* Bottom line: what signature, even if fully known, could be so revealing that it would really matter for a patent which is already filed?
OK - delayed flash of the old memory banks . . yes, there is one detail from the recent past that does come to mind, which might show up as "revealing". Anyone who follows LENR would have known. But it is relative to the "Rusi affair" at Purdue (will not attempt to spell the last name, but you know what I am referring to). In that sonofusion experiment, the reactor was "seeded" with a small amount of radioactive isotope emitter. I think it was californium but it does not matter, but whether it was fully disclosed or not became the issue. The purpose of the 'seed' was as a trigger. My personal belief is that a small seed (tiny - micrograms) can alter the "probability field" for QM in such a massive way that gigantic effects will follow - but that was not exactly Rusi's claim. He merely found that it worked, and he may or may not have adequately disclosed it up front, depending on who's side you are on. No one doubts that the end effect on the sonofusion neutron emission was many orders of magnitude more than the seed could have accounted for ( 4 orders more, if memory serves). Anyway, moving on - could Rossi have seeded his reactor in the same way? Yes, that would be revealing ! Many medical tracer isotopes would have been available for this purpose. The probability field for QM is poorly understood. However, as a practical matter, why not include it in the patent to begin with? This reaffirms the belief of many of us who read the patent in the context of thousands of other patents over the past 50 years in energy - that Rossi's is among the poorest drafted patents of all time, and in the end, it will provide him zero protection anyway (at least in the USA). The irony is that adding a "seed" to a Focardi style experiment could be patentable in itself - so WHY NOT PATENT IT FROM THE START? After all, this could be his one and only big advance. Jones
