RE: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—

;You noted:

“We now understand why almost everyone else's patent application was
denied or languished, and it has nothing to do with violating the Laws
of Physics or Thermodynamics, nor to a hostile hot fusion establishment.

There was, in fact, a valid patent granted for LENR.”
I think the PO would normally inform an applicant of why their patent is 
rejected including the existence of conflicting patents. .
 I would guess it was because of the unofficial PO handling of cold fusion 
patents, such handling intended to discourage further invention in the cold 
fusion arena, consistent with the infamous action the government took regarding 
P
Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:13 AM
To: Vortex List
Subject: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

Here is a strange bit of history which seems to have been somehow
overlooked and misplaced. It almost reads like "alternate facts"

The Fleischmann/ Pons announcement of cold fusion happened on March 23,
1989. Ostensibly this date was forced on them by concerns about the
competing work from Steven Jones at BYU, but there was another more
specific threat. Perhaps their rush was not BYU but concern over a
competing line of research which Fleischmann had participated in, going
all the way back to the 1970s. These were palladium metal lattice
experiments described by B. Dandapani (and Fleischmann as coauthor) in
the Journal of Electronal. Chemistry, 39, in 1972 and later.

On March 31, 1989 - 8 days after the hurried Utah announcement the
following patent was actually filed by Gupta and Jacobs in the USA, and
it was soon GRANTED !  And then it was almost completely ignored today,
even though it undercuts the IP claims of others and actually mentions
"dense hydrogen" as the operative mechanism. Yet, the IP was not
commercially useful,  probably due to the high cost of palladium. It is
now in the public domain.

"Process and apparatus for generating high density hydrogen in a matrix"
US 4986887

https://www.google.com/patents/US4986887

That's right - the first LENR filing was actually granted by the Patent
Office - so there is no wonder why later filings did not succeed.

There was and still is - a lot of whining going on - but no evidence of
a "grand conspiracy" by insiders in Hot Fusion, although they did not
agree there was a breakthrough. Plus, there is no way Gupta could have
based his IP on "stealing the P work" since it normally takes months
to draft a decent patent filing and several days to get it to USPTO by
mail, and Gupta had published on the subject before 1989.

We now understand why almost everyone else's patent application was
denied or languished, and it has nothing to do with violating the Laws
of Physics or Thermodynamics, nor to a hostile hot fusion establishment.

There was, in fact, a valid patent granted for LENR.

Re: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[Terry Blanton]

It was the rush to publish that likely resulted in so many failed attempts
at replication and the early dismissal of CF.  Had F been allowed to
follow the normal process of peer review of a well thought out experimental
paper explaining the importance of proper materials and loading times, we
might be enjoying  a real CF commercial energy source today.

Re: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[Jones Beene]

The ironic thing, given the broad and specific coverage of Gupta's 
claims - is that he could have demanded royalties from anyone who used 
palladium based electrolysis with a lithium electrolyte for financial 
gain. That would possibly include P if they had made anything on it - 
but in the end, no one gained and the IP is now free for the taking.



Jed Rothwell wrote:

   That would be  consistent with actions to poo-poo the Pd D ideas by
   the military- industrial complex.


Which never happens.

The military has been the best and most generous supporter of cold 
fusion from day one.

Re: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:

I thought F testified before Congress that it was Jones' work which
> caused the University to press F to go to press with their findings early.
>

Yup. That's what they told me & Gene Mallove. Martin said they wanted to
keep it secret another 5 years, as I recall. I am sorry for them and the
travails they went through, but glad the lid came off. They might have
pottered around for 15 or 20 years.

Not that going public has done much good . . .

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[Terry Blanton]

I thought F testified before Congress that it was Jones' work which
caused the University to press F to go to press with their findings early.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:11 AM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Jones-
>
>
>
> The Gupta and Jacobs patent was not missed by R. Mills.  Look at the
> references cited at the end of the 1991 patent document.  Randy was quick
> to pick up on the technology shortly after the patent lapsed in 1999.  It
> may be that Gupta and Jacobs were bought out by somebody or the technology
> was declared dark at the time the patent lapsed.  That would be  consistent
> with actions to poo-poo the Pd D ideas by the military- industrial complex.
>
>
>
>
> Note the related GE and M-D patents (reference by the Gupta-Jacobs patent)
> granted in the early 1960’s.
>
>
>
> Interestingly, I remember a flare of activity reported by a physics friend
> in the 1964-65 timeframe concerning a newly found heavy water—not deuterium
> oxide—with unusual properties.  However, the flickering flame of activity
> was extinguished in less than a week as I recall.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
> *Sent: *Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:45 AM
> *To: *Vortex List <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989
>
>
>
> One reason for the post below concerns the apparent evolution of Gupta's
> research, in which a superior lithium ion battery is the result.
>
> http://electrovaya.com/
>
> The company is Ectrovaya - which is Canadian... and their battery
> recently won a competition with other advanced batteries... yup, they
> are apparently superior to the new battery offering of Tesla.
>
> Not sure if there is a contribution from LENR or not. But batteries
> could be the backdoor for commercialization ... All those lithium
> battery meltdowns were indeed- a message.
>
>
>
> > Here is a strange bit of history which seems to have been somehow
> > overlooked and misplaced. It almost reads like "alternate facts"
> >
> > The Fleischmann/ Pons announcement of cold fusion happened on March
> > 23, 1989. Ostensibly this date was forced on them by concerns about
> > the competing work from Steven Jones at BYU, but there was another
> > more specific threat. Perhaps their rush was not BYU but concern over
> > a competing line of research which Fleischmann had participated in,
> > going all the way back to the 1970s. These were palladium metal
> > lattice experiments described by B. Dandapani (and Fleischmann as
> > coauthor) in the Journal of Electronal. Chemistry, 39, in 1972 and later.
> >
> > On March 31, 1989 - 8 days after the hurried Utah announcement the
> > following patent was actually filed by Gupta and Jacobs in the USA,
> > and it was soon GRANTED !  And then it was almost completely ignored
> > today, even though it undercuts the IP claims of others and actually
> > mentions "dense hydrogen" as the operative mechanism. Yet, the IP was
> > not commercially useful,  probably due to the high cost of palladium.
> > It is now in the public domain.
> >
> > "Process and apparatus for generating high density hydrogen in a
> > matrix" US 4986887
> >
> > https://www.google.com/patents/US4986887
> >
> > That's right - the first LENR filing was actually granted by the
> > Patent Office - so there is no wonder why later filings did not succeed.
> >
> > There was and still is - a lot of whining going on - but no evidence
> > of a "grand conspiracy" by insiders in Hot Fusion, although they did
> > not agree there was a breakthrough. Plus, there is no way Gupta could
> > have based his IP on "stealing the P work" since it normally takes
> > months to draft a decent patent filing and several days to get it to
> > USPTO by mail, and Gupta had published on the subject before 1989.
> >
> > We now understand why almost everyone else's patent application was
> > denied or languished, and it has nothing to do with violating the Laws
> > of Physics or Thermodynamics, nor to a hostile hot fusion establishment.
> >
> > There was, in fact, a valid patent granted for LENR.
> >
> >
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[Jed Rothwell]

bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:

That would be  consistent with actions to poo-poo the Pd D ideas by the
> military- industrial complex.
>

Which never happens.

The military has been the best and most generous supporter of cold fusion
from day one.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones-

The Gupta and Jacobs patent was not missed by R. Mills.  Look at the references 
cited at the end of the 1991 patent document.  Randy was quick to pick up on 
the technology shortly after the patent lapsed in 1999.  It may be that Gupta 
and Jacobs were bought out by somebody or the technology was declared dark at 
the time the patent lapsed.  That would be  consistent with actions to poo-poo 
the Pd D ideas by the military- industrial complex.

Note the related GE and M-D patents (reference by the Gupta-Jacobs patent) 
granted in the early 1960’s.

Interestingly, I remember a flare of activity reported by a physics friend in 
the 1964-65 timeframe concerning a newly found heavy water—not deuterium 
oxide—with unusual properties.  However, the flickering flame of activity was 
extinguished in less than a week as I recall.

Bob Cook


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:45 AM
To: Vortex List<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

One reason for the post below concerns the apparent evolution of Gupta's
research, in which a superior lithium ion battery is the result.

http://electrovaya.com/

The company is Ectrovaya - which is Canadian... and their battery
recently won a competition with other advanced batteries... yup, they
are apparently superior to the new battery offering of Tesla.

Not sure if there is a contribution from LENR or not. But batteries
could be the backdoor for commercialization ... All those lithium
battery meltdowns were indeed- a message.



> Here is a strange bit of history which seems to have been somehow
> overlooked and misplaced. It almost reads like "alternate facts"
>
> The Fleischmann/ Pons announcement of cold fusion happened on March
> 23, 1989. Ostensibly this date was forced on them by concerns about
> the competing work from Steven Jones at BYU, but there was another
> more specific threat. Perhaps their rush was not BYU but concern over
> a competing line of research which Fleischmann had participated in,
> going all the way back to the 1970s. These were palladium metal
> lattice experiments described by B. Dandapani (and Fleischmann as
> coauthor) in the Journal of Electronal. Chemistry, 39, in 1972 and later.
>
> On March 31, 1989 - 8 days after the hurried Utah announcement the
> following patent was actually filed by Gupta and Jacobs in the USA,
> and it was soon GRANTED !  And then it was almost completely ignored
> today, even though it undercuts the IP claims of others and actually
> mentions "dense hydrogen" as the operative mechanism. Yet, the IP was
> not commercially useful,  probably due to the high cost of palladium.
> It is now in the public domain.
>
> "Process and apparatus for generating high density hydrogen in a
> matrix" US 4986887
>
> https://www.google.com/patents/US4986887
>
> That's right - the first LENR filing was actually granted by the
> Patent Office - so there is no wonder why later filings did not succeed.
>
> There was and still is - a lot of whining going on - but no evidence
> of a "grand conspiracy" by insiders in Hot Fusion, although they did
> not agree there was a breakthrough. Plus, there is no way Gupta could
> have based his IP on "stealing the P work" since it normally takes
> months to draft a decent patent filing and several days to get it to
> USPTO by mail, and Gupta had published on the subject before 1989.
>
> We now understand why almost everyone else's patent application was
> denied or languished, and it has nothing to do with violating the Laws
> of Physics or Thermodynamics, nor to a hostile hot fusion establishment.
>
> There was, in fact, a valid patent granted for LENR.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[Jones Beene]

One reason for the post below concerns the apparent evolution of Gupta's 
research, in which a superior lithium ion battery is the result.


http://electrovaya.com/

The company is Ectrovaya - which is Canadian... and their battery 
recently won a competition with other advanced batteries... yup, they 
are apparently superior to the new battery offering of Tesla.


Not sure if there is a contribution from LENR or not. But batteries 
could be the backdoor for commercialization ... All those lithium 
battery meltdowns were indeed- a message.




Here is a strange bit of history which seems to have been somehow 
overlooked and misplaced. It almost reads like "alternate facts"


The Fleischmann/ Pons announcement of cold fusion happened on March 
23, 1989. Ostensibly this date was forced on them by concerns about 
the competing work from Steven Jones at BYU, but there was another 
more specific threat. Perhaps their rush was not BYU but concern over 
a competing line of research which Fleischmann had participated in, 
going all the way back to the 1970s. These were palladium metal 
lattice experiments described by B. Dandapani (and Fleischmann as 
coauthor) in the Journal of Electronal. Chemistry, 39, in 1972 and later.


On March 31, 1989 - 8 days after the hurried Utah announcement the 
following patent was actually filed by Gupta and Jacobs in the USA, 
and it was soon GRANTED !  And then it was almost completely ignored 
today, even though it undercuts the IP claims of others and actually 
mentions "dense hydrogen" as the operative mechanism. Yet, the IP was 
not commercially useful,  probably due to the high cost of palladium. 
It is now in the public domain.


"Process and apparatus for generating high density hydrogen in a 
matrix" US 4986887


https://www.google.com/patents/US4986887

That's right - the first LENR filing was actually granted by the 
Patent Office - so there is no wonder why later filings did not succeed.


There was and still is - a lot of whining going on - but no evidence 
of a "grand conspiracy" by insiders in Hot Fusion, although they did 
not agree there was a breakthrough. Plus, there is no way Gupta could 
have based his IP on "stealing the P work" since it normally takes 
months to draft a decent patent filing and several days to get it to 
USPTO by mail, and Gupta had published on the subject before 1989.


We now understand why almost everyone else's patent application was 
denied or languished, and it has nothing to do with violating the Laws 
of Physics or Thermodynamics, nor to a hostile hot fusion establishment.


There was, in fact, a valid patent granted for LENR.