A New Patent Application Published for Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat

Thanks to tlp for finding the following!

A new patent application has been published by the US Patent and Trademark office for “DEVICES AND METHODS FOR HEAT GENERATION” with Andrea Rossi listed as the inventor and Industrial Heat LLC listed as the applicant. The assignee is Leonardo Corporation.

The patent was filed on April 26, 2014, and was made public just today.

Here’s an abstract of the patent:

A reactor device includes a sealed vessel defining an interior, a fuel material within the interior of the vessel, and a heating element proximal the vessel. The fuel material may be a solid including nickel and hydrogen. The sealed vessel may be sealed against gas ingress or egress and may contain no more than a trace amount of gaseous hydrogen. The sealed vessel is heated with an input amount of energy without ingress or egress of material into or out of the sealed vessel. An output amount of thermal energy exceeding the input amount of energy is received from the sealed vessel. The fuel material has a specific energy greater than that of any chemical reaction based energy source.

Here’s an image from the application:


This deserves careful study, I think.

101 Replies to “A New Patent Application Published for Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat”

          1. Yes that is a typo:


            should be


            actually it is “only”

            1557539/140700=11.06993 😀

          2. Oh, the horror! Where did my precious .00007 go?

            More proof that it is not as efficient as Rossi says.

          3. Pathoskeps over the world will rally and completely trash this patent application….. I mean that typo alone is all evidence needed, right?

          4. Yes 🙂 Damn, how disappointing is not that!


            The 600 Unit must be the one that is the customer he is talking about. And this is just an exemplary embodiment, and the COP conservatively estimated.

            Seem that we now have a electric-to-electric power plant that might give a COP of 3 here…

          5. Note that in case of device 400, the COP is infinite when the power is off.

            So you can probably make an Ecat of any COP depending on the method used to maintain the operating temperature. Its a simple engineering problem.

  1. There is no hidden RF source, ultrasound stirrer or something like that. This should simplify a replication. Anyway, a “secret waveform” could still be supplied by the heating coils. I wonder if the reactors already use the “cat/mouse” configuration. If so, I would like to know how these components are defined. Fig. 1 shows two charges, maybe of different properties – low-temp with potassium/high-temp with lithium catalyst?

  2. If for any reason these devices remain the province of rich industrialists and do not make it into the hands of the common man at an affordable price, then we need to burn down what we call civilization and start over.

    1. It will be a candidate for compulsory licence like many in the electronic, chemical and pharmaceutical industry.

      Here is an example


      From the article

      “Grant of compulsory license

      Compulsory licensing occurs when a government authorises an organisation other than the patent owner to produce a patented product or process without the patent owner’s consent. The patent owner is remunerated for the license but does not have the option to refuse the license, select the licensee, or determine royalty rates. The Indian Patents Act (2005) provides for compulsory licenses three years following patent grant. Compulsory licenses can be granted on the grounds of the invention not being available at a reasonably affordable price, the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention not being met, or the patent not being worked. This has recently been changed from ‘reasonably priced’ to ‘reasonably affordably priced’, which is seen to lower the threshold for compulsory licensing.”

      And IH need to be aware of this. This makes it all the more important that they focus is LARGE niche – high expense markets where there is not the volume to attract the mass manufacturers of China and India. If IH does not blanket licence the tech at an affordable rate and only markets the tech to high end industry, the first domestic LENR heaters/co-generators will likely come from India.

      What is more, if IH do not licence fairly and immediately they will have to accept what an Indian can pay on the price of a product. Since the raw materials might be under $100 for a domestic core, they may find they have to accept a per unit licence fee in the low single digit dollars.

      1. Industry is the best course at this time. First adapters always pay the start up costs & R&D. This paves the way for cheaper better safer products when it reaches the general population. Similar to unobtainable high cost computers in the beginning. Today most everyone can afford one.

        The general population also see benefits much quicker this way. Corporate/Industrial & business make up about 66% of all energy use. Needless to say, that all comes back on the individual in the cost of goods & services. In the mean time, maybe the technology will improve enough to be better utilized before people start putting them in their homes. Shorter start up & higher COP.

    2. I have some matches left over from the old days which I’ll be pleased to give you if worst comes to worst. But I don’t think the corporations could win this one. Once the cold fusion reactor knowledge is out there, nothing could stop it from being exploited properly for the benefit of the people. In a democracy People Power is the ultimate power, We do still live in a democracy, however imperfect it sometimes is in the short run.

  3. We have studied it and provide key takeaways on our FB page


    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    – Conservative COP estimate of 11.07 assessed by more acceptable means (though not independent) [0221]
    – Can be run on single phase [0115]
    – Steel core in this generation (may reduce magnetic exposure)
    – COP increases with temperature [0163]
    – Mentions catalyst but does not detail it [0048] and [1070]

    1. The link that you give in the article:

      Elforsk Publishes Article: ‘Isotope changes indicate “Cold” nuclear reaction’http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/05/elforsk-publishes-article-isotop-changes-indicate-cold-nuclear-reaction/

      has some characters after .pdf ( .pdf%20).
      Heres the one that http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Trycksaker%20och%20broschyrer/Elforsk_perspektiv_2_2014.pdf

      People cannot see the magazine pdf now. I will comment a working link under the article for the time being.

  4. I read the patent, and having familiarity with patents, would expect it not to pass. It is a report of a test, and states that it works, but gives no details on the actual fuel composition and structure, which is critical for someone to be able to duplicate the process. Having a secret composition is good for industrial protection, but it violates what the patent process requires. It is not necessary for the physics to be understood, but the actual material details are required to be included to be patented.

    1. They refer to three other, not yet published patent applications. I guess that these files contain the missing information.

          1. It helps confirm what we suspected, that there is only need for one phase.

            Also, as shown in Mastromateo and our own Celani experiments, it confirms that the effect COP increases with temperature – so building a reactor that works at a higher temperature is desirable.

            It is based on 1012-2013 hot cat technology, so it is last generation, the key reveal here is a steel core, the indication is that the Lugano reactor had a ceramic core, but since we are intending to have a swappable core – that is not so critical.

            Not really a lot else that helps us other than the claim that *IF* we get a suitable reaction matrix (fuel) we should see a very clear effect.

      1. Rossi mentioned that he has covered lithium usage in a patent application. Those three other are provisional(?) applications, and about 18 months old, so we will see those soon?

      2. The three other unpublished patent applications are provisional patents, which this one supersedes. I don’t think we will see them anymore, but I’m no patent expert.

    2. @leonardweinstein:disqus, I am no expert, but if I understand correctly, Rossi will have a chance to extend or clarify this patent at many moments in the long lifecycle between application and rejection, which will involve comments and questions from the patent office. Could it be possible that Rossi (as we think he might be doing with the earlier EU patent application) holds back on providing this essential information until the latest moment, in order not to give away information to competitors too soon; in other words: that he uses this to set a priority date?

  5. Thanks Bob,

    We have very thick skins, we have no vested interests and most importantly, we actually understand a lot of what is going on – we actually have been bothered to read before coming to conclusions.

    By allowing us to test his part studied experiment, Celani enabled the formation of the MFMP – it was an extremely brave act on his part. It allowed us to cut our teeth in the field and whilst the results are not spectacular in a utility sense, they gave us the curiosity to march onwards with the crowd into the unknown.

    Right now we are hatching a detailed plan for testing the claims made in the Lugano report. We prefer to spend more time thinking and analysing so we we will be less exposed to failure due to schoolboy errors.

    This Patent application confirms our suspicion that only one coil is needed and that increasing the temp increases the effect. It is referring to older reactor designs which were designed to operate at a lower temperature, our guidance will be taken from the Lugano design.

    There is much we can verify without knowing specifics.

    1. In the latest picture (Rossi with three Ecats), you can see that only one coil per Ecat is used, (when you look to the wires). Maybe the three phase controller can only be used within a three phase application?

      1. We have discussed this at length and do not think it necessary to have a 3 Phase controller. It may be just that these units are of the shelf, can go to high powers and are isolated.

        1. Agreed. Three phase controllers are usually for high power applications. The reason to use them, can in my view only be that it must be able to handle the required? high current peaks.
          With the tiny inductance of the coils and a small capacitor you can generate high frequency oscillations. It it does not work you may consider trying that.

        2. The wording was a minimum of three coils, all diagrams have a minimum of three coils. Consider the implications that at some level there is a cumulative field effect of the coils beyond heat distribution.

          The coils may be nested, or spatially separate, but there must be a minimum of 3, and the fuel must be nested within their confinement.

    2. In my humble opinion, there is an important relationship between the alkali metal hydride selected for the fuel and the operational temperature range of the reactor. The vaporization temperature of the alkali metal is important. That temperature should be within the middle of the operational temperature range of the reactor that you design.

      The alkali metal must vaporize in the hot zone of the reactor when the primary heater is on and condense into nanoparticles in the cooler zones of the reactor and/or where the primary heater is off. This alkali metal nano-dust is an important location and source of the were the reaction takes place. If there is a temperature mismatch between the operation temperature of the reactor and the alkali metal selected, the reaction inside the reaction may not take hold. Specifically, potassium should be used in the intermediate heat range, and lithium should be used in the high heat range.

      Potassium: Vaporization point:1032 K ​(759 °C, ​1398 °F)

      Lithium Vaporization point:1603 K ​(1330 °C, ​2426 °F)

    3. Bob Greenyer,
      Are you aware of a Finnish patent that LuFong cited in his comments to a recent post? The patent was no longer posted at he website that he cited, but the inventor was Pekka Soininen and the patent # was WO2013076378 (A2) (assuming I recorded this information correctly). This patent seems to have a very good discussion of what is needed to be in the fuel of an LENR device and might be helpful in trying to get an E-Cat like device working.
      Dr. Mike

      1. Dear Mike, Yes, very aware of that patent since basically is publication. It was like a review of the field of LENR and at first glance, came across as a patent troll patent. However, it does cite a number of specific embodiments but with different metals and powders of piezo materials used in a kind of “mini particle accelerator” fashion. We have considered adding materials such as these and when we are in a position to do so, will, but it would be ideal if we could enable a large number of organisations to have a test bed to screen all the potential fuel mixes that this and other information infers.

        We are on a steady course and the next phase after having partially reduced Fe2O3 is to add Hydrides to our powder cell.

  6. what’s the deal that apparently, even in 2014 patents, the drawings in patents need to look like they were metal etches from 1895?

    1. I think it is because the 1s and 0s of a cad file are a little hard to interpret when printed out on white paper. ; )

    2. I like it. It would look great on a stamp. Or framed on a wall. T-shirts, coffee cups, etc. I wonder if IH has a good merch department planned. They should get on it.
      They could fund the whole thing with classy patent drawing bling.

  7. Think you mean shorter, Frank.

    [Meant to reference your patent comment below – 6 months is shorter than 18 months.]

    1. Under each comment is a “reply”link. I f you use that Frank will be automaticaly notified and comment structure is less chaotic, everybody is doing it like that. If for some reason it is not usefull to do it like that you can also use the “at” character before his name to summon his attention.

  8. Search of that patent finds no reference to lithium, so the device in Lugano might not be covered the patent …. hmm.

  9. As pointed out by Alan Fletcher on Vortex, the assignee (owner of the patent) is Leonardo Corporation, Inc. Does IH own Leonardo Corporation or is there a more complicated relationship with Rossi and IH than many believe? I believe we just don’t know including whether the claim that IH “owns” all IP for the E-Cat.

    1. It would appear that Leonardo has an agreement to assign IP rights to Industrial Heat while retaining ownership of the IP. Such an agreement is perfectly normal and provides full control of the IP to IH. The application itself confirms Industrial Heat’s controlling position in developing and marketing E-Cat/Rossi technology.

      1. It would appear that is one possible theory. I believe IH announced that that they have acquired the rights to the E-Cat which has many legal possibilities including the one you mention.

        1. I don’t suppose that we will learn the answer to your earlier comment, “Does IH own Leonardo Corporation or is there a more complicated relationship with Rossi and IH than many believe?” until some time after data from the pilot plant is disclosed. I suspect that both suggestions may be true, and that Industial Heat Inc‘s ‘web’ will turn out to extend some way beyond the currently visible players.

  10. It’s been pointed out in other venues that the patent applicant is Industrial Heat, Inc.
    Didn’t it used to be a LLC?

      1. It would be interesting to read more information about it, if it’s not just a typo. So far I haven’t been able to find anything on the web referring to IH Inc. beyond this patent application.

        1. Hi all

          Inc. means incorporated, given corporeal form under the law. That is what ALL companies are; a separate entity under the law with that can be responsible for its own actions, own property and have a bank account, take out a loan or mortgage, have debts and debtors etc. in fact do everything any human can do and for which its human actors, board and employees act on its behalf.

          The easiest way to imagine a corporation is as a disabled person who has lots of support that they pay their workers and trustees/the board to do for them.

          A Limited Liability Company (LLC) is a company, and so it is incorporated, so it can and should use the appellation Inc.

          Kind Regards walker

          1. You can find plenty of sources online telling that they’re different things. A few examples:


            A limited liability company (denoted by L.L.C. or LLC) is a
            business structure that provides limited liability to its owners. This
            means the business is a separate legal entity and the owners (“members”
            of an LLC) are not legally liable for some acts and debts of the LLC.

            Inc. is short for Incorporated and denotes a C or S corporation.
            A corporation also offers liability protection but differs from an LLC
            in terms of ownership structure and rules, regulations they have to
            follow, management overhead and tax treatment of profits.

  11. Interesting discussion of the “self-sustaining mode” (p 26, [0164]) “…the priming mechanism pertaining to the reaction inside the device speeds up the rise in temperature and keeps the temperatures higher during the cooling phase.”
    This indicates attention to a little discussed potential of LENR systems to produce energy when there is NO energy input. This would appear to violate accepted thermodynamics – if sustained over a period of hours or days.
    Timing is also interesting. Following directly on the heels of the Norwegian Casimir in nanoplasma study, and the clear commercialization signals from Sweden’s power industry leader Elforsk.

    1. If you light a stick with a match and withdraw the match, is the stick violating any law of thermodynamics if it continues to burn?

  12. I think the control was temperature and what was being varied was the amount of powder/fuel in those early tests. So likely you can get a large COP by increasing both, but ease of control is likely diminished as the fuel load gets larger, ie the bigger the fire the more heat produced by it is much harder to put out.

    1. Agreed. The indications are that low thermal mass of the reactor (all active components) allows the reaction to be controlled more easily, presumably because this allows more rapid responses to control inputs. It would be logical that such a relatively stable (but fairly low output) design would be chosen for testing in the hands of people with no knowledge of the behaviour of these devices.

      However this doesn’t preclude the parallel development of possibly less stable but considerably higher output units, perhaps of the type we’ve seen sitting on test racks. These look like more likely candidates for use in the pilot plant, as greater mass would probably make significant heat extraction much easier. IH probably have several types of reactor to play with by now, and each will be contributing to their understanding of the technology. Eventually they may home in on just one or two basic designs to meet various market needs.

  13. If there are any real physicists out there, you might want to take a look at this. What do you think?

    The “Armenian Theory of Special Relativity” has been published as a book and as a short communication article in the following places:

    a) Yerevan State University Uniprint, Armenia, in June 2013 (full version 98 pages), which you can download from here https://archive.org/details/arm_odm_book

    b) IJRSTP, Vol. 1, Issue 1, Pages 36-42 (2014), which you can download from here http://www.ijrstp.us/uploads/1/3/4/5/13455174/ijrstp_inaugural_issue_2.pdf

    c) Infinite Energy, Vol. 20, Issue 115, Pages 40-42 (2014), which you can download full issue from here http://www.armeniantheory.com/atfiles/arm_odm/pdf/InfiniteEnergy115.pdf

  14. It is interesting that only TRACES of hydrogen are needed and the LITHIUM is not mentioned in the patent application. So, are we back to the Casimir effect powering the Ecat?

  15. What happened to the catalyst? How can Rossi’s Claim #1 state that the fuel is “a solid containing nickel and hydrogen”, yet in his first example (Paragraph 0048) he states the “exothermic reaction is fueled by a mixture of nickel, hydrogen and a catalyst”. Doesn’t the Ni also have to have a special morphology? Why exclude pressurized hydrogen as a source of the hydrogen in Claim #1, if pressurized hydrogen would actually work? The examiner will read the first few claims and reject the patent application for lack of disclosure. It is hard to believe that this application was written by a competent patent attorney. First the patent application doesn’t disclose any of the details required to duplicate the invention, and second the application claims are so narrow that it would be easy to build a similar device that avoids infringing on these claims. The worst thing that could happen to Rossi is for a patent to be granted on this application. He would believe that he had patent protection for his device. However, when the first challenge was made to the patent by someone that found a catalyst was also needed, Rossi’s patent would either be voided for lack of full disclosure, or the person using the catalyst would be found not to infringe on Rossi’s patent because his addition of a catalyst was not part of Rossi’s claims.
    Did anyone look at the Finnish patent on an LENR device that was cited by LuFong in his comments to a recent post? (I would re-cite the patent here, but the patent already has been removed from the location LuFong cited. I believe the inventor is Pekka Soininen and the patent number is WO2013076378 (A2), if I copied these correctly when I looked over the patent.) This patent not only gives a complete theory behind the device, the claims attempt to cover everything but (or maybe including) the kitchen sink. Check out how the claims are worded in this patent and compare them to Rossi’s application.
    Dr. Mike

    1. Perhaps the patent (and the other three) are for the reactors and their basis of operation and not the fuel per say other than it is exothermic, not of chemical origin, and exceeds input energy . The patent is called “DEVICES AND METHODS FOR HEAT GENERATION” There is actually very little mention of catalyst or fuel and that Rossi/IH is only trying to protect the reactor and the fuel delivery mechanism.

      1. As it is the patent describes an electric heater. Nothing innovative, I think.

        Weird how Rossi manages to fulfill his outlandish promises, but the outcome is always disappointing. The industrial partner is an unknown company. The independent test is a slightly improved version of the previous test, plus some monoisotopic lithium and nickel. The patent application reveals nothing.

        Still, he delivers. I hope that the insiders are alert.

    2. Soininen’s patent application cites 2 priority patent applications, which are US patent applications 61/563786 and 61/669077.
      It seems that those US applications are not public. Does anyone know when will they become public?

    3. Wow…

      What is it with all these questions? You have vested interests?

      ” It is hard to believe that this application was written by a competent patent attorney.”

      Really? I am not saying it is so but it is not unlikely that it is HEDMAN & COSTIGAN of New York, the same company that is assisting with the patent filed 2009/2011.

      Why should we check the Finnish patent for evaluating if it was the correct strategy? Has it been granted?

      This is an application, there are competent people doing this, and there will be changes and addendums made as per the request from UPSTO – if IH and Rossi want the patent granted.

      Why is it so hard to understand that whatever is happening with this application as well as with the other one, is all premeditated strategy from IH, and not incompetence?

      1. Freethinker,
        My vested interest is that I would really like to see Rossi get a patent on his intellectual property that gives him some real protection under patent laws.
        Dr. Mike

      2. Freethinker

        Agreed. There are those who expect to much.

        My view is With a patent of this nature, It could languish for several years before any action is taken. Why put everything out there for competitors to take advantage of.

        Once the patent office starts to take action, additional information can be added. This minimizes the window of opportunity for competitors.

  16. This patent seems worthless. It could be an attempt to reinforce the case for the other three patents mentioned -filed in May 2013- by describing the experiments from last year. My interpretation is that those patents are in trouble.

    That would not be surprising considering how poorly written are the two known patents from Rossi.

    Maybe the game is about hiding the details while trying to get some intellectual property protection. But the strategy is ridiculous.

    1. You use terms like “worthless” and “ridiculous”. I have seen a lot of approved patents that has been of much poorer quality, especially within mobile phone industry, where apparently things a two year old would understand, has been granted patents.

      This patent is not a ridiculous or worthless patent. It is an application, and yes extending three others, incorporating them into this new one. There will likely be a dialogue with USPTO and during that there may be changes and addendum. Note that there are typos, and there may also be some discussion who really “Industrial Heat Inc” is as compared to dito LLC. It is thus work in progress.

      1. Yes, some ridiculous patents are granted. Note that patents can describe inventions which seem obvious in hindsight, and still be valuable.

        The concern with this one is exactly the opposite: it reveals nothing of substance in a field which is absolutely unexplored.

        At least I was wrong about the previous patents: they were just provisional applications and this one is the logical continuation.

        Well, this story is strange in so many ways… Now add a weird intellectual property strategy.

  17. I should perhaps clarify as “COP rises in this specific embodiment” as it seemed to do in Celani wire reactor. Given the parameters involved, it is expected that the older E-cats worked in a very different way, and whilst their COP may have been higher, they may have had a lower peak operating temperature and if driven too hard produced ionising radiation.

    1. Well, it looks like these are also public now.
      A quick glance shows that these contain the same text as the new patent. They “expired”, whatever that means.

  18. Mike,
    That was why I asked in my post how it was possible for the Ni not to melt at a 1400C operating temperature. I would still like to see a thermal engineer make an estimate of the temperature that the Ni would have to be if about 2300W of power was being generated in 0.55 grams of Ni and the outside temperature of the reactor was 1400C.

    Dr. Mike

    1. Dr. Mike

      Nickel melts at 1453’C. You just need to keep it about 25’C below that. Riding the edge living dangerously.
      I believe this is why Rossi has used the Alumina in his design.
      The Temperature would be pretty much uniform from the center out. Give or take a couple degrees.

      If this was the original Steel HT E-cat, the center would be just as hot, but the surface of the cylinder would be around 850 to 900’C.

      The Ultimate goal would be the E-cat reactor within a cylinder of salts or some other medium that would transfer the heat to water in the boiler & an output working steam between 600’C & 650’C. This gets you in the range of 40% plus conversion efficiency to electricity. Anything less just makes it comparable to 33% coal powered plants. Having followed Rossi work for quite sometime, I think he really wants to do better then that.

      All the evidence over the last year indicates Rossi/IH want to play with the big boys in the Gas Turbine territory if possible. Gas turbines do 40% efficiency with enough waste heat to co-generate by a second turbine of about 20% efficiency for a total of about 60% efficiencies.

      Where most of the posters here are looking at fuel cost per Kilowatt, Utilities are looking at Hardware cost per Kilowatt. If they can nearly double conversion with just a 40% bigger expenditure, that is big.

      I speculate whether the cost of fuel is cheap enough & the COP high enough if 1000’C plus steam can be engineered into the hot cat. This achieves near parity to many Gas Turbine co-generation systems.

  19. Rossi mentioned months ago that optimal reactor designs were being developed & patented. As it is continuous R&D, It’s quite possible these designs will be surpassed & obsolete before patents actually get granted. It is just a precautionary patent. In case there isn’t a more optimal design.

  20. It is assigned to both:
    Industrial Heat, Inc. & LEONARDO Corp.
    This could just be a legal paper trail.
    Regardless, I’m pretty sure Industrial Heat has the controlling Interest. The have the purse strings.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *