Rossi patent granted for eCat

I just hope you haven't invested your life savings in this "thing".

George H.

No, mostly VTSAX, a few REIT's, a bank, a paper company, wireless provider, real estate, a few others. But, I hope LENR has a hot future, I believe there is something happening, besides poor measurement. To many others say they have duplicated the result.

Mikek

It claims nickel as a catalyst not as a nuclear fuel. No mention anywhere I can see of nuclear reactions.

e-Cat is pretty much e-Dog

Here is the patent full text as actually filed. Basically it is a generic bullshit patent with no redeeming features and merely demonstrates graphically how pathetic USPTO are at filtering dross.

The only test they do today is pretty much along the lines of "are your dollars green and supplied in the right quantity?"

Don't hold your breath!

The patent itself appears to be for a rather narrowly defined use of a catalysed chemical reaction. One may question the novelty element, though it's entirely possible that no one else has invented something in precisely this form simply because it's pretty useless.

From Rossi's point of view, the purpose of the patent is presumably to give spurious support for the wider claims for the device that are not included in the patent.

Would-be investors need to be aware that it's possible to get patents relating to snake-oil, provided the patent offers a new method of using it.

Sylvia.

How about for snake to apply oil with tongue (unique #1), for the purpose of making shedding painless (unique #2)?

(ssssss!)

TBH I think they deserve to lose their shirt and everything else besides if they are dumb enough to give him their money for this.

Stupid is as stupid does.

The FAQ was clearly written in the hope that none of his sycophants and credulous fools would be even remotely smart enough to go and look at the actual patent as filed. He appears to have been right in that presumption or the OP would not have fallen for it hook line and sinker.

If proof were needed that USPTO is not fit for purpose then this is it!

it.

The US Patent Office is in the business of getting people to publish useful inventions by offering them patent protection if they publish the idea as a patent.

It would be nice if they could tell the difference between useful ideas and flim-flam being published by rip-off artists out to make a quick buck, but this is probably above their pay grade. My limited interactions with the pa tent system didn't suggest that they had much grasp of the technology I was describing, and I've never any stories that suggested it ever did better i n other areas.

Why would anyone who has looked at this man's work give any credence to anything he says? He is clearly a charlatan and is taking people's money without producing a damn thing. I remember some years ago he said he was a few "months" away from having a commercial heating system in production. Yet, nothing has been shipped and he is still tweaking the design.

I also looked at the work of others who seem to be more legit getting funding from the US government. They never produced results. Has any researcher *ever* produced results in a reproducible way?

Why would *anyone* be so stupid to think there is anything to this?

Consumer protection is not in the USPTO's charter.

Indeed. There are lots of patents with inventions which just don't work.

You have to admire his patent agents skill in getting what is essentially a patent on an electric immersion heater past USPTO.

It calls into question the competence of the so called "examiners".

For the same reason why someone would be so stupid to dump the actual working details out to the public? Personally, if I had something that would be a game changer, I really don't think I would be presenting enough details so that others could test it and there by have a working model themselves.

It would be ludicrous for anyone that came up with something vantastic and then present details to the world so the higher ups could simply sweep him under the carpet and call it theirs, with a sligtly different name and function or course.

I can't say if he or his claim is legit but I can say this, I will have a smile on my face if it comes to be truth.

Jamie

On my reading, the patented aspect relates to the use of a replaceable wafer containing fuel and a catalyst that only functions at an elevated temperature.

Presumably it will work, even with the claimed duration of output (if there's specification of the size of the wafer, I missed it). Maybe it's obvious to those versed in the art, but unless someone makes such a claim during processing, the patent examiner (being someone not versed in the art), is not going to be able to make that call.

It's almost certainly devoid of commercial value, but that's not a judgement for the examiner to make.

Sylvia.

That's what the patent system is designed to get them to do.

Sure, but you are famously foolish, and this would be just one more situation where you'd jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Like I said, that's what the patent system is designed to encourage, and lots of people take out patents, so they seem to have seen the point of the system, even if you are too dim to.

You expect lots of strange things to make you happy. If you had better grasp of what they meant, your facial expressions might be different, though variations in slack-jawed idiocy are reputed to be hard to detect reliably.

The "epoxy patent" is sometimes used in electronics, along with the "no doc patent".

.... Phil

That is how patents work. The inventor disclose the details so that anyone skilled in the art can replicate the device and pay him a license fee to use the technology. It leads to much more rapid uptake of novel game changing technological breakthroughs like the electric light, internal combustion engine and more recently cyalume cold light.

Here is what a ground breaking chemistry patent should look like for comparison (the Cyalume patent on efficient cold chemical light).

It's pretty common to insert a little bit of intentional misdirection or to leave out some crucial little detail.

Jeroen Belleman

By law, the best known implementation has to be included. However, the patent can be filed before there are any good implementations known. There is no requirement to publish further work (unless, of course, the work results in a further patent).

The best defense against copiers is to keep designing better stuff, which they can't.

And to provide really good customer service, so that they don't want to buy from a copier.