Analysis of Rossi US Patent 9,115,913 issued 25Aug15 Part 2

This is Part 2 of a multi-part commentary on the above patent, US 9,115,913 issued on an invention by Andrea Rossi. Part 1 may be found here.

Please note that Part 1 has been amended since posted to retract the earlier statement that patents for the same invention cannot issue abroad if the US patent is to remain valid. Rossi has followed a procedure at the USPTO that will allow foreign filings to be made without jeopardizing the validity of the issued US patent.

Claim Principles

A most important principle from Part 1 is that, to examine the scope of the blocking power of a patent, it is inappropriate to talk about the “invention”. That is too vague. The claims must be the focus. The words of a claim are words of limitation. If you are outside the scope of the words of a claim then you do not infringe. The words mean what the inventor apparently intended them to mean, according to the description accompanying the patent grant. The starting assumption is that words have meaning corresponding to their normal usage unless the description indicates otherwise.

The scope of this patent is no broader than the span of Claim 1. If a competitor builds an apparatus or arrangement that does not fit with the wording in Claim 1, taken in its totality, this patent will not be infringed. Practicing a patent exactly as it is claimed for the sole purpose of verifying that it works is not an infringement.

No one can ever patent “generating excess heat by LENR”. This idea has already been “made available to the public”. All that can be patented now are new, unobvious, configurations that work, i.e. deliver LENR heat. The validity issue with respect to the claims of this patent requires that the claims are restricted to describing only things that are new and unobvious.

A patent is infringed if a competitor builds an apparatus or arrangement that fits with the wording of any of its valid claims. If Claim 1 is infringed and valid, then no other claims need be assessed. If Claim 1 is invalid but describes an accused infringer’s activities, then the claims dependent from Claim 1 must be assessed.

Dependent Claims

The dependent Claims 2 – 10 are straightforward. Every dependent claim adopts by reference all of the limitations of the prior claims upon which they depend. This tends to reduce the scope for infringement. If a claim does describe an accused infringer‘s operation, then that claim, taking into account all of the limitations of the prior claims upon which it depends, must also be valid for infringement to occur. Validity assessment is a complex analysis that will only be partially addressed in a subsequent posting.

Before leaving the dependent claims, we may note that they additionally stipulate for the optional presence of, amongst other things:

• nickel powder as a “catalyst” (claim 2)
• nickel powder that has been treated to enhance porosity thereof (claim 3)
• said fuel wafer comprises a multi-layer structure having a layer of said fuel mixture in thermal communication with a layer containing said electrical resistor (claim 4)
• said fuel wafer comprises a central heating insert and a pair of fuel inserts disposed on either side of said heating insert (claim 5)
• said tank comprises a recess for receiving said fuel wafer therein (claim 6)
• said tank further comprises a door for sealing said recess (claim 7)
• said tank comprises a radiation shield (claim 8)
• said reaction in said fuel mixture is at least partially reversible (claim 9)
• said reaction comprises reacting lithium hydride with aluminum to yield hydrogen gas (Claim 10, dependent on claim 9)

Some of these claims are silly. For example Claims 6 and 7 hardly add an idea that could provide a missing inventive feature if the earlier claims were invalid. Other claims might, in circumstances where prior art has been found that knocks-out earlier claims, add something that would create a claim that is novel and nonobvious.

Microporous Nickel

Claim 4 addresses a configuration where the nickel is microporous. This feature is addressed in the disclosure as follows:

“Preferably, the nickel has been treated to increase its porosity, for example by heating the nickel powder to for [sic] times and temperatures selected to superheat any water present in micro-cavities that are inherently in each particle of nickel powder. The resulting steam pressure causes explosions that create larger cavities, as well as additional smaller nickel particles.”

No reference is made to RaneyTM nickel which is a standard for micro-porosity for this metal. RaneyTM nickel provides actual voids: see
Made by leaching-out aluminum from a solid solution of nickel and aluminum, there is always some residual aluminum present within the nickel structure after leaching is terminated. At high temperatures the aluminum will likely melt. For LENR purposes it may be desirable to use silicon-based RaneyTM nickel, if this can be obtained.

The original version of RaneyTM nickel was made by using an alloy of nickel and silicon. Any residual silicon can be expected to melt at a much higher temperature than aluminum. This original patent is exceptional for its conciseness and the broad scope of patent coverage that was granted – see claims at the end of the last above link.

Perhaps the process of “heating the nickel powder to [and] for times and temperatures selected to superheat any water present in micro-cavities that are inherently in each particle of nickel powder… [whereby] the resulting steam pressure causes explosions that create larger cavities” creates more than just microporosity. Surface conditions as hypothesized by Dr Edward Storms may be generated.

Hydrogen Generation

Claims 9 and 10 addresses a configuration wherein lithium hydride is reacted with aluminum to yield hydrogen gas, the reaction specified is said to be at least partially reversible (claim 9). The decomposition stages for Lithium Aluminum Hydride as acknowledged in the patent disclosure and described in Wikipedia are as follows:

“When heated LAH decomposes in a three-step reaction mechanism:

3 LiAlH4 → Li3AlH6 + 2 Al + 3 H2 (R1)
2 Li3AlH6 → 6 LiH + 2 Al + 3 H2 (R2)
2 LiH + 2 Al → 2 LiAl + H2 (R3)

“R1 is usually initiated by the melting of LAH in the temperature range 150–170 °C, immediately followed by decomposition into solid Li3AlH6, although R1 is known to proceed below the melting point of LiAlH4 as well. At about 200 °C, Li3AlH6 decomposes into LiH (R2) and Al which subsequently convert into LiAl above 400 °C (R3). Reaction R1 is effectively irreversible. R3 is reversible with an equilibrium pressure of about 0.25 bar at 500 °C. R1 and R2 can occur at room temperature with suitable catalysts.”

The third reaction R3 is said to be reversible. This is the situation as required by Claims 9 and 10.

We may guess why these features are important. Reactions R1 and R2 will, when the temperature is raised over threshold levels, release hydrogen into the confined interior between the outer steel plates. Note that reaction R1 is said to be effectively irreversible. This will cause the pressure of the hydrogen surrounding the nickel particles to rise. As the temperature rises reaction R3 will add more hydrogen, increasing the hydrogen pressure further. With increased pressure more hydrogen will either enter the lattice structure of the nickel particles or be adsorbed at sites which are active in generating excess heat. Presumably this increased pressure may induce and support an LENR reaction.

The possibility to generate hydrogen in a confined volume at pressures in excess of 1000 Atmospheres through chemistry is referenced in US patent 7,393,440. In this patent, assigned to the Research Council of Canada, aluminum as a cathode is confined a sealed volume with magnesium as an anode sharing a water-based electrolyte. The combination reacts galvanically to decompose the water and release hydrogen at potentially high pressures. This is an alternative hydrogen generation mechanism outside the scope of the Rossi claims.

Returning to the Rossi disclosure, since heat is being extracted through the surrounding water jacket, this may cool the nickel-hydrogen combination below a self-sustaining reaction level. The LENR reaction at lower temperatures may need the continued supply of heat to the nickel core to keep the reaction going. A thermal gradient between the nickel core and the water jacket may be needed to sustain the generation of heat.

Operating under these conditions the reversible character of reaction R3 may also provide a means to prevent thermal runaway. Hypothetically higher heat could release more hydrogen in a rising cycle if enough Lithium Aluminum Hydride were present. Conversely, a decline in the pressure of the reaction may cause the reaction to subside. This may be why the control mechanism is stipulated as an essential feature of Claim 1.

Claim 1 stipulates that Lithium must be present, independently from the Lithium Aluminum Hydride. The Lithium is not necessarily a reactant. It could simply be a reservoir to absorb hydrogen gas, once released, by forming LiH. The hydrogen could be released from the LiH in the “rejuvenation” process.

Please note that on points of the physics of the actual reaction these observations are speculations and should not be taken as being true without further confirmation.

This ends Part 2 of the analysis. There remains to address the validity of this patent and its claims in a further analysis.

Andrea Rossi Receives United States ECAT Patent

Andrea Rossi just received his first U.S. patent for his ECAT from the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The Patent covers the ECAT as a Fluid Heater based on the Rossi Effect in all its details. Since the Rossi Effect is the main source of energy of the ECAT, this means that the ECAT Core Technology is protected by this patent. The Rossi Effect is based on the exothermal reaction between Lithium and Hydrogen which is catalyzed by Nickel or any other Group 10 element in the Periodic Table, including Palladium and Platinum. – See more at: has information, links, and a Q and A with Rossi regarding this latest news.

US Examiner Addresses Andrea Rossi US Patent Application

The US Examiner at the United States Patent Office has finally reached the patent application of Andrea Rossi. That application was first filed as an Italian filing on April 9, 2008. It was translated into English and up-graded into an application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty – PCT on August 4, 2009. And it finally arrived at the US Patent Office as of September 16, 2010.

The text of the disclosure in this application became frozen as of the date of the PCT filing, August 4, 2009. It is not permissible to amend the story after the “final” filing of a regular patent application, which is how a PCT application is treated. Therefore this application represents Rossi’s understanding of his invention as of August 4, 2009.

As is usual with a first initiative by a US Patent Office Examiner, this Office Action rejects the application. Rossi now has three months from March 26, 2014, extendable upon fee payments up to six months, to file a Response. That Response must overcome the Examiner’s objections or the application will go abandoned, unless Rossi pays fees for Continued Examination or files an appeal.

The key claim that Rossi was endeavoring to obtain reads as follows:

“1. A method for carrying out an hexothermal reaction of nickel and hydrogen, characterized in that said method comprises the steps of providing a metal tube, introducing into said metal tube a nanometric particle nickel powder and injecting into said metal tube a hydrogen gas having a temperature much greater than C. and a pressure much greater than 2 bars.”

“Hexothermal” is spelling error for “exothermal” which can easily be corrected. This claim is supposed to identify a new method which will produce excess heat.

While the application explicitly states, in para [0065]: “the invention actually provides a true nuclear cold fusion”, the Examiner’s Office Action does not use the expression “Cold Fusion” to criticize the filing. Instead, the Examiner expressed doubt that the described invention would be able to provide the heat as alleged and claimed. He therefore concluded that, unless shown to the contrary, he was going to rule that the invention does not work, i.e. it is “inoperable”. An invention must be useful to qualify for a patent. Therefore, unless Rossi can prove the contrary, this application will be rejected for failing to meet the utility requirement of Section 101 of the US Patent Act.

While Rossi cannot add any further text to the disclosure in this application by way of amendment, if he can show that, following the recipes set-out in his original disclosure, the results as promised can actually be achieved, then the Examiner may withdraw this objection. Rossi would have to provide authoritative evidence to this effect, probably from an independent source such as a Research Institute or an established Engineering firm in order to be sure of satisfying the Examiner. That may cost a substantial amount of money.

Unfortunately, any outside evaluator would be required to follow the procedures described in the application based on knowledge as it existed as of the date of the PCT filing on August 4, 2009. This may prove a barrier to demonstrating utility.

As an additional ground of rejection, the Examiner has also alleged that the disclosure is inadequate as failing to meet the requirements of Section 112 of the US Patent Act which reads as follows:

“The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.”

Rossi faces the challenge that he must not only prove that the invention as described in the application actually works in the manner as promised, but also that the disclosure is sufficient to enable others to achieve such useful results.

The Examiner did not refer to this specific passage in the disclosure of the Rossi patent application:

“[0025] In applicant exothermal reaction the hydrogen nuclei, due to a high absorbing capability of nickel therefor, are compressed about the metal atom nuclei, while said high temperature generates internuclear percussions which are made stronger by the catalytic action of optional elements, thereby triggering a capture of a proton by the nickel powder, with a consequent transformation of nickel to copper and a beta+ decay of the latter to a nickel nucleus having a mass which is by an unit larger than that of the starting nickel.”

The feature of using catalyzing material is addressed in one of the dependent claims as follows:

“8. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that in said method catalyze materials are used.”

Claim 8 could never go forward. There is no description in the disclosure identifying what constitutes the specific catalyzing materials. Nothing can be claimed that it is not supported by an enabling disclosure in the body of the patent specification.

Furthermore, applicants are expected to describe the: “best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention”. If the applicant knows of special catalytic materials that make the invention work better, then he is required to disclose them in the application. Having acknowledged that such materials exist and having failed to identify them, this application violates the requirements of Section 112 and could be rejected on that basis. The Examiner may raise this point in a future Office Action if prosecution continues.

This is a serious deficiency in this application.

Another example of inadequate patent drafting is the following statement in the disclosure:

“[0062] The above mentioned apparatus, which has not been yet publicly disclosed, has demonstrated that, for a proper operation, the hydrogen injection must be carried out under a variable pressure.”

If it is known that a mandatory procedure must be employed in order to make a claimed process operate properly, then that procedure has to be included in the principal claim, Claim 1. In this case, such a limitation has not been incorporated into Claim 1. This claim could have been rejected on that basis alone.

One of the depending dependent claims does provide as follows:

“4. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said hydrogen is injected into said tube under a pulsating pressure.”

Being a dependent claim, Claim 4 overcomes this deficiency of Claim 1 in that it does incorporate a feature asserted to be essential in the disclosure. The limitations of Claim 4 are therefore directly available to be added to Claim 1 in an attempt to repair its deficiency.

However, claims must also be definite and an Examiner would typically ask for limitations to be included in the claim that characterize the types of pulsations suitable to ensure that the claim covers a fully functional procedure. If a Response were to be filed, it would be appropriate to search through the disclosure for ranges and other limitations on pressure pulses to be incorporated into Claim 1 in order to ensure that Claim 1 describes a method that actually works.

There are no references in the disclosure as to the nature of the pulsations: their strength, frequency, duration, waveform or other parameters. If the Examiner were to raise this type of objection the consequences would be fatal to the application

There are therefore many grounds for the Examiner to have rejected this application. Not all were applied in this first Office Action. Instead, the Examiner relied upon lack of operability as the primary objection. In addition, he also made a novelty objection based on the assertion that Claim 1 describes something that had been done before, referring to published experiments wherein nickel was converted to copper by ionic bombardment using a linear accelerator. This is a pretty lame objection. A reading of Claim 1 will show that there is no stipulation in the claim that a nuclear transmutation will occur. Rather, it is in the discussion of theory in the disclosure that such allegations are made. The Examiner is wrong in criticizing Claim 1 on this basis. The Examiner was simply confused or inattentive in making this objection.

The disclosure contains an extended discussion of theory which, rather than helping an applicant will usually only get an applicant in difficulty. It’s not necessary to describe a theory why something should work. It’s essential to describe a procedure by which an actual operating version of the invention can be implemented. Any description of a theory is superfluous. Indeed, it is dangerous to suggest a theory; the theory might be wrong. As has occurred here the Examiner has seized upon flaws in the theories recited to justify his skepticism that the invention actually works as promised. It would have been much better, for patenting purposes, not to have included any discussion of theory.

One can only speculate how a patent application such as this was originally drafted and managed to go forward. It must have cost the applicant tens of thousands of dollars, including translations from the Italian, to get to this stage. Was this done intentionally, knowingly that the application was deficient? This is not logical. It’s more likely that the original patent attorney simply wrote down the material as reported to him by the inventor without giving feedback and guidance on the inadequacy of the disclosure. This happens all too often.

Inventors should be more aware of what is really expected to produce a patent application that will support a valid patent grant. This is quite apart from the separate issue of producing a valuable patent which is meaningful and effective. To minimize the risks of spending money futilely, in the case of important inventions, it would be appropriate to get a second opinion from a second attorney. This should be done well before the end of the initial priority year in time to make adjustments and corrections before the one-year deadline arrives.

This application by Andrea Rossi has been available for public examination for several years. If it describes a working invention one would presume that others would have followed the instructions in the disclosure and achieved the promise of excess energy. Though not proof of the inadequacy of the disclosure, such validating demonstrations have not been publicly disclosed. One can only speculate why this has not occurred.

Andrea Rossi is entitled to file further applications containing an improved disclosure so long as his claims focus on material that is new, i.e., are limited covering only things not previously available to the public. Such applications are not published until they have been pending for 18 months from the earliest, original filing date. It is possible that Mr. Rossi has a follow-on application that has already been filed but is not yet published. We can only wait in order to see if this is true.

NASA Technology Gateway – Spinoff – LENR Cold Fusion


The Technology Gateway and Spinoff Magazine by NASA

Congress mandates that NASA offer licensing of patented technologies to U.S. industry. NASA meets this requirement through the NASA Technology Gateway where LENR patent licensing opportunities are offered. NASA publishes Spinoff magazine annually, showcasing the technologies from previous years’ licensing process, and their benefits to industry.

The Technology Transfer and Partnership Program

 A place to purchase LENR technology

Why is it important for Langley Research Center (LaRC) to transfer its technology?
“The U.S. Congress and the NASA Administrator are putting great emphasis on transferring NASA-developed technology and expertise to U.S. industry to increase U.S. industrial competitiveness, create jobs, and improve the balance of trade. In addition, there is an emphasis on bringing technologies and expertise into NASA that can facilitate achievement of space program goals.”

To purchase licensing agreements for LENR, go to the  NASA Technology Gateway – link .

NASA Technologies Benefiting Society (Spinoff 2012-pdf pg 34)

Since its founding, NASA has been charged, not only with expanding humanity’s reach into space and its knowledge of the universe, but also with finding ways for the technology it develops to benefit the Nation and world. NASA research and development has tangible, secondary benefits beyond supporting mission needs—creating jobs, generating revenue for businesses large and small, reducing costs, and saving lives. Through software innovations, fuel-saving capabilities for small aircraft, healthy beverages at your local grocery store, and more—NASA spin-offs are improving daily life in your hometown and beyond.


The NASA Technology Gateway is for technologies in the applied engineering research phase entering the marketplace.

What patented LENR energy technology does NASA have to offer for licensing purchase?

Who is purchasing LENR technology at the Technology Gateway?

NASA and LENR Applied Engineering

Has LENR advanced to the applied engineering and product development phase? Yes.

At the Technology Gateway, NASA is promoting LENR power technology.

Langley’s Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Technology AvailableNASA

“Check out our latest video on our homepage featuring a novel, clean energy technology.”

View the Promotional Video

Method for Enhancement of Surface Plasmon Polaritons to Initiate and Sustain LENR in MHS

(Metal Hydride Systems) – NASA

A quote from the end of the video: “NASA’s method for enhancement of surface plasmon polaritons to initiate and sustain low energy nuclear reactions in metal hydride systems, a clean nuclear energy for your power operated technology.”


These also provide evidence that LENR has advanced to applied engineering and product development.

  • In the document “Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: The Realism and Outlook”—NASA links—Dennis Bushnell Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center states that “We are still far from the theoretical limits of the weak interaction physics for LENR performance and are in fact inventing (in real time) the requisite engineering, along with verifying the physics.
  • In this NASA contract, pdf- “Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research – Phase II” – N+4 Advanced Concept – NASA Contract NNL08AA16B – NNL11AA00T, the Working Group report from May 2012 states:

    Even though we do not know the specific cost of the LENR itself, we assumed a cost of jet fuel at $4/gallon and weight based aircraft cost. We were able to calculate cost per mile for the LENR equipped aircraft compared to a conventional aircraft (Figure 3.2). Looking at the plots, one could select a point where the projected cost per mile is 33% less than a conventionally powered aircraft.”… pg 24.

  • LENR Requirements Analysis… pg 24. View Figure 3.1

  • Potential Heat Engines for LENR Systems… pg 25. View Figure 3.2

  • Parametric LENR and Heat Engine Performance Parameters… pg 25. View Figure 6.2

  • Low Energy Nuclear Reactor Technologies …pg 82.

  • LENR Technologies Success Criteria …pg 86.

  • Also LENR at pgs 15, 18, 19, 20, and 21.

  • The NASA Working Group Report also makes public the following list of organizations and individuals working on the advanced concept contract: Bradley (Boeing) * Daggett (Boeing) * Droney (Boeing) * Hoisington (Boeing) * Kirby (GT) * Murrow (GE) * Ran (GT) * Nam (GT) * Tai, (GT) * Hammel (GE) * Perullo (GT) * Guynn (NASA) * Olson (NASA) * Leavitt (NASA) * Allen (Boeing) * Cotes (Boeing) * Guo  (Boeing) * Foist (Boeing) * Rawdon (Boeing) * Wakayama (Boeing) * Dallara (Boeing) * Kowalski (Boeing) * Wat (Boeing) * Robbana (Boeing) * Barmichev (Boeing) * Fink (Boeing) * Sankrithi (Boeing) * White (Boeing) * Gowda (GE) * Brown (NASA) * Wahls (NASA) * Wells  (NASA) * Jeffries (FAA) * Felder (NASA) * Schetz (VT) * Burley (NASA) * Sequiera (FAA) * Martin (NASA) * Kapania (VT)

Thank you NASA, and a thank you to all of the people and organizations who worked on developing the NASA, “LENR equipped aircraft” – Advanced Concepts Working Group Report. Each of them are aware of the opportunities offered by patented LENR energy technology from NASA.

How much money might NASA make through the licensing of LENR technology?


The NASA LENR patent is for a device to produce heavy electrons thereby sustaining LENR and ensuing energy generation. In  this slideshow, a Widom Larson theorist reviews the NASA patent. “NASA files USPTO patent application on LENRs” slideshow – by Lewis B. Larson.

View and research at Google Patent Search: Titled, “Method for Creating Heavy Electrons” or download the (pdf at

Method For Creating Heavy Electrons – NASA LENR Patent

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT [0002] The invention was made by an employee of the United States Government and may be manufactured and used by or for the Government of the United States of America for governmental purposes without the payment of any royalties thereon or therefor.

  • BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION [0003] 1. Field of the Invention [0004] This invention relates to the production of heavy electrons. More specifically, the invention is a method of making a device, the device itself a device, and a system using the device to produce heavy electrons via the sustained propagation of surface plasmon polaritons at a selected frequency.
  • ABSTRACT A method for producing heavy electrons is based on a material system that includes an electrically-conductive material is selected. The material system has a resonant frequency associated therewith for a given operational environment. A structure is formed that includes a non-electrically-conductive material  and the material system. The structure incorporates the electrically-conductive material at least at a surface thereof. The geometry of the structure supports propagation of surface plasmon polaritons at a selected frequency that is approximately equal to the resonant frequency of the material system. As a result, heavy electrons are produced at the electrically-conductive material as the surface plasmon polaritons propagate along the structure.
  • [0019] A method for selective enhancement of surface plasmon polaritons to initiate and sustain low energy reaction in material systems, comprising the steps of: providing a material system comprising an electrically-conductive material, said material system having a resonant frequency associated therewith for a given operational environment; and forming a structure having a surface, said structure comprising a non-electrically-conductive material and said material system, said structure incorporating said electrically-conductive material at least at said surface of said structure, wherein a geometry of said structure supports propagation of surface plasmon polaritons at a selected frequency that is approximately equal to said resonant frequency of said material system, and applying energy to a portion of said structure to induce propagation of said surface plasmon polaritons at said portion, wherein heavy electrons are produced at said material system as said surface plasmon polaritons propagate along said structure.
  • [0028] The above-described tuned structure -14- incorporating material system -12- can exist as particles, in two-dimensional geometries, three-dimensional geometries, and even fractal geometries. Several non-limiting examples will be discussed below.
  • [0029] Individual particles, by themselves, are the simplest embodiment of a material system used by the present invention. Spherical or nearly spherical particles naturally resonate at a frequency where the particle circumference is equal to a multiple of the SPP wavelength. Similarly, long and thin, needle-like particles or whiskers can resonate in modes analogous to small antenna when the length of the particle is an integer multiple of one-half the SPP wavelength.
  • [0030] Two-dimensional embodiments are comprised of periodic textures or arrayed structures that, by design, resonate at specific SPP frequencies. Examples include triangular, rectangular, or hexagonal arrays of posts (e.g., cylinders, truncated cones, or derivatives of these with more complex, non-circular bases) where the array of objects creates and reinforces a natural SPP resonance at the desired frequency either in the array elements themselves or on the surface in the voids between array elements.
  • 0032] The advantages of the present invention are numerous. Devices/systems made in accordance with the present invention control the frequency of the SPP resonance and its uniformity over large surface or volume regions.
  • This will allow an entire device to participate in heavy electron production and ensuing energy generation.
  • The present invention is adaptable to a variety of physical states/geometries and is scalable in size…
  • …thereby making it available for energy production in a wide variety of applications (e.g., hand-held and large scale electronics, automobiles, aircraft, surface ships, electric power generation, rockets, etc.)


In the Next Year or So, a NASA Spinoff LENR Report?

So, who is purchasing LENR technology from NASA at the Technology Gateway?

Spinoff Magazine will, at some time, report the LENR licensing agreements that are taking place.

When? Perhaps in next years’ edition, or so.

NASA… Spinoff… LENR…

Cold Fusion Now!



Straighten…. untangling

Concept… bound

Better… yet

Always… found

Still.. questing