I would SO love to get a spectrum to analyse - along with detector details, of course. I really think that would tell a better story.
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Ø 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 > > > > >
