this:

    “Let me see if I understand you: you want me to GIVE AWAY the fruits of my labors for the last X years, to give up an opportunity create vast amounts of wealth that I and my loved ones could enjoy for the rest of our lives?

    “What planet do you live on? Because I live on earth, where human beings need to produce value and exchange it for money so as it be able to buy all the things they need and desire from other people producing value.

    “Maybe you live on a planet where everything everyone wants falls from the sky, but I don’t. I want to create a fantastic product, have it bought by many, many people, get very, very rich, and oh, yeah – basically save humanity from energy scarcity in the process.

    “If that isn’t good enough for you, I guess I can say this: I don’t care. And thank god people like you aren’t completely in control of our governments and economies (yet). There would be no economic progress without capitalism, and that requires property rights. The idea that one should give away their property – intellectual or other – is utopian nonsense of the sort that keeps the people of Cuba, North Korea, and other left-wing utopias in a constant state of semi-starvation.

    “Maybe the words of a communist leader would have more impact than the words of a mere inventor like myself. As Deng Xiaoping said: ‘To get rich is glorious.'”

    • M.Fisher

      And yet here you are wasting all of that angry, hot air by blowing it in everyone’s face rather than powering a steam generator with it somewhere. Think of all of the money you could be making blowing your angry rhetoric into the end of a pipe powering a generator which in turn could be powering a small villiage far away from here. Last time I checked we are all living in free countries and the guy made a request. Rossi said ‘no’. Done and done. Take the attitude somewhere else where it will be better appreciated.

      • Jack

        And the next time you check, we might not be living in free countries where socialists take “no” for answer. Gotta “spread the wealth around,” right? After all, “you didn’t create that,” as Dear Leader says.

        I wish Rossi would just say “why should I give away my IP? I want to become rich.” Instead, in this current Western political climate, you have to couch everything in terms of how you only really care about humanity, etc. Just be honest. Say you want to get rich. There’s nothing wrong with that at all.

    • Linda

      Your ideas are completely outmoded now.

      Capitalism (including the State Capitalism of the Soviet Union) can be summed up in one word;


      • Roger Bird

        Oh, Linda is back. Communism never has an example because there never is a real communism. It is always hijacked by meanie heads. It couldn’t be that communism is unworkable and the failed (as in State Capitalism) systems that we always get are the NATURAL result of trying to force a system on to people whose compassion and charity and work ethic is not yet ready for such a benevolent system.

        • Cliff

          meanie heads? LOL I was stationed in Berlin Germany in the early 70s and now and then we went from West Berlin to East Berlin. We went from a city that was alive and colorful to one that was cold and everything was grey and nobody smiled. Later I learned that East Germany was one of the most poluted places on earth. Why? Because Socialism never works. There is a tiny ruling elite that doesn’t care about the environment, the people or anything but power and money.

          Fukushima is an interesting case. That powerplant took a direct hit, nearly, by one of the most devestating earthquakes and tsunami’s in Japanese history. Nobody has died. There has been radiation leakage, but I think that is because of politicians trying to avoid taking responsibility rather than anything to do with Capitalism. Capitalists try to produce products that people want. Now it’s those lawyers and politicians that seem to mess everyting up. So, Linda is not against Capitalism, she’s obviously against BIG GOVERNMENT and lawyers.

          • GreenWin

            Fukushima’s failure is one of the Japanese “nuclear village” cartel. They impeded emergency procedure by stonewalling the catastrophic situation. The Parliament report calls it plainly “collusion” by government, Tepco, and regulators.

            Cartels like these spend billions to protect their investments by eliminating oversight of a free press. Cartels and orders are the reason why there is little to no general public awareness of Rossi’s E-Cat following the October demo attended by Paul Swanson of SPAWAR.

      • AlainCo

        fukushima is not capitalism, it is japanese culture, a mix of statism , corporate obedience, fear of critics, denial of problems,…
        each country have it’s daemon.

        Nuclear energy is not capitalism, it is centralized energy, demanding some free speech, some hiearchy, not too much greed, but some fear of sanction when regulation is broken.
        In france is works quite well, but I’m afraid that wil US induced mentality, it cannot work any more.

        What caused chernobyl is the new boss trying to rationalize a stalinian organization, using western criterias…

        basically Japan also in Fukushima met a simila problem of cross-culture, when the US forced them to be free-market, to have different electric companies oevre Japan.
        French nuclear industry explained that the huge problem of Japan nuclear was that ther was many different model of reactor, and that when a problem was identified, you could not apply it to all the others reactor as preventive measure.

        Would have TEPCO be a monopoly, or a state company, they would have changed the position of the diesel generator, and it would have been a non story.

        anyway this is not the worst story… despite tha crazy rumors, relayed by media fed by disinformators from NGO, the situation is not so awful. no dead yet, and probably very few compared to the tsunami (20000 dead) The fear of radiation and haste of evacuation would have killed much more than the radiation in fukushima and tchernobyl together.

        Nuclear energy is dead because of LENR, but I think it would have died anyway, because it demand too much investment in time and people no more invest for long. it demand much centralization, and people refuse.
        It is very sensible to scaremongering (which is more deadly than radioactivity), and today scaremongering is a very rich industry.
        It demand much obedience, and workers are no more reliable enough, because of individualistic education.

        LENr is more adapted to the modern mentalities.

  • venno

    Is itnot time to lobby the nickel producers to support this technology
    They have a vested interest in seeing this technology succeed .
    Nickel price will go up
    I will be lobbying companies in south Africa

    • Chris I

      How much of a dent do you believe it would make in the demand for nickel, in ratio to its supply?

      • iggy dalrymple


    • Cliff

      No, nickel won’t go up. Even if they produced as many e-cats as they plan on, we’re talking a few tons of nickel, not thousands or hundreds of thousands of tons. It’s a drop in the nickel bucket.

      • Chris I

        Ehem… it’s a (North American) nickel dropped into a nickel mine.

  • Thomas

    Sorry, but this is BS … If his invention worked there would be plenty of backers who would commercialize this … But of course, Rossi wouldn’t become rich …

    It’s absolutely okay to admit this fact publicly … Everyone understands it …

    • Stephen Goodfellow

      I agree. For obvious reasons, appeals to make this magic open source will have no effect on Rossi or Defkalion, but their employees? 🙂

    • Chris I

      For that to happen, it isn’t sufficient for it to work. It requires people to know how to get the results Rossi claims, or believe it does enough to put serious effort into it.

    • Cliff

      Rossi is completely correct. The best way to market is to have a relatively small, highly encentivized team. The best way to get that done is with people who expect to make a profit. It has nothing to do with Rossi becoming rich. His becoming rich has only to do with his success. Giving the tech away will ensure that it takes longer to get to market. Anyone that thinks open sourcing it will make it universally available is dreaming.

      The basic tech has been available for decades since Pons and Fleischmann, but I don’t see all that open source stuff producing energy, do you?

      Also, in regard to the Linux vs Microsoft comparison, I agree it is not completely appropriate, except in one way. What operating system was on the original PCs? It wasn’t Unix which was opened up to open source and from which Linux was derived. It was CPM. Who took over the market from CPM? It was Microsoft, not Unix. Why did Bill Gates bother? Was it because he could serve mankind by opening computing up to the masses? No, it was because there was money to be made and it made Bill Gates rich. If he had given the DOS code away, we’d have waited for years to get PCs. We might still be using terminals hooked to mainframes or minicomputers. Instead, it was to Bill Gates’ advantage for products using DOS to get to market. That’s how it’s done. That works and it always works. It’s human nature.

      In regard to Linux, it didn’t take off until Red Hat which was not open source.

      What’s different about the comparison? Anyone with a PC (thanks to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs) costing less than $1,000 can work on open source code. On the other hand, Rossi has poured millions of dollars into the e-cat. He’s invented the reactor, the tools to make the reactor, the tools to test the reactor and anything else needed to figure it out. Bill Gates did not invent the microcomputer. Bill Gates, who was a great programmer, by the way, took an already existing DOS and tweaked it to make it workable. Was his total outlay millions? Nope, so we’re talking apples (pun intended) and oranges.

      Socialists have this dream that everybody having access to everything will one day work. But it never does, never has. But they still dream and scheme. Until the Socialists are willing to work for free, they should not propose that Rossi work for free. Put in the thousands and thousands of hours that Rossi has on some dream of your own, and then tell me Rossi should give it away.

      • Robert Ellefson

        Why do people invest money in new bakeries? There was never a patent issued on baking bread, I’m fairly certain.

        What about new cars? Elon Musk invested a lot of money in his new technologies for cars; do you know how many fundamental patents are protecting his innovations? Not many!

        What about wine? Who holds the patents for that? Is any investment happening in the winemaking industry without patents?

        • Cliff

          Apples and oranges again.

          Bakeries are not new tech. They don’t produce anything new, tasty, but not new.

          Elon Musk is dealing with old tech and he doesn’t need to invent much. In other words, he didn’t invent the car, or even the electric car. Cars were never new tech. They were an evolution of bicycles and other things and could be built in your garage out of things you could make with simple tools.

          Wine is not new tech. People have been making and drinking wine for thousands of years. On the other hand, why are some brands more expensive than others? Trade secrets. Yeah, they probably don’t patent their process or formula, but it’s secret.

          How about the SR-71 Blackbird. How was that developed? A small motivated team funded by a large corporation intent on making something that nobody else could make and getting a pile of money for it. All of it was kept secret.

          Neither Rossi’s e-cat nor the Blackbird could have been developed in your garage, or your kitchen like your examples. But even if it could have been, so what? What possible motivation would Rossi have to spend thousands of hours on a dream, ruining his finances and family life unless there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Again, it’s human nature.

          • Robert Ellefson

            How is being “new” relevant to the investment potential that a technology has with or without monopoly powers?

            In my view, LENR energy production will be as much a part of our daily needs as bread, automobiles, wine, etc. All of these industries receive heavy investments, and return suitable rewards to their investors, apparently. And almost none of this is accomplished using monopoly powers, only direct competition.

            There are many means for an inventor to recover their investments, particularly if they are wise. Similarly, there are many ways for inventors to lose their investments, if they are not wise. Mr. Rossi, I am certain, is an intelligent man, but I am not certain that he is wise.

            • Cliff

              You are correct that there are many ways to capitalize on an invention. The United States has always protected people’s intellectual as well as their physical property and the entire country has prospered for it.

              The reason it makes a difference whether it is new or not has to do with risk. Rossi took a huge risk years ago and has been risking his fortune and family on something that may or may not pay out. He’s invested millions of dollars and thousands of hours of time that he could have used elsewhere.

              Your misuse of the term monopoly is curious. The phone company is a monopoly. The power company is a monopoly. Standard Oil, because of their business practices was a monopoly. A monopoly is an entity that does not allow or destroys competition. Sometimes a monopoly is a good thing as competition can cause issues with infrastructure or standards. Rossi is happy to compete with anyone. Everyone, including you, by the way, has access to the same information that Rossi did. So, compete with him and then he’ll not have a monopoly, will he?

              An inventor has use of his invention for a number of years to reward him for creating a new thing that people want. If you want to see what happens when that is not the case, look at the many countries that do not protect intellectual property. The don’t invent anything and most of them languish in poverty.

              That’s why it’s important that it’s new. It’s Rossi’s intellectual property. People will try to steal it and that’s why he keeps parts of it secret. How is this not wise?

              • Robert Ellefson

                I have not “misused” the word monopoly; I am using it precisely to describe the legal powers that are granted to the owners of inventions by either patent or trade secret status. Both are enforceable by law, and both permit functional monopolies to exist in practice.

                Note that patents are awarded to inventors not as a reward for making an invention, but rather as a reward for disclosing their invention publically, rather than retaining it as a trade secret. This distinction is often lost, but it matters.

                Your defense of the “newness” of an invention as granting merit to the monopolization of it seems to be lacking in non-tautological basis.

                I do not believe it is wise to attempt to monopolize, legally or functionally, the future course of world events to such an extent as this technology is capable of doing. Fortunately for us, Rossi will not succeed in his attempts to monopolize anything for long. However, in the meantime, there are real costs being paid with human blood because of Rossi’s greed-driven intransigence.

        • GreenWin

          Robert, you may not clearly understand the importance of IP protection in global market. Sure, after E-Cat is made commercially available there will be plenty of copies with variations. However, to even GET it to market, investors demand an exclusivity period. That is as little as 20 years and does not limit others from inventing their own version (as Defkalion claims.)

          As for Elon’s Tesla Motors, here is a list of patent apps covering that technology:

          • Robert Ellefson

            That is an interesting list to see, thanks for posting it. However, my point still stands: there are very few patents there that cover fundamental aspects of the technology of automobiles. Instead, you see battery pack management features, sunroof track details, etc. These sorts of patents are very common in business these days, and they are not very useful. Their primary purpose is to provide a good bargaining position for cross-licensing of patent portfolios with other industry players. The lawyers compare stacks of patents, and value their significance based more on sheer volume than on individual significance. These are really just vehicles for lawyers to earn a living, not for businesses to prosper.

            • GreenWin

              True, portfolios ARE a bargaining tool today – never-the-less based on real gadgetry (value debatable.) Recall however Robert Kearns’ battle with Ford over the intermittent wiper blade. Ford attempted to steal his idea and then plunge Kearns into debt via the courts.

              Ultimately, Kearns beat corporate America and was awarded $30M after the Supreme Court refused to hear Ford’s pathetic defense. If there was no opposition to the business of cold fusion – it would be commercialized today.

        • Chris I

          Neither bread nor the wheel have ever been patented, but improvements can and do get patented.

          A few years ago I met an acquaintance that had become a patent clerk and, when I asked her what kind of inventions were being processed around here, the first example that came to her mind was……

          …, a new process for bread production!

          But LOL I guess this is Italy, where shpwaaaahgett-teee is second only to bread, in importance in life.

          • Omega Z


            But Specific Tires, treads & material formulas are Patented.

            However, the process is confusing which patent lawyers love.

            Rossi nor anyone else can patent LENR, But they can patent certain unique features they develop.

            • Chris I

              Exactly as I said.

    • clovis

      Why do you think Dr. R needs backers, have you been living under a rock, lol

  • Chris I

    I don’t and never will expect Rossi to budge one tittle about his stance on IP vs. open source.

    But when he claims that releasing his secret would kill the momentum, I do find that his arguments fail to hold up to close scrutiny. Analogies are always subject to weakness and, just like he says about the complexity of sociopolitical and historic matters behind all these wars (and I agree there’s far more than just energy behind them, but it has been playing more of a role than he says) one can make the same point about complexity in addressing his point about software. I could go on about it all too much, talking about how I’ve been putting up with the many glitches of open source software which I’ve been using to develop my own proprietary software. I could but won’t go into the details of why, discussing how analogies can fail to prove and even with detailed comparisons between the M$ Windoze and Linux worlds, also some important distinctions and yadda yaaaaaaaaadda……

    Concerning cheap and limitless energy and figuring out how to produce it from nickel hydride, the matter is totally different and the analogy is bound to fail. Energy is important and currently expensive. As soon as folks at large see it working and the denialists shut up, there are going to be massive allocations of resources to it and none more to the ITER project. All those folks (who include one of my old friends from physics) will need to switch to something else and fast, while these new phenomena will become the next source of research opportunities.

    But in the mean time, Rossi is deserving for his dedication which hit on his secret by trial and error, likely somewhat groping in the dark, and for his sweat in pursuing stability and better utility, but I doubt his very approach to be the optimum possible. If it had been John Lennon (who would have doubtless smoked joints much more than undertaking Rossi’s effort) or instead Focardi, Celani and Piantelli purely under public payroll (hence with no right to keep it a secret), or whoever else that just published it and held demonstrations of it working, with no IP, I think that with better repeatability and, mostly, less chance of failed replications the buzz would have become much greater and very quickly.

    I think it is only fair if Rossi and his partners rake in the chips as quickly as they can, as soon as they are ready, and Rossi has already clearly acknowledged this being their only possible strategy. But I’m glad that his secret will be unable to hold much longer than that, which will cause and allow a greater number of better researchers to be looking into it when the April’s Fool effect finally gets dissipated, so many years later.

    • Cliff

      Good points.

      Rossi’s e-cat will not be Rossi’s forever. He’s trying to keep it as long as possible by being the low cost producer, but he’s quite well aware that someone will be able to replicate the effect in a different way.

      I suspect you’re right and that Rossi’s tech is not optimal. Someone will come up with a better one. His design is just the first to work, although not the first to see the effect. As such, he is making sure that he can produce as many units as possible as quickly and cheaply as possible as soon as possible. The fact that someone else will be able to do it once the science is known is strong motivation to get product out to the whole world. That’s what competition is all about.

      By the way, I don’t believe that Rossi is doing it to become rich. I believe he will become rich, but his motivation is to create something that nobody ever did before.

      • D2

        Cliff – I think you’re right; I also think Defkalion may already have him running scared because they have already replicated his technology (at least to some degree) and may have one upped him with the way they can control the startup/shutdown of the reaction.

        • Cliff

          I hope so. I like Rossi, but I want competition even more. Competition will also help keep Rossi safe. No keeping the lid on this thing now!

  • Adam Lepczak

    You can interpret Mr. Rossi’s statement as an issue with control. He feels that he made a significant progress in regards to the practical adoption of the CF technology and as such – he also should be responsible for its diffusion. He is doing it “Microsoft style”. As log as he is playing clean there is nothing wrong with that kind of approach, although his company will have plenty of opportunities to become corrupted later on. “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

  • Rob

    I think this is a very wrong conception of Rossi.
    The Internet protocols are all open source. The world economy would be far worse it Internet did not happen. Trillions of investments in this technology have happened meanwhile.

    • Omega Z

      And millions of patents have been filed pertaining to it.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    I don’t begrudge Rossi the right to protect his IP. However, he is simply mistaken that “no backing has ever been given to open source stuff.”

    The Mac OS is based on FreeBSD, a non-linux, unix derivative. Firefox, MySQL, Apache, PHP, are all examples of funded open source projects.

    But these are exceptional examples. The greater funding is always going to projects that will be privately controlled.

    • LCD

      Yes but he would likely lose control.

      However if he was the person who gave the world LENR for free. He would not live long enough to want. The world would immortalize him.

      He may still get that but he’s running out of time.


    I have sent Rand Paul an e-mail pleading that he introduce legislation protecting any invention concerning LENR (cold fusion) separately and apart from the standing patent laws. Join me, please.

    • LCD

      I’ve thought about that to. Not just LENR, any world changing technology.

    • Steve S

      Are you crazy? We need less patent protection not more. Patents have begun to stifle innovation rather than protect it. Technological innovation happens so quickly that products become obsolete rapidly. Companies that fail to keep up the pace of innovation should suffer in the marketplace and not be allowed to sit back and sue the next generation of innovators i.e. Apple. “First movers” have an advantage over future competitors but still should compete for future profits rather than have their attorneys extract it via the courts. Even worse, patent laws are used more by patent trolls more than the original inventors. None of that money ever goes back into future research or innovation.

      • Cliff

        I think you’re both crazy.

        The current patent laws are fine, except that huge corporations find ways around them to prevent inventors from reaping the rewards.

        Rossi will build as many e-cats as he can at a reaonable price. Once the e-cat is out of the bag, so to speak, others will figure out how to cause the effect in different ways and will begin to compete. Rossi will be first and maybe best, but he will not be alone.

        In my opinion, there are certain necessary but not sufficient causes needed to make this thing work. They all have to be there for it to work. That was Pons and Fleishmann’s problem, they didn’t understand all of them. Once people see it work, they’ll figure out other ways, maybe better ways, to cause the effect.