From Eric
...
A little bit of an indirect strategy, but it kind of makes sense to me.
It does sound like a reasonably strategic maneuver. Under similar circumstances
I think that's what I would do.
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks
Rossi's original name for the Ecat was the energy catalyst, so the putative
catalyst might be the reactor itself. ;-)
Harry
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
See David French's analysis of Andrea Rossi's new patent application:
Rossi provides a moving target for those who want to understand what he is
doing from one day to the next.
When he described the Hot-Cat, he said that he did not need a catalyst any
more. But this statement is equivocal.
Rossi when from a hydrogen gas envelope to supply hydrogen to his reactor,
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Rossi might know what is happening with lithium but he also might not. Is
this lack of revelation about lithium destructive of his patent
application, you be the judge.
I do not know enough about patents to be the judge. David French does know
about
I wrote:
With the acquisition of the technology by IH, Rossi has had the opportunity
to avail himself of competent counsel. At face value it seems he has not
done so. Or perhaps this is another play of some kind. Things never seem
to get boring.
One reason has occurred to me for Rossi's
See David French's analysis of Andrea Rossi's new patent application:
http://coldfusionnow.org/andrea-rossi-2nd-us-patent-application-published-6-nov-2014-at-uspto/
David French concludes:
How can the best mode requirement be met when a catalyst is required and
that catalyst is not disclosed?
maybe I read it too fast, but in fact it seems this patent does not patent
NiH reaction, but assume the fuel exist and have some characteristic... it
seems to patent the reactor...
2014-11-08 0:06 GMT+01:00 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com:
The patent is invalid. The catalyst has to be
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
maybe I read it too fast, but in fact it seems this patent does not patent
NiH reaction, but assume the fuel exist and have some characteristic... it
seems to patent the reactor...
And rightly so if various ingredients
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Abstract
A system is disclosed for converting energy from the electromagnetic
quantum vacuum available at any point in the universe to usable energy in
the form of heat, electricity, mechanical energy or other forms of
A few things I'm not clear about in the 1MW reactor 600
Fig 17 :
The patent is invalid. The catalyst has to be specified in at least a
preferred embodiment.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
The USPTO has an 18 month embargo on publication, which is* optional* and
not required - and they chose not to avail themselves
The total output is 1.440113 MW --- so reactor 600 is most likely the
initial on-site customer acceptance test for the new 1MW system
Correction -- the total excess output was 1.44 MWh ... but the duration isn't
described, so the power can't be calculated.
Greetings Vortex-L,
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFFu=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htmlr=1p=1f=Gl=50d=PG01S1=20140326711.PGNR.OS=DN%2F20140326711RS=DN%2F20140326711
Ad Astra,
Ron Kita, Chiralex
Doylestown PA
Looks like there are three related patents filed last year in May. I
wonder when we'll seem them pop up. Also, why did this patent show up
already? It was only filed in april of this year.
*Application Number**Filing Date**Patent Number*61818553May 2, 201361819058May
3, 201361821914May 10,
Maybe Industrial Heat is using the USPTO's fast track service for this one:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Track_One.jsp
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
Looks like there are three related patents filed last year in May. I
wonder when
, 2014 8:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today
Looks like there are three related patents filed last year in May. I wonder
when we'll seem them pop up. Also, why did this patent show up already? It
was only filed in april of this year
Tomorrow, and next week's friday.
2014-11-06 11:37 GMT-02:00 Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com:
Looks like there are three related patents filed last year in May. I
wonder when we'll seem them pop up. Also, why did this patent show up
already? It was only filed in april of this
Frank, I wonder if that means they're confident they have something and
want to get patent rights sewn up ASAP.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Frank Acland ecatwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe Industrial Heat is using the USPTO's fast track service for this
one:
The USPTO has an 18 month embargo on publication, which is optional and not
required - and they chose not to avail themselves of the delayed publication.
That is a strategy choice. You can find this stature online: (35 U.S.C. 122
Confidential status of applications)
The implication is that
Jones, that's mostly true. It depends on what they're specifically
claiming though. with patents the devil is in the details.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
The USPTO has an 18 month embargo on publication, which is* optional* and
not required - and
I think the 18 months, which are optional pretty much anywhere in the
world, has ran out for the 1st application. So, the others will be
published in due time.
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
For example, look at the first indie claim:
1. A reactor device comprising: a sealed vessel defining an interior; a
fuel material within the interior of the vessel; and a heating element
proximal the vessel, wherein the fuel material comprises a solid including
nickel and hydrogen, and further
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
. . . interior of the sealed vessel is not preloaded with a pressurized gas
when in an initial state before activation of the heating element.
I am sure a POSITA could replicate that.
PHOSITA (person having ordinary skill in the art)
- Jed
yeah, i'm a huge source of typos
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
. . . interior of the sealed vessel is not preloaded with a pressurized
gas when in an initial state before activation of the heating
Quick read : most of it describes the physical structure and results of the
first (2013) independent test. It says nothing about what the reaction is,
other than it contains nickel and produces hydrogen.
Banding/shadows : for the melted/banding run it gives the dimensions and
positions of the
Note that the inventor is Rossi, working for IH ... but the ASSIGNEE is still
Leonardo Corporation, Miami.
So apparently IH didn't get ALL the IP rights
You say potato, I say potato…
But the main implications which stands out on first read – if we try to
interpret what is being claimed in this disclosure relative to what we already
know…
1)Non-nuclear
2)Requires substantial electrical input and elevate temperature
Jones you need to look at the claims. The abstract / background / etc are
just context.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
You say potato, I say potato…
But the main implications which stands out on first read – if we try to
interpret what is being
-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 6, 2014 11:42 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today
Quick read : most of it describes the physical structure and results of the
first (2013) independent test. It says nothing about what the reaction is,
other than it contains nickel
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 8:41:48 AM
600 is new - describing an assemblage of 18 reactors
This is used to generate STEAM --- the COP is reported as *** 11.07 ***
No mention (that I can see) of steam quality or anything to measure it.
[0196]
Seeing that the publication date was set by the USPTO, I doubt it =8-)
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 9:19:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today
Notice that the system
.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 6, 2014 12:01 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today
You say potato, I say potato…
But the main implications which stands out on first read
of the measurement
then that is a different problem.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 6, 2014 12:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
Sent: Thursday
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 9:39:11 AM
The q uality of the steam is not that important provided a method to
accurately measure the amount of heat it contains is used. A COP of 11.07 is
important and represents a significant improvement above the
Patent Appln..publishes Today
Note that the inventor is Rossi, working for IH ... but the ASSIGNEE is still
Leonardo Corporation, Miami.
So apparently IH didn't get ALL the IP rights
by the contributing latched CATs for this to happen.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 6, 2014 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today
Seeing that the publication date was set
to be stated.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 6, 2014 12:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 9:39:11
From: David Roberson
* Are you not amazed that a patent is issued for a device of this type
and not for one that claims cold fusion as the source of energy?
Not really – this is the dividing line between mainstream and fringe – and it
is a narrow line.
I’m assuming you are talking
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 10:09:13 AM
I was referr ing to the evidence supporting the claimed COP and not the
usefulness of the steam itself. Accurate measurement of the heat power is the
important issue at hand. Of course the guys calculating
Alan,
The report notes that they ignored the energy needed to heat the steam
beyond 100C and also underestimated the flow by 10% to be conservative.
Does this affect your analysis?
Jack
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
*From: *David Roberson
The COP etc is meaningless without replication or at the very worst - third
party verification.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:
Alan,
The report notes that they ignored the energy needed to heat the steam
beyond 100C and also underestimated the flow by
From: Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 12:24:13 PM
The report notes that they ignored the energy needed to heat the steam beyond
100C and also underestimated the flow by 10% to be conservative. Does this
affect your analysis?
With my engineering hat on, the
To take this part of the thread (re: a putative DCE connection to the Rossi
patent application) - to its natural conclusion, there is one big … no huge …
advance made by Rossi - over the Haisch/Moddel disclosure.
That would be assuming that Rossi has actually seen the level of gain which is
OK ... I re-read the paper more carefully.
They only recorded data when the steam temperature was above 101C at
atmospheric pressure, with actual steam temperatures rising from 121.3C to
139.7C
So it MUST have been 100% dry, and super-heated -- no need to measure the
quality.
(OK : I could
Good grief! 3 years on, and I've just noticed a bug in my calculator.
I calculate COP = output/input (AND say so on the output).
It's actually COP = (input+output)/input
The values will be even higher than I reported!
My new calculations are :
Nominal 12.08 (1 more than their result)
Start: 14.2
End 13.7
Calculator :
Nominal
I forgot to subtract the generator power at the start of the run : My VERY new
calculations are :
Nominal 12.8
Start: 15.1
End 14.6
47 matches
Mail list logo
